Natomas Chamber Pitches Arena Plan

Natomas Chamber of Commerce reps will be on hand this morning to lend support for a plan that would have a new arena built in Natomas.
Four plans submitted to Mayor Kevin Johnson’s “Sacramento First” task force by a Dec. 30 deadline, including a revised proposal by Natomas ESC Parnters, will be presented during a public hearing 10 a.m. today in Old City Hall. Sacramento First is the citizens’ committee created in 2009 by Johnson.
The Natomas chamber supports the Natomas ESC Partners proposal saying it is the best alternative for Natomas and the city of Sacramento. The Natomas site, which is already owned by the city, is also the only location adjacent to two major freeways, served by five freeway interchanges with local access roads designed to handle arena traffic, as well as easy access to the airport and regional bus and light rail.
“In tough economic times, the more economical plan to utilize the current ‘shovel ready’ arena site with existing infrastructure should be given the highest consideration,” reads the Natomas chamber’s web site.

Natomas ESC Partners include developers: NBBJ (Staples Center), Skanska (New Meadowlands, NY, Inderkum HS, Hammes Company (LA Stadium, Lambeau Field) and NLA (US Federal Courthouse, North Natomas Library).


  1. I’m becoming more intrigued by the proposal to build a new arena adjacent to ARCO Arena in Natomas.

    But I find the phrase “shovel ready” not to be credible in the midst of a de facto construction moratorium imposed upon Natomas due to our flood risk rating.

    I am also more interested in knowing how the project would be funded. Citing the existence of infrastructure already in place, which certainly has a positive impact on the price tag, loses its power in the absence of the context of who will pay the bills and how.

    The original (now defunct) Convergence proposal calling for a complex three-way land swap between Cal Expo, the rail yards, and ARCO Arena, and including relocating the state fair to Natomas, had a lot to be criticized — but one thing it DID (supposedly) boast is that it was theoretically fully funded and did not call for direct taxpayer subsidies.

    At this point I’m much more interested in the numbers and how much risk or investment, if any, taxpayers would be expected or required to front to make this happen. It’s not good enough to say the price tag is lower — how the price will get paid and who will be paying it is far more important. I don’t care if it’s cheaper or ten times more expensive — as long as my taxpayer dollars aren’t spent on it.

Speak Your Mind