On Tuesday, the Sacramento City Council is scheduled to discuss plans for a long-term lease of city-owned parking downtown to a private company, aimed at raising most of its upfront contribution to a new arena – between $120 million and $190 million, once debt is repaid. Thirteen companies have expressed interest.

Last week, we asked readers this question:

Should the City Council proceed with a possible lease of parking to raise money for a new downtown arena?

We had an outpouring of responses. Here is a representative sample:

The real questions on parking deal

Unfortunately, the question of whether to lease a valuable asset for 50 years or not begs the question. Can the city really afford it? Will the arena create the jobs claimed?

Will the Kings owners bring forth a significant amount of upfront money and make good on the gigantic debt they already owe the city? Will private businesses bring forth huge contributions? How is the city going to get out from under a huge budget deficit? Where is the replacement money from lost parking revenues going to come from?

Unless and until all of the above questions are answered and within the next two weeks, the city has no business attempting to build a house it may want but cannot afford to own.

– John Rabe, Newcastle

Too good an opportunity to pass up

The city of Sacramento most definitely should move forward with the leasing of city parking assets to construct a new entertainment and sports complex.

It's nonsense for anyone to suggest that voters said "no" to building a new arena. Voters rejected Measures Q and R to raise the local sales tax because of a botched campaign and because it essentially handed a $1 billion blank check to county officials.

Our local economy continues to struggle with double-digit unemployment and an unhealthy business climate. If Sacramento can partner with AEG and the NBA , and if it can ensure that our city budget and Natomas are made whole, then absolutely the city should pursue this opportunity.

– James Battles, Sacramento

What about the parking employees?

Privatizing parking privatizes jobs, creating jobs with reduced benefits and wages.

How can a worker at any other business not expect his employer to ask for wage concessions?

Propaganda has us believing the city and state employees are overcompensated, instead of realizing the unfairness of their own compensation. Big businesses like Morgan Stanley will ensure they make money, but who will guarantee the new employees will? What will happen to the city employee?

– John Fierro, Sacramento

Parking lease would be a giveaway

No, the city should not give away $9 billion in parking revenue (estimated for the term of the 50-year lease) for $218 million. The people have voted "No" on this before, and it is still a bad idea. There are much smarter people than Mayor Kevin Johnson and City Council members who might build and operate an arena if it's such a grand idea. The city should stick to the management of city services instead of letting them deteriorate while following the Kings with starry eyes.

– Adele Kruger, Sacramento

Let the voters have their say

Please put the financing scheme on the ballot. I will, once again, vote against making a gift of public funds to the Maloofs and the NBA.

But I would be willing to contribute to the rental of a U-Haul to take the Kings and the Maloofs wherever they may wish to go – and the sooner and farther the better.

– Carl Allin, Sacramento

Ballot measure makes no sense

I question the soundness of judgment and fitness for duty of the four City Council members who called for a vote of the people on this matter. It suggests they are not able to make a decision regarding the need and desire for a sports and entertainment center. Nor do they understand the economic impact of revitalizing our community.

Putting the issue to a vote will surely fail. The general population is not willing to spend public funds, especially when negative ad campaigns suggest other services will suffer.

– Richard Kai, Sacramento

An alternative on parking

The City Council should inform the voters why the leasing of the city downtown parking to a private entity is better than having the city issue revenue bonds secured by parking charges.

By issuing revenue bonds, the city would remain in total control – knowing the amount of the upfront funds available, the cost of financing that amount and the parking charges to be imposed.

The city attorney should be asked whether the parking charges are fees because they are used for parking and related purposes and have been raised without voter approval. If those charges are considered to be fees, the charges cannot be used for unrelated parking purposes, such as the arena. A 50-year lease is too long, especially when the Legislative Analyst's Office estimates the cost of proposed state bond issues (principal and interest) over a 30-year term.

– Jimmie Wing, Sacramento

A bad investment for the public

The issue of funding an arena with public resources (parking leases, land sales, etc.) should be put to a vote in June or November.

There is too much at stake for the long-term financial viability of this city to not listen to the voters. Sacramento could very likely face the same revenue shortfalls as Kansas City where AIG operates the arena at a profit, but the revenues fail by $4 million to $5 million annually to repay the construction bonds. A public investment in a downtown arena is a bad investment, especially when those resources need to go toward schools, parks, public safety that benefit the entire community. If arenas were the great investment the mayor claims, investors would be lining up. – Marni Leger, Sacramento

Lots of questions on parking fund

On Page 19 of the city budget of the past fiscal year, the parking fund is described. The gross income is closer to $18 million, with $3 million used for debt service and $5 million used for payroll. How the remainder is actually spent is not completely clear. If we are talking about a 50-year lease, then the deal is to trade at least $750 million in potential income for about $200 million in cash now. It is not clear if the current debt will be retired or if the new operator would just keep up the payments.

Second, why not just take out a loan for the project and use the expected revenues of the arena as the collateral for the loan?

The reality may be that this arena project is becoming a bad deal for the general public and is acting as a distraction from the very serious fiscal problems of the city.

– John Cockerham, Sacramento

Natomas is a better option

The use of public parking dollars to raise funds for an arena sounds like taxation without representation. Surely, rates will rise and people will stop going downtown. I and others will be upset that our money is going for something that will cause a hardship that is not necessary.

Stay in Natomas, where there is plenty of parking and public access, and where an arena would cost much less so the Kings and the NBA could afford to pay for it themselves.

– Emily Louw, Sacramento

A fan's support goes only so far

Like thousands of others, I attend several Kings games each year and enjoy watching them play even when they are struggling. However, like thousands more, I would not support raising sales or property taxes to pay for a new arena. Nor would I support losing $9 million per year from city parking revenue so that private investors can outsource work that should continue to be performed by dedicated public workers.

Revenues need to be raised to keep city swimming pools open in the summer, to reduce class size in our public schools and to reverse cuts in our mental health system and public libraries.

Let the Maloofs contribute more to the arena and raise arena user fees.

– Teven Laxer, Sacramento

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

EXTRA LETTERS ONLINE

Find them at:

sacbee.com/letterstoeditor

HOW TO SUBMIT

Online form (preferred): www.sacbee.com/sendletter

Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852

150-word limit. Include name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, brevity and content.

• Read more articles by