Going along with part one's "Bread and Circuses" theme of Roman origins, it must be remembered that stadiums were and still are a source of cheap entertainment for the masses. Only recently have sports seeked to limit greatly the number of people able to witness the sports first hand. All in the name of money...

Arco Arena in Sacramento has 17,317 seats. In the great majority of Kings contests in the 16 seasons in the Valley, every seat has been sold. While it is true that for a number of the sell-outs, the organization had to give away thousands of tickets to call it one, there is no disputing that Sacramento residents have supported the professional team with attendance about which other league teams could only dream. With that kind of support, and with the owners calling for a modernized facility to be a word class basketball arena, it would only figure that the new arena would accommodate a greater number of people. This of course must be the driving reason behind the arena drive in Sacramento.

This couldn't be further from the truth. The number of seats in Arco are not the reason a new arena is needed. Even though journalists and league officials have long pointed out that the Kings play in one of the smallest NBA arenas, the new arena will only hold "around 18,000 seats" according to recent Maloof statements. Huh? Furthermore, the new arena will have a great many more "luxury suites" than the 30 Arco has, meaning the average fan will potentially have fewer chances to see the Kings, depending on the final arena configuration. Luxury Suites tend to be rented out to corporations, or in the case of the Capital City--politicians and lobbyists.

To say the current arena has been populated by the "average fan" is a bit naive. The average Kings fan cannot afford a season ticket. While the cheapest ticket to a game is $10, those are very limited. They then jump to over $25. Most Kings fans cannot go to more than a couple of games a year. With the scarcity taken into consideration, many fans content themselves with watching on TV or listening to the radio.

It is the scarcity that causes ticket prices to rise. The NFL learned that, going to enormous lengths to pressure the populace to attend in person. If a game is not sold out, it will not be televised locally. Some teams, including the Chargers and Raiders in California, have agreements with the local governments to make up the difference if tickets are not sold. Cities pay for the privilege of hosting a team, which provides a national/international identity for the city as well as a source of pride for residents.

The Oakland Athletics have tried to create scarcity in the huge football/baseball McAfee Coliseum by closing the top of the stadium. Although the A's sometimes held mega-attended games of up to 55,000, the norm was more like 24,000 widely spaced throughout a 40,000 seat bowl (overflow crowds used to be seated high on Mt. Davis, the football structure). The A's are drawing less than last year, but say the cash-flow is better.

It is all about the cash. Owners need to pay their players and other employees an increasing amount each year, while they also hope to earn an annually increasing profit off their investments. That is the business end of professional sports. These sports are also civic institutions often thought of in a different way than other businesses. Major League Baseball is exempt from anti-trust rules, and is often checked on by Congress. Cities and states build stadiums for teams, and allow very generous terms for the facility's use.

It is sad to see the widening gulf between sports and the masses. Gone are the days an A's fan could go to a Wednesday game and enjoy nine hotdogs for a total of ten bucks, and that was only a few years ago. Calling to mind the sports organization's debt to the public, costs should be kept down and opportunities for attendance must continue to be given to the poorest of the team's fanbase. Not only is it better for the team to have a larger fan base, it should also be considered a duty for drinking out of the public trough. If the Kings get a new arena in downtown Sacramento, they must remember it is because the public voted and paid for it. It may be too much to ask for the Kings to build the largest arena in the country, but a nod to public access should be made in the design of the building.

In ancient times, the Romans built grand palaces to display their sports. From racing to the popular gladiator fights, these spectacles were part of a state program. The Roman leading class set about to intentionally distract the population with "Bread and Circuses". If bread was tossed out of carts among the poor, along with tickets to grand events in Rome's Coliseum, the poor would be subdued, and the general population would be peaceful and generally happy. The gladiators became the celebrities of the day. Although many were slaves, historians think some could have gained the clout to gain freedom, while other gladiators freely chose to become one. The arenas were built with public funds, although certainly not in the same way they are thought of as today.

Today, cities talk about stadium projects in an eerily similar way to Rome's Bread and Circuses. The building of stadiums continue to be a political tool to lift hopes, especially of the poor. For example, DC United, a Major League Soccer franchise in Washington, recently proposed building a new stadiums in an economically depressed area of the nation's capitol. With the project, the United hoped to build a retail center to serve the community and to provide year-round jobs. More than that, the team promised its presence and community service plans would provide an inspiration to the youth of the area. Maybe it is more than the Roman distraction from other social ills, but it is definitely a way for political boards to improve the circumstances of life for people.

Nationwide, sports projects almost universally promise an economic benefit for the city. Economists are split on the issue. Some say areas benefit from the crowds and the glamour a sports facility brings. Others say money used by crowds on sports is simply moved from other things the people would have paid for anyway. They also say it is not proven that sports fans generally do not spend in nearby restaurants and hotels to the same extent as promoters would like taxpayers to think.

