City of Sacramento mayor sues city and newspaper

City of Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson is the city’s first black mayor and a huge disappointment. His election centered on his being a Sacramento native and a NBA superstar. No one said he was qualified to do the job. His latest antics prove this. In court over the deal made to keep the Sacramento Kings in town, testimony reveals he is trying to thwart justice with full disclosure of his involvement in negotiating via emails and text messages.[adsenseyu2]

This is a mayor who has been charged with sexual harassment, destroyed a black mayors group and was alleged to have molested a minor in Arizona.

Related article: The Summer of ’95

Three Sacramento residents are in court fighting the city over deal specifics, directly related to the leasing of land, to the NBA team, to erect billboards, along with giving the team control over city owned parking lots.

In most city’s, a tax is assessed to parking garages, that is in turn, turned over to the city. The City of Sacramento Municipal Code doesn’t directly address this.

Residents are also concerned about the leasing of city property, to the Sacramento Kings, for 35 years. FOR FREE.

When the arena deal was finalized in May 2014, the city’s contribution included $223 million in cash—from bonds the city would pay back by diverting revenue from parking garages, meters and tickets—and $32 million worth of land in Natomas and downtown. Officially, the city’s entire contribution to the arena deal is $255 million.

But the city also agreed to give the Kings its parking garage under Downtown Plaza. And the city agreed to lease six city-owned parcels of land to the Kings, along with the rights to build jumbo-sized digital billboards on each site. (The Kings would pay nothing for these leases for 35 years.)

The question becomes what was the process that yielded the lease to the Sacramento Kings? Was it put out to bid or did city council opt to lease without bids?

The municipal code, clearly states the city may enter into a lease, without a bid process, if it meets one of the following conditions:

3.68.110 Leasing without bids—Negotiation of terms.

If the council finds that such action is in the best interest of the city, it may enter into a lease without bidding when one or more of the following conditions exist:

The bid process as prescribed in this chapter has failed to produce a highest responsible bidder.
The city proposes to lease the property to another governmental agency.
The city proposes a ground lease for a term in excess of twenty (20) years where the lessee, as a condition of the lease, is required to construct facilities on the leased premises having a value in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00), and these facilities will become the property of the city upon termination of the lease.
A firm and complete written offer for lease has been presented by or on behalf of a prospective lessee or sublessee, wherein the rent specified is at or above the fair market rate for comparable, similarly situated property, as determined by the real property supervisor.
The city proposes to lease the property to a nonprofit tax-exempt community civic organization with a membership comprised predominantly of persons residing in the city, and
The firm term of the lease shall not exceed ten (10) years.
The resolution approving the lease shall contain the following:
The reason for leasing such real estate;
A description of the real estate to be leased;
The document number of a copy of the lease filed in the office of the city clerk.
The council finds and determines that special circumstances make the use of the bid procedure inappropriate. (Ord. 2000-017 § 2(k)(ii) (Exh. C) (part); Ord. 2000-013 § 1; prior code § 12.02.050)