The published Blog Watch article for Nov. 19.  

The blog posts considered for this batch.

Cities revolt
mayagirl.blogspot.com

The New York Times published a great article [last] Monday regarding Seattle’s rejection of public financing for sports teams. Most people who’ve been following the dust-up between the Maloofs and Sacramento are aware of similar altercations in the Northwest. Unlike Sacramento, however, Seattle has a long history of public financing for arenas. It also has 3 (for the time being) professional sports teams. I personally would like to see Seattle get a Major League Soccer team, but I don’t know if I have much company in that. There was talk of it when I lived there.

Sports teams are a thorny issue for mid-tier cities. Seattle is world-class. It has some of the most successful companies in the world, many benefactors eager to put their stamp on the city (c.f. Paul Allen), great character and many amenities. Seattle won't suffer for lack of a basketball team. Sacramento, however, might. If (when) the Kings leave, Sacramento will have the River Cats. That’s not saying much for a region that has the potential to draw in folks from Reno to Vacaville. I always thought of the arena measures as a way to catalyze railyard development, despite the Kings’ desire to completely undermine design review.

I suppose I don’t understand why owning a sports team has to be a megamillion dollar enterprise that extracts money from a community without putting much back in. As far as social functions go, sports teams aren’t all that. Granted, the team members do some community outreach, but I doubt it makes much more difference than putting some extra funds into afterschool programs at the Boys & Girls Clubs.

Playing fair
centralcityopinion.blogspot.com

Now that Q & R are long forgotten, the topic I’m hearing most has to do with where the Kings will be moving to. Personally I think it could be any one of three most discussed (K.C., Anaheim, or Vegas). I really dont care too much to be honest. As I always say, this was a nice city before the Kings and it will be after....

I think (hope) a trend is developing. Looks to me that the citizenry is finally getting tired of major sports franchises holding them (and their municipalities) for ransom. We here in Sac are all too familiar with the concept. Whether it be a stated fact by owners or a rumor going around – major league franchises have been playing cities against each other for some time now , but recently (the last 5 yrs) the owners of these franchises seem to be running into some opposition.

Seattle recently passed Initiative 91. The San Francisco 49ers are moving to Santa Clara after a failed agreement to build an arena to coincide with the 2016 games. The As are off to Fremont and we all know what happened here on 11/7. It seems even franchises that are synonymous with the city they play in (Cleveland Browns , SF 49ers) are no longer immune as of late.

I would like nothing more than to see owners play fair and stop threatening cities with a move every time things don’t go there way. It shames me to see cities bending over backwards to accomodate these rich owners (usually at the expense of needed city services) and the teams that they think are so important to their civic identity and pride. ...

I’m just hoping the day is nearing when the cities and the team owners can play fairly and together on the same team.

NBA’s efforts for Kings
arrangingmatches.typepad.com

In a bit of good news for people who want the Kings to stay in Sacramento, the NBA is now leading the effort to keep the Kings. The fact that the NBA has stepped in at all tells me that they're not quite ready to let the Maloofs move. The Maloof name is mud around here, so pushing them to the background might take a little sting off the next arena plan.

I hope the NBA will negotiate more reasonably than the Maloofs have, since the dollars and cents only affect the league indirectly. It might be better for the Maloofs to move to a city that would give them a free ride, but it isn't necessarily better for the league, especially given the uncertain situations in Seattle, Portland, Oklahoma City and New Orleans. This is the first positive arena news in quite some time.

One more thing: Any new arena plan must include a surcharge (10%?) on every ticket sold in the new arena. The people who use the arena should pay for at least some of it.

Should 83 be 86'd?
ccpoa.blogspot.com

Noting that “even Proposition 83’s most ardent supporters welcomed” the TRO issued ... [The Bee’s editors] argue the initiative was “poorly drafted and ill considered.”

Paco agrees wholeheartedly. He’s also pleased to see Mike Jimenez recognizes the problem. At the same time, one wonders why Sack-B’s Editors only quote our President when he says something they like? ...

Notwithstanding the merits of GPS monitoring, residence restrictions, expanded parole terms and every other solution out there, the fact is they are merely band-aids over a wound nobody wants to look at, much less fix.

What we need is an OMNIBUS SEX OFFENSE CONTROL and REFORM ACT (OSOCRA). The current structure is a patchwork of antiquated regulations stitched to together with ill-conceived “reforms.” This quilt of confusing, permissive laws is full of gaps and loopholes.

In Placer County, for example, 18 year old males convicted of unlawful sex with a minor of 15 are prosecuted vigorously and routinely required to register for life under PC 290. In virtually every other county, the cases aren't even prosecuted – when they are, the filing is usually a misdemeanor.

Clearly, Prop. 83 was just one more public reaction to the perception the system is broken. And, since that perception is correct, it is fair to say the initiative was ALSO a reaction to the legislature's cowardice and complacency in FAILING to fix it.
So, what would OSOCRA entail?

• High base, indeterminate sentences for actual sex offendersL
• Lifetime registration including supervision or searchable status for child-predators and other sexually violent offenders ONLY
• Reclassifying penal code to differentiate between compulsive sex-offenders and the episodic variety. For example, stranger rape vs. spousal rape. Rape is rape, but who can reasonably argue both should register for life?

In any case, it will never happen. Nobody in government has the stones to propose any reform that could be spun into a weak on crime jacket. ...

Dealing with the devil
sacoftomatoes.blogspot.com

Times on line reports that Tony Blair has offered Syria and Iran some dialogs regarding the future of Iraq. Will the Sunni's suddenly listen to the Shi'a populated Iran? Would Sunni-populated Syria be fair to the majority of Iraq's that are Shi'a? And then lets throw into the mix the non-Arab Kurds who have their own axe to grind. When you make deals with devil the outcome is usually predictable.

Have a blog or know a regional blog John Hughes should be watching? Click here .