Sac Bee Sunday Editorial

[kennadog]

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/14283432p-15091134c.html

Editorial: Arena or not, county faces a King-size deficit[/B]

With the future written in red ink, where will supervisors find money to play with?


Published 12:01 am PDT Sunday, July 30, 2006
Story appeared in Forum section, Page E6

Scenes from two recent meetings of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors:

At one, hundreds of county employees, wearing the colorful T-shirts of their unions, demanded higher raises in a new contract. At the other, an overflow crowd urged supervisors to support or oppose a quarter-cent sales tax increase to build a new arena and to provide new funds to the county.

These two debates may seem to exist in parallel universes. But in Sacramento County, those universes are on a collision course.

The county has chronic budget problems that are expected to get much worse in the years ahead. Before supervisors can discuss increasing the "quality of life" with this higher sales tax, they first must stop the fiscal bleeding. In fact, if the county's own numbers are right, the bleeding is likely to continue even if voters approve this sales tax.

The county is facing a massive mismatch between rising costs and shaky revenues. Much of the mismatch occurs in The Uncity, those unincorporated urban areas such as Antelope, Carmichael and Fair Oaks.

The aging retail strips in these communities aren't providing growing sales tax revenues for the county. But the costs of serving these communities are going up. As a result, the county predicts cumulative deficits of more than $300 million in the next five years. The trend is red.

Enter the arena debate: Supervisors have backed an election for a quarter-cent sales tax increase that would last 15 years. A companion measure would suggest spending no more than half the money on an arena. That would create political pressure, but no legal requirement, to spend the money on an arena.
For the first seven years, all the sales tax funds would pay for the arena. After that, advocates of the deal promise to divide the funds among the county and local cities to spend however they wish -- perhaps $260 million for the county alone.

But remember, the same county also estimates $303 million in cumulative budget deficits over the next five years. The numbers add up to red ink and cuts in basic services, not a future surplus and money to share with cities or to spend on extras.

And don't forget those county employees in the union T-shirts demanding bigger raises than the county is offering. If the supervisors say yes to the unions, look for bigger deficits and even deeper cuts in services.

There's no hint of any of this in the county staff's report to supervisors, which paints a happy face about finances. "From the county's direct perspective, these additional funds could go a long way toward augmenting existing services, as well as help us provide additional quality of life amenities and critical infrastructure."

Augmenting services? Additional amenities? How? On a credit card?
Supervisors are painting the higher sales tax as a way to finance new initiatives in the county beyond the arena. But if they have read their own budget projections, they must know that is not true.

Sacramento County has a financial mess on its hands. Arena or no arena, that mess is not about to go away. And anyone who tells you that a small boost in the sales tax will build an arena and free up money for new county services and amenities is either uninformed or misleading you.

Looking like the Bee's election day recommendation is going to be vote "no."

 

[kennadog]

Also of some interest

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/14283429p-15091105c.html

By Armando Acuña -- Bee Public Editor

Published 12:01 am PDT Sunday, July 30, 2006

The proposal to build a half-billion-dollar downtown arena for the Sacramento Kings is only days old, but already thousands of words have been written about it in The Bee.

Expect that to grow many times over by the time the plan is put up for a public vote in November.

And that's a good thing.

The debate over a new arena paid for mainly by raising Sacramento County's sales tax by a quarter-cent has people engaged and in a roil like no other local election in recent memory.

Is it a public giveaway, or a needed economic investment in the region's future? Is it welfare for millionaires, or a community's coming of age?

Everyone seems to have an opinion, and people aren't afraid to voice it.
Questions about the arena's merits, the politics, political strategies and politicians surrounding it, the role of the Maloofs, the future of the team and downtown will now be discussed, dissected and argued over.

This will happen around countless dinner tables and at backyard barbecues, with friends and with co-workers, over a latte or over a beer, wherever it is that people gather and talk.

And that, too, is a good thing.
It certainly is for The Bee.

The paper's role will be crucial -- it already has been.

It was not by accident that once a deal was struck, a contingent of the city and county officials trekked to The Bee to brief editors and reporters about the details before there was a public announcement.

The paper is the region's biggest media outlet, and the arena is the biggest regional story going.

