Readers respond to the Sacramento Kings owning the city, charging fees on special events, and what's wrong with the McKinley Village development.

Kings own the city

Re “Arena addicted” (SN&R Editorial, February 20):

I did attend the State of the City event. Two things I came away with: Kevin Johnson is a great public speaker, no matter what you think of what he has to say. The second is that the city is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Sacramento Kings.

Dan Allison

Sacramento

Forget Sacto—do events in West Sac

Re “City of fees” by Nick Miller (SN&R Editor’s Note, February 20):

Why is this a mystery that it’s so expensive to host an event in Sacramento? Governments use fees and red tape to discourage behavior, as we see when our Legislature proposes 10,000-percent taxes on ammunition.

What should happen in Sacramento is to zone areas for events and allow suitable facilities to host events as a part of their normal, everyday business. The tax-and-fee scheme discourages nonprofits and low-revenue businesses from holding such events—and maybe that was the idea all along. Perhaps people should just hold their events in West Sacramento, where special-event permits only cost as much as $50. Clearly, West Sacramento is far more interested in a vibrant music and arts scene than this “world-class city” that is home to a basketball team that is so awesome they have to be put up in public housing.

Peter Finn

Sacramento

Detroit Kings?

Re “Arena addicted” (SN&R Editorial, February 20):

Having been born and raised in Sacramento, I resent the boondoggle that is being shoved down the throats of Sacramentans. Knowing full well it is against the will of the majority of citizens, the proponents are doing everything within their power to avoid a vote on the subject. This is not representative government—and is the way Detroit fell into such dire circumstances. There are a few that will make a bundle at the expense of Sacramento taxpayers if worse comes to worst.

Robert Carroll

Elk Grove

McKinley misinformation

Re “No passage” by Nick Miller (SN&R News, February 13):

I’m really rather appalled at the amount of misinformation being disseminated about this project. No one has ever called for a “nearly $30 million” tunnel. But neighbors did ask for two-way vehicle access at Alhambra Boulevard, which is both economically and technically feasible.

The developer’s response was to produce this estimate of $28 million-plus for a plan that is technically infeasible. And he’s right, that’s a “nonstarter.” But no one asked for that.

The developer has claimed that Union Pacific Railroad won’t stop the trains to build an underpass at Alhambra. He’s right, they won’t. But no one asked for that.

SN&R states in the story that the underpass would, according to “both city and private estimates, cost at least $28.6 million.” The city got the estimate from the developer: That is not an independent assessment and should not be reported as such. No one ever asked for a $30 million tunnel except the developer.

In Merced, they recently built a railway underpass for $12.5 million, with four traffic lanes and room for six, as well as bike and pedestrian access. And it is beautiful. If Merced can do it, why can’t we?

Steven Swindel

Sacramento

Does McKinley developer even care?

Re “No passage” by Nick Miller (SN&R News, February 13):

Having finally gotten a researched answer to how much it would cost the developer of the proposed McKinley Village to provide vehicle access to the development via Alhambra Boulevard, i.e., upward of $20 million, the question now is how much profit the development with Alhambra access would generate and whether that would satisfy the developers?

As proposed, with no vehicle access via Alhambra, it seems clear that the developer doesn’t give a rip about either the people who live here now or the ones who might choose to live between the railroad tracks and the freeway.

This proposal, without the Alhambra access, is premature, and only the developer’s pursuit of profit calls for it to be approved.

Michael Greene

via email