In the Valley, a number of arena/stadium projects have recently been built, usually with public funds. The City of Bakersfield owns the Rabbobank Arena in downtown, holding a possible 10,000 people, and built in 1998. Last year, Stockton built a similar-sized arena in its downtown. Modesto, Fresno, Stockton, and West Sacramento have all built new minor league baseball stadiums within the last 10 years. A number of sports facilities have been or will be built on college campuses. Notably, Fresno State built Savemart Center, UC Davis is building a new football field, Pacific is building a baseball stadium, and Sacramento State has announced it will soon build a football field house, with an arena project planned in the future. Colleges athletic projects are often under a different funding mechanism, though, as they are much less likely to be built using public funds. Sacramento is trying to build a new arena in its downtown with a tax proposal to be decided on in November.

On the Sacramento project, planners are promising the arena will lead to development of the railyards, a vast vacant tract in downtown. Furthermore, the arena is said to be necessary for a city the size of Sacramento, especially considering the lack of a publicly owned facility. Arco Arena is owned by the NBA Kings ownership group, and it is widely suggested that should the Kings not get a new arena to play in, they will leave the Valley. When that happens, it is speculated the Maloofs (owners of the Kings) will demolish Arco and sell the land for housing, rather than operate a vacant arena. Of course, this is a domino line of speculation, but the possibility is clearly conceivable.

Just why is an arena absolutely necessary for Sacramento? Ahh, the intangible "quality of life" is the leading reason, especially considering the economists' indecision about monetary benefit. The same concept is often used to encourage civic investment in sports/arts/entertainment. Is "quality of life" equal to "bread and circuses" as a deliberate social program? Not exactly, but in some ways it is similar. The idea is to give people memories and positive thoughts about their city or region. While stadiums attract people for all kinds of events, like concerts, conventions, or graduations, it is sports that makes the venues what they truly are. These facilities are modern day battlegrounds where cities can get out their aggression toward other cities and civilly show their pride. Why else would a team that has players from all over the world, is owned by millionaires from New Mexico, and would leave if it was economically advantageous would identify themselves as the "Sacramento Kings". The Kings may be in fact the most well known product internationally identifying itself with Sacramento.

The Kings and all the other uses for the arena are important for Sacramento. There are elements of the population that enjoy sports or concerts. There will be a need for community members to gather together from time to time in a large group that could only be facilitated in an arena. Is there an absolute need to build an arena? No. No need. No one will die without one. However, some believe it is the highest use of public funds to devote towards cultural pursuits. Professional sports and music entertainment help define us as Americans, give us a culture to be a part of. Sacramentans deserve a local venue for those pursuits. They do not need to return to the pre-1985 days of driving to the Bay Area for those attractions.

In part two of this report, ValleyVue will look at the sizing of stadiums. Please check soon for the latest update on the blogosphere's source for Central Valley development news.

Two towers rising and the possibility of a new castle for Kings have the city stirred up.

Over the past few months, ValleyVue has discussed the possibilities of a number of projects that may be built in the Sacramento downtown in the near future. Two of these projects recently had significant moves towards physical reality.

On the Capital Mall, a project that had many doubters (and in some ways still does) broke ground last week. That project--"The Towers" will feature two amenity filled 53-story residential towers. An exclusive hotel will be included in one of the two towers, along with a restaurant. The Towers will be a dramatic addition to the skyline, easily the tallest buildings in the Central Valley, much less the Capital City. They will be very near the Tower Bridge, across the street from Old Sacramento.

It is hoped the Towers will usher in a more livable downtown (i.e. 24-hour) with an affluent population to mix in with the more economically disadvantaged residents already in the area. Critics believe the project will not be able to make it in Sacramento, believing the city does not have enough affluence to fill the condominiums. The worry is more valid when looking at several other projects planned for downtown which will include other high priced living spaces. Project developer John Saca believes the project will do well, and has broken ground. Many of the units have been sold, and Saca is the first of the developers to start their high-rise condo projects. There is also talk that Saca may be looking to soon build a third tower in another part of downtown Sacramento, one which will have more affordable units. Time will tell on that one, though, as Sacramento's long hot realty market has faded.

A recent ValleyVue article discussed the talks in Las Vegas between the Kings and the local politicians on the subject of building a new arena. The news was promising coming out of Nevada, as both sides compromised on a plan to be brought to voters in November. The vote will occur, as the County Board of Supervisors voted to include the 1/4 cent general sales tax on the ballot.

As a general tax, the Supes hope to gain a simple majority win, rather than a 2/3 majority for taxes that are specific. Obviously, this brings up a legitimate legality question, as one wonders how a tax that WILL go to funding an arena can possibly be thought of as "general." The tax, however, is projected to bring in revenues greater than the price of the arena project. Those extra funds will go to municipalities within the county to be spent as they see fit.

Included in the deal with the Kings/Monarchs will be a contribution by the ownership group towards the project. The Maloofs conceded control over the design and construction of the building to the city and county, which should keep costs from overrunning the $600 million estimate. The owners will however have full control over the building during their lease, including the naming rights. They also will agree the Kings must remain in Sacramento for 30 years.

The Railyards area, where the new arena will be located, will expand downtown Sacramento extensively. City leaders hope the arena will be a catalyst for developing the area, and when completed, will help draw people downtown by the thousands. Much will be said over the coming months about this sales tax proposal, which must be approved by voters to become reality.