In one proposal to build a new sports arena, Cal Expo would be given to a developer and the State Fair would move to Natomas.
RANDALL BENTON [email protected]
When Mayor Kevin Johnson speaks of Sacramento’s arena plans, he states that his No. 1 priority is to protect the city’s taxpayers. As chair of the Cal Expo Board of Directors, I can tell you: We agree.
The most important priority of the Cal Expo board is to protect the owners of Cal Expo: you, the taxpayers of California. We take very seriously our fiduciary responsibility to protect your investment, your equity and the cultural heritage created by 40 years at this site and 157 years of the California State Fair.
The recent “convergence” proposal cited as the preferred alternative of the NBA and the mayor’s task force may provide an unprecedented opportunity for all parties in the construction of a new NBA arena and in the construction of a new California State Fair. While the proposal may be referred to as a “three-legged stool,” it is clear to all parties that the strongest and most essential leg, and the engine for financing the proposal, is the 350 acres of prime commercial land located at Cal Expo’s current site.
Essentially, we are being asked to part with 350 acres of strategically located and fully developed real estate, and forgo $2 million in annual revenue generated from horse racing activities.
Now the obvious question is, “What do we get in return?”
Cal Expo is visited by more than 2 million people a year who generate an annual economic impact of more than $250 million to this region.
Forty years ago, the development of Cal Expo helped create one of Sacramento’s prime business districts and fulfill a historic mission as a State Fair that spotlights California’s history, people and innovation.
Will the convergence proposal and a new State Fair facility at Natomas honor that mission?
Will it serve the citizens of California for years to come?
The Cal Expo board understands the motivation of the City Council and the mayor’s task force to move quickly. But our allegiance and primary responsibility is to protect California taxpayers’ equity and the legacy and cultural heritage of the California State Fair.
The cost and complexity of the convergence plan, as pointed out in the March 12 Sacramento Bee article, raises valid issues. But only after a thorough analysis of all the options for the future of the State Fair, can this board have the necessary information to maintain the public trust and ensure that its actions will result in the greatest economic return to Cal Expo and the people of California.
We welcome the opportunity to hear from developers, the City Council and, most important, our constituents – the people of California. As we evaluate this proposal, and any other alternatives authorized by the board, rest assured we will be diligent in protecting the state of California.
California’s taxpayers deserve no less.