And with that comes certain expectations and responsibilities.
Because of its size and resources, the paper's influence in shaping and identifying the parameters of the arena debate, as well as being a community conduit for the debate itself, will be paramount. One need only look at the many recent letters to the editor and the comments now posted at www.sacbee.com/forums to see the extent to which the arena proposal has aroused passions.

That the city is a one-horse town when it comes to major professional sports serves only to magnify the importance of the issue beyond what it might be in other cities with deeper résumés and more things to do.

Add to that the political volatility inherent in asking for a tax increase to build the arena, and what you get is one heck of a good local news story.

The paper's role on its news pages is to play it straight and provide in-depth coverage.

 

[kennadog]

(cont)

"We will dissect this thing," said the paper's executive editor, Rick Rodriguez. "What is the full cost? How much money are the Maloofs putting in? What is the public cost?"

"We haven't been a cheerleader for the arena and we won't be now," said Rodriguez, who is a Kings season-ticket holder.

When it comes to opinion and commentary in the paper, however, that's a different story.

Already, four of the paper's columnists have weighed in and their take mirrors the disparate views evident in the community.

Here's a rough scorecard:

Ailene Voisin, sports columnist, very much in favor of a new arena; Dan Walters, political columnist, says it's a public giveaway; Marcos Breton, sports columnist, still pondering, let the public decide; Dan Weintraub, political columnist, concludes it's a great deal for Maloofs, who are paying less than what the politicians are saying.

There also will be editorials between now and Election Day critically assessing the proposal, said the editorial page editor, David Holwerk. There is one in today's Forum, for example.

A few readers have asked about the paper's business relationship with the Maloofs and the Kings, questioning whether such a partnership impinges on the paper's editorial independence.

The Bee leases a suite at Arco Arena, said Steve Bernard, the paper's senior vice president for advertising. Though Bernard declined to say how much the multiyear lease costs, he said the paper has had a suite since the facility opened almost 20 years ago.

The suite, which is leased for every event at the arena and not just Kings games, is used to entertain the paper's advertising clients and customers.
The paper also has a marketing agreement with Maloof Sports & Entertainment, said Steve Weiss, The Bee's vice president of marketing and public affairs.

The paper pays the company a yearly fee, which Weiss said was confidential, and in return gets to promote The Bee through such things as signs in Arco Arena, TV commercials during Kings games, contests and basketball clinics with Kings players.

The agreement also gives the Maloofs "in-kind" contributions from the paper consisting of advertising space in The Bee.

"We've had this relationship for several years and it's evolved to go beyond only signage (at the arena)," said Weiss, explaining that the paper has a similar arrangement with the River Cats, though not as big.
The paper, he said, also has marketing partnerships with radio station KHTK, 1140 AM, which broadcasts Kings and Monarchs games, and with several nonprofits.

All of the partnerships are made independent of any news coverage, said Weiss.

Speaking of Maloof Sports & Entertainment, Weiss said, "They realize (the paper has stories) that aren't necessarily well-received by the Kings, the Maloofs, (Geoff) Petrie, the players."

"They know very clearly" that the marketing relationship has nothing to do with dictating news coverage or hampering the paper's independent reporting, he said.

So now the table is set for one of the most interesting local elections in many years. An election where people really care. For a newspaper that prides itself on local news, it doesn't get much better.

 

[Warhawk]

I like how he conveniently ignores mentioning Graswich, who lobs bombs at the Maloofs any chance he gets.

 

[VF21]

After reading each of those articles carefully, I've deleted my previous response. The Bee is at least maintaining the appearance of trying to present both sides. That's something...

 

[Warhawk]

I sent an e-mail to Mr. Acuna reminding him of the wonderful job Mr. Graswich is doing being even-handed with his articles on the Maloofs and this proposal and mentioned his rantings as a Bee columnist on the Rise Guys. Also copied and pasted the letter to Mr. Graswich and the response.

Doubt if it does any good, but I feel better.

 

[VF21]

Nice move. But, as you say, I too doubt if it does any good.

Mr. Acuna is NOT the type of ombudsman the original guy - whose name escapes me - was. HE would regularly call the Bee to task. Acuna seems much more Grant Napear about the whole "public editor" relationship with the Bee, if you catch my drift.

