Cal Expo Arena Deal Progressing

Post #1 » by **KingInExile** » Sat May 10, 2008 1:46 am

NBA, Cal Expo reach agreement on Kings arena

Negotiators for the National Basketball Association and Cal Expo on Friday announced they'd reached an agreement to move forward jointly on a plan to build a Kings arena in the state fairgrounds.

According to a letter of understanding, which still must be approved by the Cal Expo board of directors, the NBA would shoulder the majority of the costs over the next 180 days as the two parties work together on a development plan that would accommodate both an arena and a revamped fairgrounds.

The parties plan to ask developers to submit proposals for turning the 360-acre fairgrounds into a mixed-use and entertainment development.

Cal Expo's board is scheduled to consider the letter of understanding at its May 21 meeting. Both NBA Commissioner David Stern and former Gov. Pete Wilson, the lead negotiator for Cal Expo, plan to attend.

http://www.sacbee.com/kings/story/927200.html

Certainly no guarantee that a deal is imminent. But this is at least a good sign that both sides are still working productively together.

SacTown Kings · Post #2 » by **SacTown Kings** » Sat May 10, 2008 2:11 am

Good to hear that the Kings will get a new arena, but Cal Expo? Traffic is already pretty bad right there. I wish they would have built the new arena at the old rail yard downtown, that would of been perfect. I like how Seattle has there arenas downtown. It is easy to just take a bus down there, hit a couple bars and then walk across the street to the game. Everything is so spread out in Sacto, it's stupid.

Post #3 » by **pillwenney** » Sat May 10, 2008 2:33 am

Well yeah, Cal Expo certainly isn't the ideal spot, but I'll just be happy that they can maybe get something worked out. I just want to be completely assured that this team is staying here for good, and this is certainly encouraging in that respect.

RoyalCourtJestr · Post #4 » by **RoyalCourtJestr** » Sat May 10, 2008 2:44 am

SacTown Kings wrote:Good to hear that the Kings will get a new arena, but Cal Expo? Traffic is already pretty bad right there. I wish they would have built the new arena at the old rail yard downtown, that would of been perfect. I like how Seattle has there arenas downtown. It is easy to just take a bus down there, hit a couple bars and then walk across the street to the game. Everything is so spread out in Sacto, it's stupid.

Yeah I agree, Cal Expo is definetly NOT the perfect place and if they build one (IF) they need to work out the traffic issue first. But I'm really hoping Sacto gets a better public transport. Thats almost as necessary as the arena if they build it out there.

Post #5 » by **Wolfay** » Sat May 10, 2008 6:42 am

The whole city has been poorly planned and mapped, why stop now now? If I had to choose between a new arena in a poopy location or losing our only professional sports team, I'd pick the former.

a-rod · Post #6 » by **a-rod** » Sat May 10, 2008 10:08 am

Thank god, I Never Lost Hope in the Darkest Hour, KingInExile can you sticky this to keep Kings fans up-to-date on all things About the new arena?

dozencousins · Post #7 » by **dozencousins** » Sat May 10, 2008 4:16 pm

say no to augustine !

Post #8 » by **ICMTM** » Sun May 11, 2008 2:51 am

This doesn't need to be stickied!

IMO yes the city has been poorly planned, but realistically the majority of citizens don't want the city to be modernized. The reason why traffic is bad is because people like to drive here, AND they don't like to live close to the city center (which is the Arden area).

As long as driving is the preferred method of transportation then this city will never modernize.

IMO let the new arena sit right next to the old one!

Smills91 · Post #9 » by **Smills91** » Sun May 11, 2008 2:59 am

ICMTM wrote:This doesn't need to be stickied!

IMO yes the city has been poorly planned, but realistically the majority of citizens don't want the city to be modernized. The reason why traffic is bad is because people like to drive here, AND they don't like to live close to the city center (which is the Arden area).

As long as driving is the preferred method of transportation then this city will never modernize.

IMO let the new arena sit right next to the old one!

Another main reason traffic is horrible is due to the fact that Gov. Brown back in the day sold off the land that was zoned to be a free way today...he wanted to save a duck habitat. Now that land has been developed and there's no hope for much traffic relief. But thankfully we still got those ducks, KIE. :roll:

As we idle on the freeway creating carbon emissions that contribute to global warming...

