charity donation jar - please give

Non-Season Ticket Holders now Eligible to Help Pay for the SF 49ers new Stadium

The San Francisco 49ers are reporting that $310 million dollars has been raised from existing season ticket holders, as well as 10,000 non-season ticket holders who paid $100 to be on a waiting list for a chance to help pay for the new Santa Clara San Francisco 49ers stadium. As of October 1st, 2012, 52% of the available Stadium Builder Licenses have been sold. Now the 49ers are giving everyone else a chance to contribute. Interested parties can contact the team's marketing firm and arrange for a meeting with a sales rep to view a model of the stadium and discuss contribution options

Final 49ers Santa Clara Stadium Builder Licenses Announced June 8, 2012

All of the seats in the new Santa Clara 49ers stadium are now available to existing Candlestick season ticket holders, and as promised, they all require a Stadium Builder License. That's the bad news. The good news is that they are no longer calling them Stadium Builder Licenses. At least the San Jose Mercury News, the good good friend of the San Francisco 49ers isn't. They are now called either "seat fees", "license fees" or "one-time fees". Stadium Builder License lets the buyer know they are helping to fund a billion dollar stadium. But, what if buyers become unhappy that a team worth a billion dollars, owned by a billionaire is asking fans to pay the largest share of the stadium costs which are funneled tax free to the team via the Santa Clara Stadium Authority? Well, then clearly it's time to retire Stadium Builder License as a term and move on to seat fee, license fee and one-time fee.

Stadium Builder Licenses and Season Ticket Prices
2nd and final group released 6/8/2012
SectionSBLSeason Tickets for
10 games (2 preseason)
1st deck east side
15 to 30 yd line
1st deck corners$6,000$1,500
1st deck endzone$6,000$1,250
2nd deck corners$6,000$1,200
2nd deck endzone$5,000$1,000
3rd deck (mini) sideline$4,000$1,000
3rd deck (mini) corners$2,000$950
3rd deck (mini) endzone$2,000$850
4th deck sideline$2,000$950
4th deck corners$2,000$850

The San Jose Mercury News warns fans that only "very limited" amounts of tickets will be available on a per game basis, being sold by season ticket holders. They also warn that those prices will go for more than the per-game season ticket holder price, and claim that on third-party sites they could go for well over face value. However, a 49ers fan who posts as "Duckfan" on their message board studied the situation with Dallas Cowboys tickets on and found that StubHub prices for Cowboys games in their new stadium (financed with Personal Seat Licenses) went for below face value. 2012 prices for new Dallas Cowboys stadium prices for Cowboys tickets 6/10/2012:

StubHub Cowboys Tickets - 6/10/2012
TeamDatePrices From:Amount
Rams preseason8/25/2012$1.5011,171
Dolphins preseason8/29/2012$1.5011,179
New Orleans12/23/2012$3611,127

In addition to individual game tickets, also shows 766 Dallas Cowboys 2012 season tickets available from $399.88 on 6/10/2012.

San Jose Mercury News misreports again for San Francisco 49ers and Santa Clara Politicians

In a March 14, 2012 newspaper article, the San Jose Mercury news once again incorrectly reported on the Santa Clara San Francisco 49ers stadium deal. The usual suspect, Howard Mintz says "But they failed in a bid to block the project from going forward when a judge shot down a lawsuit that sought to force another vote on the stadium deal." There was no lawsuit to force another vote on the stadium. There was a signature drive that collected more than the required City of Santa Clara registered voter signatures to force a vote on the details of the stadium deal that were arranged AFTER the June 2010 vote and differed significantly from what was presented on 49ers campaign propaganda and in the ballot pamphlet. However, the Santa Clara Stadium Five had the city sue the signature gatherers to stop a revote. So the Los Gatos judge wasn't ruling on a lawsuit to stop the stadium, he was ruling on a lawsuit to stop a vote on the stadium deal. But stopping a lawsuit sounds a lot better than stopping a vote of the people. A vote of the people on a backroom deal worked out between a sports team that advertises in their newspaper, and a handful of corrupt politicians.

Stadium Authority Construction Finance Sources - 3/13/2012

Sources to Fund Development Budget At Close At DDA Comments
Tenant Costs paid by Stadco (NFL) $155M$150M
Stadco Advances/CFD Repays$35M *From hotel tax only; repay or pay debt service on CFD BAN
Stadco Advances/RDA Repays$30M*If available, repay from RDA funds only
RDA funds$10M*
Total from above sources$230M$150M
Remainder to Fund from Sources Below
($1,177 - $230 = $947)
SA Loan from Lenders/FinanceCo$450M$450MTo be replaced by Bank/Bond net take out finance of
$320M and additional consruction period revenues
SA Subordinated Loan from Stadco$335M$400MStadco Loan could be up to $497M ($500M) but SA
has significant payback protections
Subtotal Debt$785M$850M
Projected construction period revenues$162M$20MNot guaranteed but supported by results to date.
Stadco Loan funds any shortfall.

