by Jerry Feitelberg

SACRAMENTO–The scrum continues between three Sacramentans and the City of Sacramento as opponents who recently filed an appeals case in front of the same judge who threw out that last set of appeals from the last case argued that subsidies that finance the new Kings arena at Downtown Plaza were done with the public funds that were illegal subsidies. Three Sacramentans filed arguements in Sacramento Superior Court saying that the funding of the arena is illegal and wasteful. The opponents in the appeals case also restated that funding from taxes from Sacramento owned garages should not be used to pay for the new arena.

Sacramento Kevin Johnson said after the opponents last appeal was thrown out by Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley that this was the last hurdle of any road block to stop the new arena from coming through. Then came last week and the opponents argued again about subsidies and the waste part of the lawsuit was the funding coming from the garages. The city argues that the garages are worthless and shouldn’t be counted as part of the subsidy arguement and they can be fixed up to be useful.

Frawley who threw out two previous arguments has allowed the arguements of “illegal and wasteful” and “abuse of discretion” the latter blamed on the Sacramento City Council, to stay as part of the opponents aguments. The Downtown Plaza has already broke ground as of the middle of August and a great majority of the retail outlets at the Plaza have already moved out prior to the ground break. The opponents before and during construction have fought as far back into last year to stop construction of the Kings arena.

They’ve primarly argued on environmental issues such as post game traffic, noise and pollution of exhaust and for displacing neighbors that have paid for affordable housing for decades in neighboring hotels by forced moves to convert the area and hotels into condos or luxury hotels. Frawley in the previous appeals case ruled that the subsidy sheets were not binding and that the opponents arguments were not going to stop the new arena because the opponents were not able to demonstrate that the subsidies were illegal or wasteful.

The opponents this time around are arguing that they can demonstrate that the financial terms of any balance sheet entered by the city does not legitimately allow the city to use such funding as the garages to pay for the new arena and that monies also used from the city general fund was not suppose to be used for paying for the construction of the Kings new arena. The city’s share of the cost of the new Kings arena is $255 million and the Kings will put in $222 million.

Opponents are arguing also about the large portion of the bonds that will pay for the arena from the city’s coffers and want a list of why the city should use public funds to pay for the arena and where and how it’s going to be paid. The Mayor’s office has said that the opposition has been down this road before and have been overruled twice by the same judge (Frawley) but understand that the opponents are entitled to due process under the law to appeal once again the arguement of the public subsidies.

Frawley will continue to hear further arguemnents of this case by opponents on December 12th regarding the merits of the case. With this being the opponents third appeal the plan to make the challenges of the subsidy funding the core of their case like “illegal and wasteful” and “abuse and discretion” the opponents intend to turn the tide on stopping the new arena that already is underway for construction. The NBA has said that the arena must be ready to go by fall of 2017 or the Kings will have to move to another city.

Jerry Feitelberg is covering the new arena developments for the Sacramento Kings and the Golden State Warriors for http://www.sportsradioservice.com