Post #10 » by **ICMTM** » Sun May 11, 2008 3:13 am

My post on sacbee.com:

I think the city wants there to be a dual purpose to the new arena. If the new arena is in North Natomas (as the current one is) then the city doesn't get a landmark destination where people can go to and hang out. If the Arena is in North Natomas then people will drive home after the games. Entertainment district and arena have been synonymous during these discussions!

I don't have a problem with the arena location (Cal Expo or Natomas) but the problem is in my opinion the arena deal seems to be a part of a bigger plan to have an entertainment district within the city limits. North Natomas isn't an ideal location for an entertainment district because it's not centrally located. Cal Expo is.

If the majority of Kings patrons didn't live in the outlying areas of the city this wouldn't be an issue! The 7th and K proposal would have been cool. Since everyone drives their cars around TRAFFIC is the #1 concern for the arena! If you are that concern with traffic leave the suburbs

Post #11 » by **ICMTM** » Sun May 11, 2008 4:10 am

Smills91 wrote:Another main reason traffic is horrible is due to the fact that Gov. Brown back in the day sold off the land that was zoned to be a free way today...he wanted to save a duck habitat. Now that land has been developed and there's no hope for much traffic relief. But thankfully we still got those ducks, KIE. As we idle on the freeway creating carbon emissions that contribute to global warming...

I don't see traffic much as I drive within Natomas. I resisted the urge to buy a house in South Placer or Folsom/EDH while working in another community just for social status.

This will temporarily change as I'll be working in Concord starting the end of the month, but overall the traffic concerns IMO are from those mostly that don't live within a 10 mile radius of the proposed site. Those would be Roseville, Rocklin, Folsom, Elk Grove, Lincoln, and El Dorado Hills. I don't think you have the right to move outside the city limits, and cry foul when you have issues traveling to it.

Rugged Ron Ron · Post #12 » by **Rugged Ron Ron** » Sun May 11, 2008 4:31 am

Im glad this is moving foward. This is very good news. It's been dead silence for awhile. I don't really care where the arena will be as long as it's in Sacramento.

Post #13 » by **KingInExile** » Sun May 11, 2008 5:45 am

ICMTM wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I don't see traffic much as I drive within Natomas. I resisted the urge to buy a house in South Placer or Folsom/EDH while working in another community just for social status.

This will temporarily change as I'll be working in Concord starting the end of the month, but overall the traffic concerns IMO are from those mostly that don't live within a 10 mile radius of the proposed site. Those would be Roseville, Rocklin, Folsom, Elk Grove, Lincoln, and El Dorado Hills. I don't think you have the right to move outside the city limits, and cry foul when you have issues traveling to it.

Traffic in Sacramento is child's play compared to the Bay Area or Seattle.

RoyalCourtJestr · Post #14 » by **RoyalCourtJestr** » Sun May 11, 2008 5:56 pm

I don't know... I've obviously been to many Kings games, but I've got to a few As games, a Raiders game and the Warriors/Kings game this year... it was really easy to get out of.

Reguardless it's best for Sacto if the Arena becomes the new hotspot with all the stuff to do and good public transport in and out. Imagine the good it would do the city to be able to subway or something to a game, party around for a while and subway back. Get Sacto moving. [/Pipe Dream]

Post #15 » by **pillwenney** » Sun May 11, 2008 7:36 pm

Lightning Strike wrote:I don't know... I've obviously been to many Kings games, but I've got to a few As games, a Raiders game and the Warriors/Kings game this year... it was really easy to get out of.

Reguardless it's best for Sacto if the Arena becomes the new hotspot with all the stuff to do and good public transport in and out. Imagine the good it would do the city to be able to subway or something to a game, party around for a while and subway back. Get Sacto moving. [/Pipe Dream]

Well if you'd ever been a niners game, you'd know that it makes up for all of the others. The traffic there is absolutely hell on earth.

I guess the problem in the bay area with traffic is really in kind of specific areas, but when it rains, it pours and pours and pours.