* CFD and RDA funds of $35M and $40M respectively were noted as fund sources but not as offset to SA borrowing requirement, and DDA Budget did not include construction finance and owner contingency

Stadium Authority Final Development Budget - 3/13/2012

At CloseAt DDAKey DifferencesComments
Construction cost per Design
Build Agreement (DBA)
(incl. 130M of Stadco cost*)
Other Development cost
(incl. $25M of Stadco cost*)
Subtotal$1.049B1.020BUp $29MReflects DBA and increase in design/etc.
Construction finance issuance/
interest cost
$78M$75MUp $3MRefined data
$1.127B$1.095BUp $32M
Technology Allowances and
Owner contingency
$50MNot quantifiedUp $50M Owner allowance for technology upgrades and additional development costs
Final Development Budget$1.177B$1.095BUp $82M
Stadco Cost$155M
Stadium Authority Cost$1.022B

*Stadco costs were estimated at $150M at DDA ($125M construction + $25M other costs)

Judge rules in favor of San Francisco 49ers and Santa Clara Stadium Five

A judge appointed by Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006 has ruled that all the modifications to the San Francisco 49ers stadium agreement that went on between the city of Santa Clara and the Niners AFTER the Measure J election were unchallengable by Santa Clara citizens. He called those negotiations, which changed the terms of the stadium deal from what was presented in the Niners 5 million dollar propaganda blitz and what was placed in the Measure J ballot pamplet, something that was administrative. And apparently he feels that the citizens of Santa Clara can't challenge anything city officials do that falls into the category of "admininstrative acts".

Gideon Yu - New Face of the San Francisco 49ers in Silicon Valley?

Gideon Yu with Ronnie Lott and Barry Bonds

On February 10, 2012, the San Francisco Examiner reported that Gideon Yu had purchased a portion of the San Francisco 49ers. Yu was also promoted from Chief Strategy Officer (a position he attained in April of 2011) for the San Francisco 49ers, to President. Although the terms of the deal were not given by the 49ers, NFL sources told the newspaper that the amount was 1% of the team for $8.5 million, and that Yu can buy up to five percent of the team in the future. While this only gives Yu - a Korean immigrant turned Silicon Valley millionaire (Yahoo, Facebook, YouTube) - a token ownership of the team, it will no doubt help team marketing in Santa Clara County where Internet millionaires abound and 50% of the households speak a language other than English at home. Yu and the 49ers are now free to refer to him as "co-owner" (as the headline from the San Francisco Examiner does), leaving out the fact that it is only a very minor 1% stake. In fact, it is possible that the "co" will be dropped in the future, as has happened with other professional sports team minority owners such as Al Davis, who did not own a majority of the Oakland Raiders until 2005 but was referred to as the "Raiders owner" for decades.

The Tax Dodge - Santa Clara San Francisco 49ers Stadium

Property Taxes

super rich Montgomery Burns

The Billionaire Wins

No one knows more about tax shelters and avoiding taxes than a billionaire. And when it comes to an NFL pro football team, the biggest tax break comes from getting some city to own the stadium. The San Francisco 49ers are constructing a $1,177,000,000 stadium. Annual Santa Clara property tax on that would be 13 million dollars. For 40 to 60 years, that is 520 to 780 million dollars in saved property taxes in todays dollars - and that is if they only own the building and lease the 17 acres of land. Owning the land would create an even greater property tax amount.

The City Loses

The Santa Clara Unified School District gets 38.4 cents of every property tax dollar and the City of Santa Clara General Fund gets 10.2 cents of every property tax dollar. This means that while Denise Debartolo York (and her heirs) save $520 million to $780 million by not owning the stadium, the Santa Clara school system loses $199.68 million to $299.52 million dollars in revenue. In addition, the City of Santa Clara General Fund loses $53.04 million to $79.56 million in property tax revenue due to the San Francisco 49ers not owning the stadium. Other losers include Santa Clara County ($93.6 to $140.4 million), West Valley-Mission College District ($57.72 to $86.58 million), and the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund ($82.68 million to $124.02 million).

Income Taxes

1040 tax return and w-2 form

The Billionaire Wins

When the Santa Clara Stadium Authority was only supposed to contribute $330 million to the stadium construction (pre-election term sheet), it was said that ALL of that money would be gained from the sale of Stadium Builder Licenses, Naming Rights, charges for rights to host concession stands (Pouring Rights) and other fees. However, the San Jose Business Journal reports that the 49ers have given a presentation showing SBL revenue will be $500 million. If the San Francisco 49ers were the recipient of those charges, they would be added to their income. And since they are profitable every year, that would mean taxes would need to be paid on the $500 million (likely more) received from fees and charges related to the stadium. The current corporate US Income Tax rate for income over $18,333,333 dollars is 35% (for income under $18,333,333 it is essentially the same).

State and Federal Taxpayers Lose

So $500 million dollars in fees taxed at 35% would be $175 million dollars in income taxes, but the San Francisco 49ers are saving all that (and the US Treasury is losing an equivalant amount) by having their stadium charges funneled through the tax free public entity called the Santa Clara Stadium Authority.

California's corporate tax rate is 8.84%. The effective state tax is (lower due to state tax deductibility on federal filing) 5.746%. So the 49ers savings on State of California income taxes are at least 28.7 million dollars. That would make their total income tax savings at least 203.7 million dollars.

In addition to the SBL fees, the San Francisco 49ers will income tax shelter the Naming Rights fees, and fees levied on the vendors who will be selling food at the stadium ("Pouring Rights"), through the Santa Clara Stadium Authority.

San Francisco politicians show Santa Clara Stadium Five the best way to get free seats


49ers season tickets, parking passes and luxury boxes are all a perk that goes to San Francisco elected officials and bureaucrats as reported by NBC Bay Area on February 5, 2012. The city is using a sneaky way to get around laws pertaining to gifts to politicians, that has no doubt already been communicated to the Santa Clara Stadium Five. Knowledge of this tactic might even be a significant reason for the zeal of the Stadium Five in courting the San Francisco 49ers to come to Santa Clara for their stadium subsidy. This is not to suggest that the San Francisco 49ers haven't made it and won't make it worth their while in other ways.

Since 1987 the San Francisco 49ers Candlestick Park stadium lease has been written in such a way that a small part of the stadium - including a luxury box - are considered owned by the city and not leased to the football team. That way city officials can claim that the team isn't giving them free seats or a luxury box or parking spaces, as those seats, parking spaces and luxury box belong to the city.

dollar sign

NFL loans San Francisco 49ers 200 million

On February 2nd, 2012, NFL owners approved a $200 million loan to the San Francisco 49ers to help finance a new stadium in Santa Clara, California. This is the largest loan ever given to an NFL team. Under previous league rules team loans were limited to a maximum of 150 million dollars. That limit was increased during the labor negotiations with the players in the summer of 2011. The son of the 49ers owner said they could possibly start play in the new stadium in 2014, but will definitely be using it for the 2015 season. The team has hopes of hosting the next available Super Bowl in February 2016.

49ers season ticket holder David Langtry

49ers Season Ticket Holders lament SBLs

A front page San Jose Mercury News article for Tuesday, January 31, 2012 has quotes from several long time San Francisco 49ers season ticket holders who are lamenting that they will likely not be able to help pay for the new stadium via the Stadium Builder License (SBL) program. If they don't commit to buying a Santa Clara San Francisco 49ers Stadium Builder License for the new stadium's "reasonably comparable" seat, by March 16th, they will lose their existing seats and have to put down a $500 deposit and wait in line behind other season ticket holders for seats in cheaper areas of the stadium. The "club seats" being sold now are from $20,000 to $80,000 dollars per seat.

But the son of the San Franciso 49ers billionaire owner, team CEO John Edward "Jed" York, says it could be worse. According to York, the current market would have supported selling seat licenses for over $100,000 but the team chose not to do so. Jed York is apparently quite a salesman. He makes a personal pitch several times a week to prospective SBL purchasers, and was recently able to convince Bob Kinney, who is from a family that have been season ticket holders since the 1940's (Kezar Stadium), to buy two $20,000 seats when he couldn't afford the two $80,000 seats that were the equivalent to his Candlestick Park seats.

Season Ticket Prices Going Up

Comparison of Candlestick Park season ticket prices to Santa Clara San Francisco 49ers stadium
Note: Sections in new stadium have more rows
Stick LocationSC LocationCandlestickSanta ClaraSeat License (SBL)
First section
between 40s
First section
50 yard line
$1,790 $3,750 $80,000
First 4 sections (Visitors side) and
first three sections (Home side)
between end zones
First 2 sections
between 30s (Visitors)
between 25s (Home)
$1,290 $3,500 $30,000
First two sections
end zone
3rd section between end zone
First two sections 10 to 25 (Home)
2nd section between
end zones (Visitors)
$990 $3,250 $20,000

Note that with the new stadium season tickets the club seats are priced much closer together on a percentage basis than their Candlestick Park equivalents. The increment is 8% then 7% going from cheapest to most expensive (15% total). The Candlestick equivalent increment is 30% and then 39% (80% total).

