Goodbye and Good Riddance to the Sacramento Kings


It is all but certain that the Kings basketball team will move from Sacramento to Anaheim, where the Kings will rebrand themselves as the Royals.

Considering how awful the Kings have been during their stay in Sacramento – 8 winning seasons in 26 years – rebranding is in order. Getting some decent players and a competent coach seem like good ideas, too, but I digress.

The owners of the Kings, the Maloof brothers, are moving their team to Anaheim for one simple reason: Taxpayers won’t build them a new arena in Sacramento. The team’s likely new home, the Honda Center, is owned by the City of Anaheim, which is willing to issue bonds to fund tenant improvements for the Kings.

I say good riddance.

While writing about stadium and arena development over the years, I have plowed through stacks of studies and academic literature. Their conclusions are nearly unanimous: Publicly funded stadiums and arenas are money-losers for the public.

The argument from stadium boosters is that the new structure will generate new economic activity and additional tax revenue, plus various fees and paybacks, that will more than cover the public’s investment. Study after study has found this to be a false argument. (The New York Times summarized things nicely in its 2009 examination of Cincinnati’s stadium and arena debacle.)

A region has only so many dollars available for entertainment. What a new stadium does is redirect that spending to the stadium and its immediate vicinity. Economists call this the “substitution effect.”

Basketball and hockey arenas are a bit different from baseball and football stadiums, because arenas are cheaper to build – roughly $350 million to $500 million for an NBA arena, compared with $600 million to $1 billion for an NFL football or pro baseball stadium. (Those are general numbers. The extravagant new basketball arena in Brooklyn for the Nets will cost an estimated $900 million.) And arenas might appear to be better investments because they may be used for many things, such as high school and college sports, concerts, conventions and various exhibitions.

But let’s be clear: What you get with a stadium or an arena is entertainment. What you do not get is economic development. A new stadium rearranges money that’s already in the region. It doesn’t expand the size of the pie.

That’s the analytical argument against a publicly funded arena. The emotional argument goes like this: Why should taxpayers subsidize the activities of extremely rich team owners and athletes who make more in one year than most of us can dream of making in a lifetime? When you’re laying off teachers and cops, closing fire stations, shutting down parks and cutting aide to the sick and elderly, you cannot justify investing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax revenue in professional sports. Actually, even when the public purse is healthy, I don’t see why the public should subsidize professional sports leagues controlled by some of the world’s wealthiest men and funded by billion-dollar television contracts.

In the right circumstances, public investment in stadiums and arenas may be justified. But the contributions should be strategic, limited and, ideally, no more than a loan. The Maloofs, who made their money as owners of a Las Vegas casino, for years have tried to blackmail Sacramento into building an arena. Their proposed move to Anaheim feels like a last-ditch ransom note. It hasn’t worked.

I probably sound like I’m not a sports fan. While it’s true I’ve never been much of a Kings fan and I’ll have nothing to do with pro baseball, I’ve been a sports diehard since the heydays of John Brodie, Nate Thurmond, Willie McCovey and Johnny Miller. I appreciate the social value of spectator sports. I lived in Sacramento when the Kings came to town from Kansas City in 1985. The excitement was genuine. Fans filled every seat, game after game, for years, even when the team on the floor was a laughingstock. When the Kings had their one run of success in Sacramento and challenged the Lakers’ dominance about a decade ago, the home team was a huge source of community pride in river city. Since then, the Kings have returned to their doormat status, a situation the owners have blamed on Sacramento itself, which has no fancy arena or large collection of corporate fat cats leasing luxury suites. I find that contention offensive, but it has a ring of truth in the money-obsessed NBA.

My point is that a region’s wellbeing, economic or otherwise, does not depend on big-time sports. It’s not the Trailblazers or a new soccer team that make Portland, Oregon, a great place to live. As my colleague Adam Mankoski said recently, Portland is “like this huge melting pot of the most energized, creative people from everywhere. I haven’t had a bad meal yet. I haven’t been in my car in six weeks – that’s how good the public transportation system is. There is too much to do – theater, arts, music, classes, offerings from the Parks and Recreation Department. I didn’t even mention the Saturday Market.”

Sacramento can do fine without the Kings. Portland’s revival from a moribund port and timber town had nothing to do with pro sports. Look there for lessons about city-building and economic development. And celebrate the plentiful sports that remain in Sacramento – the River Cats minor league baseball team, the Mountain Lions minor league football squad, college sports at Sacramento State and UC Davis, the college rowing championships at Lake Natoma, the California International Marathon, the Tour of California bike race, the high school basketball championships, motor sports at Sacramento Raceway and Prairie City. Bring back some track meets, which thrive in Sacramento. These minor league and allegedly second-tier sports are more fun – and far cheaper – to attend than a Kings game, because they are not irreversibly contaminated by greed.

