March 6, 2012

Basketball in Sacramento Doesn't Need Sports Scams on Steroids!

Apparently both regressives and progressives agree that sports construction is a bad investment, if not outright welfare for rich people who feel entitled. So what does this make KJ? Moderate? Narcissistic? Your call.

But then why a "burning desire" to keep them here? Could I please review the methodology on that poll before I agree that voters want to consume public revenues to give the Maloofs their very expensive toy? And who will pay for the inevitable construction cost overruns? For those who feel befuddled, these facts and figures may be of interest.

Theoretically, the voters are the referee. But when the mayor disses his office digs (that were good enough for every other mayor) and insists on building his own suite at taxpayers' expense, the ref may need law enforcement backup more muscular than the city manager. (Don't think strong mayor unless you want to get lowballed.)

If this was really such a great deal, the private sector would already be financing it. Sacramento taxpayers don't need this kind of economic liability. If anybody except the Maloofs would have to make up the different between rosy financial predictions and future shortfalls, can the council really be exercising due diligence?

If it's basketball we want, we can still have a city league, make our own neighborhood teams, get some fun exercise, and all for peanuts. (And can we please have a mayoral candidate worth voting for, in addition to Leonard Padilla?)

No comments: