Kansas City Star columnist Barbara Shelly penned a cheer-leading op-ed in Sunday's Sacramento Bee (another McClatchy-owned paper) on how Sac Town can follow Kansas City's lead and get a brand-new arena, as California's capital city struggles to keep the NBA's Sacramento Kings.
Shelly, who counts herself as a former "naysayer," trumpeted the Sprint Center's successes:
Since opening in 2007, the Sprint Center has shattered theI guess she's talking about us and Field of Schemes author Neil deMause when she mentions "the most hard core of the naysayers." As deMause pointed out earlier this morning -- and reiterating what we both wrote two years ago (here and here) -- Shelly's argument is false.expectations of even the most ardent believers. Pollstar magazine rated
it the fifth-busiest arena in the nation and 12th-busiest in the world
in its latest rankings. It turns a profit for its operators and the
city, even though a pro sports franchise has not yet materialized.
Ina coup that silenced all but the most hard core of the naysayers,
Kansas City built a $276 million arena without raising taxes for
residents or assuming any risk for operating losses. Its story involves a great deal of luck, but it could point
to a way forward for Sacramento and other cities.
The one prize that has eluded AEG and Kansas City is a professionalSo even now that it's more profitable for Kansas City and AEG to bookbasketball or hockey franchise. Opinion is divided over whether one is
needed, or even wanted. Pro teams make expensive demands and tie up
dates that could be used for more lucrative events. On the other hand,
the entertainment district across the street, which has been less
financially successful than the arena, could use the steady business.
AEGsays it is continuing to work its NBA and NHL contacts with the goal of
bringing a team to Kansas City. But right now, nobody is in a big
hurry.
concerts, how long will that last? The longer it goes, the more
attractive 41
guaranteed dates may be.
The lack of a tenant by now should be cause for concern. What Shelly fails to realize (or mention) is that the older the Sprint Center gets, the less attractive it will be for a pro basketball or hockey franchise. And if there is a team that wants to move, how much in upgrades is it going to cost us? When the NBA's Seattle SuperSonics moved to Oklahoma City, the Ford Center had to be renovated (it opened in June 2002, and the renovations started in June 2008). The Sprint Center opened in October 2007. It's 2011. Tick tock.
Showing 1-1 of 1
I think you can look at the numbers both ways. Unlike the boondoggle that is P&L, the arena has been a net benefit to downtown, anchor tenant or no. The cost to local taxpayers has been negligible, as the lion's share of rental car and hotel revenue comes from out-of-towners. I believe that was locked in for 15 years.
Though the tax could technically be paying for other things, the tax only came to exist only BECAUSE of this project. It's hard to say whether a vote to raise taxes (even "tourist taxes") for, say, drainage improvements would have passed.
All that said, we have to look at life cycle costs and whether this arena remains viable for many more years. All arenas are more profitable at the beginning of their lives, and it's hard to project how many 10,000+ seat shows will be coming through town in 2017 to a 10-year-old building. I believe it's structured such that the tax revenue will cover it for the foreseeable future.
In other words, our financial arrangement with the Sprint Center is MUCH better than a number of cities that have been held hostage by an already-entrenched team, the threat of relocation (sometimes to KC, ironically) hanging over the fanbase's heads.
However, I'm of the opinion that we have zero chance at landing an NHL/NBA team goodbye. As our building ages, we have no candidates for local ownership. Frankly, I don't think we as a population have the disposable income to support a 3rd team 40/41 nights a year. We would be the smallest market with 3 major league teams by a wide margin.