Some Sacramento Kings fans need to chill with the venom
The arena debate is hot. But, as the mayor says, there are priorities in life ‘bigger than basketball.’ Such as good sportsmanship.
OK, so this paper's criticism of the proposed new-arena deal is perhaps unequaled. And, yes, to this day SN&R's editorial board advocates for a vote on whether taxpayers should assist the Kings with more than $300 million to build a new home.
We're skeptical. I'm questioning. Still, go Kings!
I've rooted for the team as long as I've watched basketball. I remember the excitement when Danny Ainge came to my elementary school, and when Chris Webber finally decided to stay, and when Mike Bibby hit that game-five winner in 2002 (we had it!).
But I'm no homer. The past eight years were a misery tantamount to eating breakfast with Robert Horry every day. So, I'm as pleased as anyone by the new ownership, its mojo and (some of) its moves.
What bums me out is a few Kings fans' venom against us fans who question the arena subsidy.
This past week, for instance, I was called the Kings “public enemy No. 1” on Twitter. Another fan also suggested that I be banned from Sleep Train Arena. Even Vivek Ranadivé's public-relations director took a shot or two, writing that I'm welcome to be a part of the new Kings era, as long as I “report on it accurately.”
I'm also a lifelong, die-hard Oakland Athletics and Raiders fan—and have often criticized those teams, their ownership groups and the city's proposed public subsidies. Yet, in Oakland, fans seem to err on the side of intelligent, courteous dialogue instead of attack-dog brinksmanship.
The arena debate is hot. I get that. But, as the mayor says, there are priorities “bigger than basketball.” Such as sportsmanship among fans.
I mean, c'mon, I'm not going to despise fans just because their team gets a city subsidy.