Finally, Sacramento can have the last laugh over the Kings. The Maloofs are moving into an extremely crowded and competitive market. The Lakers own Southern California, and the L.A. Clippers have one of the league’s most celebrated young players in Blake Griffin. Anaheim is home to the Angels and the Ducks, two well-established franchises that have won championships in recent years. The Kings are about to go from being the biggest fish in a small pond to being bait fish in the ocean. They’ll be lucky to outdraw Fullerton State’s powerhouse baseball team.

If the Kings are truly going to play the 2011-12 season in Anaheim, many things need to fall into place quickly. The relocation could get delayed. There’s even a chance Sacramento could “save” the Kings.

I say help ’em load the moving van.

shigley-mugshotPaul Shigley is senior editor of California Planning & Development Report, a frequent contributor to Planning magazine and is, gulp … a Warriors fan. He lives in Centerville. Paul Shigley may be reached at

A News Cafe, founded in Shasta County by Redding, CA journalist Doni Greenberg, is the place for people craving local Northern California news, commentary, food, arts and entertainment. Views and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of

has been a professional journalist since 1987. For 12 years, he served as editor or senior editor of California Planning & Development Report, a statewide trade publication for land use planners, real estate development professionals and attorneys. Prior to that, he worked as a reporter or editor at newspapers in Redding, Grass Valley, Napa and Calistoga. Shigley's work also has appeared in the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Planning magazine, Governing magazine, California Law Week, National Speed Sport News and elsewhere. In addition, he is co-author of Guide to California Planning, a college text and reference book, and is currently working on a book for the American Planning Association about the Bay Delta and California water resources. A graduate of California State University, Sacramento, Shigley has contributed to A News Cafe since 2009. He and his wife, Dana, live in western Shasta County.
Comment Policy: We welcome your comments, with some caveats: Please keep your comments positive and civilized. If your comment is critical, please make it constructive. If your comment is rude, we will delete it. If you are constantly negative or a general pest, troll, or hater, we will ban you from the site forever. The definition of terms is left solely up to us. Comments are disabled on articles older than 90 days. Thank you. Carry on.

6 Responses

  1. Avatar JimG says:

    There's been some interesting coverage from the Bee –

    Sacramento launched a game of hardball Monday in its effort to keep the Kings – or at least keep the team from walking away from its city-backed $77 million loan

    Having taxpayers subsidize the weathy owners is bad enough, but it's "blighting impacts " ifand when they walk away from their obligations.

    see the full article here.

  2. Avatar Charlie Price says:

    Mr. Shigley, Thanks for the informative article. i have been suspicious of sports teams requesting public funds for stadiums since it felt like they could afford them better than we could. Thanks to you, I now understand the mechanics of that process. And as a basketball fan, the Kings owned by the Maloofs have rarely provided satisfying entertainment. It seemed to me that they several times dismantled the team for mysterious reasons … enhance profit? who knows? and then to ask the public to underwrite their inferior product??? Unmitigated gall.

  3. Avatar MB says:

    Great article. I've lived in Sac for years and never was a Kings fan, but understand their importance to our city (at one time). This article makes me feel a lot better about the inevitable move. Maybe it's the perfect time for the Kings and the city to go their separate ways.

  4. Avatar Bradley says:

    Great article, I moved to Sacramento the year the Kings arrived and I thought it was great. However, when the City gave the Kings 80 million dollars to stay and later the blackmailing by the Maloof's to get the residents to buy them a statium when they eat $100 dollar hamburgers in Las Vegas, I say good "Goodbye and Good Riddance." Sacramento will be fine, and I will be happy not to have all those overpaid basketball players and owners ripping off Sacramento,

  5. Avatar pjk says:

    Any city that wants to try the "let the billionaires build their own arena" on the NBA will find themselves team-less. Some other city will take your team. Now, Sacramento will have to drive 80 miles to see pro sports. An arena is not a $1 billion football stadium used 10 days a year – it costs less than half that and can be used 365 days a year. Does anyone in Sacto think their property values will go up because you lost your only major pro sports team? Arco Arena is inadequate. It's only 5 years older than San Jose's arena but looks like it's 20 years older.

  6. Avatar Brandon says:

    Too bad the Kings are staying in Sacramento. Laughing all up in your face now Warriors fan, a team that has made the playoffs once in the last 16 years.