e "No-bid arena deal sought" (Our Region, Dec. 7): I'm sniffing a sweetheart deal here. Competitive bidding requirements ensure people that their money is spent wisely. The article says the city has "tentatively agreed to contribute $258 million toward the project ..." Though the city would own the arena, is this deal worthwhile? Why does Sacramento need an arena? It doesn't. Supporting a pro-sports team is not the proper role of government. The most important information is in the article's last paragraph: The Kings have already selected the contractors for the arena: ICON Venture Group, Turner Construction and sports architect AECOM. So, insiders have already selected the firms to design and build the arena. To them, a competitive bidding process isn't necessary for they've already selected the best. But are these specific firms really the best choices? Absent an open process of competitive bidding, how will we know?
-- Susan Swift, Sacramento