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.