Just say not no

If you’ve been following the Kings arena debate on social media, you’ve probably noticed some of the clever hashtags people use. #HereWeSayYes was one of the smarmier ones. #GetItDone was the fair and balanced meme preferred by the news department at Fox40. Bites tried to get people tweeting #MustNotThinkBadThoughts, but it didn’t take.

#HereWeSayYes is interesting, because even with the big vote last week, the city council has not positively embraced any financing plan in particular for a new arena.

Rather, the council has allowed itself to be maneuvered into a series of “not no” votes. There’s never sufficient detail to say for sure it won’t work, and never enough information to say just how it will. One “not no” vote follows another, creeping incrementally toward a deal that’s still being figured out behind closed doors.

Just what are we committed to, after Tuesday’s big vote? Nothing. Could be anything.

agreeing to pay more than half the arena’s costs, instead of the one-third share that was promised when the council said “not no” back in the fall.

We know the city’s share will come from “monetizing” the public-parking system. But the exact mechanism may not be explained to the public until the summer.

We know that even the arena hawks are souring on the idea of leasing our parking system to a private company for 30 or 50 years. It’s just too much future parking revenue to give up.

But aside from the “concession model” there’s the “lease, lease-back model” the “sell, buy-back model,” and the “parking-authority model,” all pitched by the various vendors who think they can make money and still help the city get its arena. The city council agreed last week to spend $850,000 in parking revenue to keep that “request for proposals” process moving forward.

But Assistant City Manager John Dangberg says the city already has a plan that will work, though the details aren’t yet ready for public consumption.

Under the “internal model” the city would, through investments in technology and efficiency, make millions of dollars more every year on its parking system—enough to recoup those investments and also spit out a tidy chunk every year to pay for the city’s share of the arena.

Is that likely? Can’t say, since each of these models is, for now, for the public, a black box. (There’s also something a little worrying about tying the health of the city’s general fund to continued reliance on driving and parking. But that’s another column.)

Dangberg says he’s confident that the internal model for parking will generate enough money to do all of these wonderful things. He says that the challenge for the parking companies who want a piece of the parking system will have to show they can give the city an even better deal.

And who’s to say that he isn’t absolutely right? How can you say no, when you haven’t seen the details? You can only say “not no.”

Gov. Jerry Brown visited The Sacramento Bee editorial board the other day. According to Team Scoopy’s blog, the Swarm, Brown was asked about the arena and warned that, “Once that boosterism gets going, it’s like a freight train.” Not sure if it made print, but truer words have never been spoken, in the Bee.

Hopefully these financing models will, when finally revealed, turn out to be everything promised. Because, by then, it may be too late to just say no.