I like the idea of sending him the Graswich letter. Do I think it will ever see the light of day? No. They'll hide behind "we can't print it unless the writer himself sends it"...

 

[Warhawk]

I received a reply from Mr. Acuna (I removed my name):


Mr. xxxx,
Thanks for your e-mail. I didn't intentionally ignore Bob Graswich. The point of my column was much broader: the paper's columnists have a diversity of opinion about the arena and that the proposal will be the focus of much community debate between now and election day. I'm not sure whether you are interested in submitting a letter to the editor about the arena or whether you were just giving me a heads up re your communication with Graswich. If you are interested in submitting a letter, I suggest going to the paper's web site at www.sacbee.com/content/opinion and then selecting "submit a letter."

Armando Acuna
Public Editor

My reply:

Mr. Acuna-

Thank you for your reply. The diversity of opinions by your columnists is fine, it is the ongoing personal negative comments by a representative of your paper (Mr. Graswich) in an official role that really annoys so many people.

Yes, the Maloofs are rich. Is that wrong? Is that something to be derided and harped on by a columnist of your paper? Is there any reason he cannot be somewhat objective about the proposal to be voted on? Them being rich has nothing at all to do with the proposal. If anything, his ire should be directed at the city/county representatives, not the owners.

The letter and response are not mine, but come from a member of the community at KingsFans.com. Here is a link to the thread discussing this letter and response:

http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14362

I have no interest in submitting a letter about Mr. Graswich, as I doubt it would be printed to begin with. If it was printed, as usual it would be edited (as all of my past letters to the editor have been) to remove some of the salient points and render it to be less coherent. I have also had a letter printed within the past week or two, so it would be at least another 2-3 weeks until I would qualify. Justice delayed is justice denied, and Mr. Graswich would continue to bash the Maloofs just the same.

Thank you again for your attention and reply-
xxxx



Eh, lets see if anything pops up....

 

[NewMonkey]

Remember that Graswich is a columnist, not a reporter. His job is to give his opinion, not to be unbiased or present both sides of an argument*.

Having said that, I was tired a long time ago of RE's relentless negativity toward the Kings. But I also recognize that Graswich's job gives him every right to be relentlessly negative if that's what he wants.


* On a side note, sometimes one side is right and the other is wrong, but on the idea of being "unbiased," the media presents both arguments anyway, as if the arguments are equally valid. But that's another post for a different message board.

 

[Warhawk]

Remember that Graswich is a columnist, not a reporter. His job is to give his opinion, not to be unbiased or present both sides of an argument*.

Having said that, I was tired a long time ago of RE's relentless negativity toward the Kings. But I also recognize that Graswich's job gives him every right to be relentlessly negative if that's what he wants.


* On a side note, sometimes one side is right and the other is wrong, but on the idea of being "unbiased," the media presents both arguments anyway, as if the arguments are equally valid. But that's another post for a different message board.

True, but there is a difference between having an opinion and making it a personal crusade to negatively attack team owners at every turn. I never said he had to be unbiased, just that some objectivity would be nice.

 

[Warhawk]

And the conversation continues:

Mr. xxx,
Because Mr. Graswich is a columnist, he is allowed to voice his opinion. All the columnists are expected to have opinionated comments. That's their role at the paper. Their comments make some readers very angry, while others applaud the very same commentary. It's the nature of the beast, so to speak. Now if Graswich were not a columnist, then the situation would be much different.

Armando Acuna
Public Editor

My replly:

Mr. Acuna-

I understand his role as a columnist, but at what point does "having an opinion" cross the line into not being professional? When it degrades to negative personal attacks (in an official capacity) to prominent members of the community? When he cannot address the specifics of the proposal and instead tries to smear the team owners when it is the city and county who have created this arrangement? Does he not have some boundaries he cannot cross? It seems that the arena deal has inspired a personal crusade in which Mr. Graswich gets to negatively opine on the Kings majority owners regarding something that is entirely out of their control - the vote of the county supervisors to approve a proposal to help keep the Kings here and create an entertainment complex for the good of the city - if the voters decide to pass it.

He comes across as a bitter, angry man with no positive input into the situation. I am not saying he should (or has to) support the idea. I think, however, he should be held to a certain level of professionalism by the Sacramento Bee that excludes ongoing personal attacks.

Where is Mark Kreidler on this issue? He is, by far, the best columnist/writer the Sacramento Bee has employed in the past five years, and maybe more. He provides insight and provokes thought in a positive manner. His articles are a sheer joy to read compared to those of Graswich, Voison, and Breton.

Sincerely-
xxxx

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

True, but there is a difference between having an opinion and making it a personal crusade to negatively attack team owners at every turn. I never said he had to be unbiased, just that some objectivity would be nice.

well...I definetely have no love lost for Bobby as a writer, stemming from his days as the beat writer for our beloved team(his irony and negativity made the NBA get him out of that position)...but I like to think that there are far more people in the media in FAVOR than not of getting this done...and I think that the Bob isnt the 'say all to end all' guy in this town, and that we have to stem off of the folks in the media that are in favor of it, and reach out and contact those people.(and not just guys at KHTK)

 

[VF21]

Bravo, Warhawk.

I think you did a great job calling Acuna to task, but I don't expect any kind of satisfactory answer to your questions.

And I also agree with Circa...

At this point, I'm not going to voice any more concerns about R.E. Graswich because it's giving him way too much credit. He's an angry, bitter little man and his opinion should be given only the respect it deserves.

 

[NewMonkey]

Remember that Graswich is a columnist, not a reporter. His job is to give his opinion, not to be unbiased or present both sides of an argument.

Armando Acuna][/I]
Mr. xxx,
Because Mr. Graswich is a columnist, he is allowed to voice his opinion. All the columnists are expected to have opinionated comments. That's their role at the paper. Their comments make some readers very angry, while others applaud the very same commentary. It's the nature of the beast, so to speak. Now if Graswich were not a columnist, then the situation would be much different.

Armando Acuna
Public Editor

Heh. Just want to note that I am not, in fact, Armando Acuna.

Personal attacks from columnists or radio personalities are pretty much standard fare these days. Political and even sports talk radio runs rampant with personal attacks that are a lot worse than those Graswich uses.

 

[Warhawk]

Bravo, Warhawk.

I think you did a great job calling Acuna to task, but I don't expect any kind of satisfactory answer to your questions.

And I also agree with Circa...

At this point, I'm not going to voice any more concerns about R.E. Graswich because it's giving him way too much credit. He's an angry, bitter little man and his opinion should be given only the respect it deserves.

Agreed. I just wanted to raise a little flag, so to speak, that some of us do not appreciate the job he's been doing (as he hasn't been doing it well, or at all in some instances). Never expected anything more as a result, but at least I got to air my opinion with the "ombudsman" at the paper.

 

[VF21]

I understand what you're saying, NewMonkey, but personal attacks are on the rise everywhere, it seems. IMHO it's in part because politicians and media people are allowed to get away with them.

The fact there are people out there worse than Graswich doesn't excuse him IMHO. He's just not very good at it.

There are intelligent people out there who are against the arena proposal for a variety of reasons or, at the least, haven't quite made up their minds. They're able to say so without reducing their "argument" to personal attacks against the Maloofs. Those kinds of people at least have earned the right to be listened to. People like good old R.E., who have been reduced to talking about new restaurants and lost dogs and people getting parking tickets in L.A. need to leave the real reporting to those who aren't blinded by hatred, etc.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

Nothing is going to change with Graswich anytime soon. He has always hid behind his own written words, and always will. They are his ultimate public shield. I dont expect Bob to come out and debate the powers that be publicly, in the near future. Otherwise he would have done so at the County Admin. building last week. He feels that he just has to 'do' his job, and that its not his job to live up and take action for his own words. Unfortulately, like the Kings...the Bee is the 'one horse' in this town, and alot of people read his columns, and have for years now. But whatever, I'm through letting him kill my mood...we have work to do to get this deal DONE!

 

[VF21]

Agreed. I just wanted to raise a little flag, so to speak, that some of us do not appreciate the job he's been doing (as he hasn't been doing it well, or at all in some instances). Never expected anything more as a result, but at least I got to air my opinion with the "ombudsman" at the paper.

I'm very glad you did. At this point, however, any further contact with the paper about Graswich will only bolster his ego.

"Hey, somebody actually reads what I say!"