The StubHub Solution

For those 49ers season ticket holders who are thinking they might not be able to afford to help pay for the new stadium, there may be a cheaper solution. One 49er fan who posts on their message board as "Duckfan" has studied StubHub single game ticket prices for Dallas Cowboys games and says tickets in 2011 could be had all over the stadium for less than what season ticket holders are paying per game. And those are season ticket holders who also had to buy seat licenses.

The Home Theatre Solution

A 49ers club seat season ticket holder could use the 40,000, 60,000 or 160,000 dollars they would have spent on a pair of Stadium Builder Licenses, and instead buy a 64 or 65 inch TV from Best Buy ($3000 to $4000), a Bose Home Entertainment System ($2699.99) and still have money left over for several overseas vacations and/or a new car.

The "R" Word

40 year 49ers season ticket holder David Langtry (pictured above right) even voiced the previously unthinkable. He is considering switching to being an Oakland Raiders fan after the new stadium is built. The 49ers might not mind though, since they will be courting the Raiders to sub lease the stadium from them. And if that happens, the 49ers will no doubt want their tenant, the Oakland Raiders, to sell a lot of tickets to fans like Langtry for the games the Raiders play in the 49ers Santa Clara stadium.

apple pie slice with whipped cream

The American Dream

The long time 49ers season ticket holders upset that the club seat licenses will price them out of season tickets in a good part of the stadium, need to keep in mind one of the most precious of modern American Dreams - a billionaire using public funds and public ownership to both construct a private playground for the rich and powerful, and also protect them from having to pay large amounts of property and income taxes. And when the billionaire can't get all the funds to construct a new stadium from the public, he or she must then look to season ticket holders.

Jamie Matthews San Francisco 49ers lobbyist

Jamie Matthews is ready for the Oakland Raiders to play in Santa Clara

Santa Clara Mayor and Stadium Five vice president Jamie Matthews was at the annual Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal Economic Forecast event on January 20, 2012. The Business Journal reports that he said that the Santa Clara San Francisco 49ers stadium was "definitely designed" for two home teams, and the various reports and plans were done "to make it as easy as signing an additional lease". He said discussions with another team could start after the stadium is built. He added that "We designed it for a second team, so it's our ambition to get a second team".

The propaganda for a public subsidized and billionare tax sheltered stadium in Santa Clara doesn't talk about the Oakland Raiders in the stadium since it gets San Francisco 49ers fans mad, but that is who is being referred to as "second team". And although Matthews implies that he would be involved in getting the Raiders, the city of Santa Clara, while owners of the stadium through the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, has no involvement in the addition of a second team to the stadium. The second team would lease the stadium through the San Francisco 49ers affiliate Forty Niners Stadium, LLC and it is the sole decision of the San Francisco 49ers as to whether to rent to a second team.

Stadium Five Rejects Citizen Petitions

At their 1/24/2012 meeting, the Stadium Five of the Santa Clara city council voted against acting on the petitions that were collected asking for the current DDA agreement to be rejected or re-voted on.
woman signing a petition

49ers Stadium Petitions Pass Sample Count

The Santa Clara Country Registrar of Voters has notified the City of Santa Clara Clerk that the two petitions submitted by Santa Clara Plays Fair for referendums related to the San Francisco 49ers stadium, have passed a sample count. They estimate that 5,082 valid signatures were collected for the DDA related petition and 5,142 valid signatures were collected for the petition related to the stadium financing financial agreement.

Santa Clara Plays Fair collects referendum signatures


The effort to get a revote on the Santa Clara stadium deal due to the drastic change in conditions from what was presented in the ballot pamphlet and what was actually agree upon, has concluded. More than the required number of signatures have been collected but they must now be checked for validity. There were actually two petitions circulated, one with regard to the DDA and one with regard to financing. There were 5,474 signatures collected with respect to the first issue, and 5,563 collected for the second. They were turned into the city of Santa Clara at 3:00pm Wednesday afternoon, January 18th, 2012 and the city clerk's office reviewed them for seven and a half hours. The signatures now need to be audited by the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters to ensure that there are the required number of valid signatures (approximately 4,500). The audit process will take from 5 to 30 working days.

San Jose resident Scott Herhold misses badly shilling for the San Francisco 49ers

shill Scott Herhold

The Snake Oil Salesman

San Jose resident and San Jose Mercury News employee Scott Herhold took the time to shill in the San Jose newspaper for the San Francisco 49ers and their plans to play at a stadium subsidized and tax sheltered by the city of Santa Clara. In a shameful piece Herhold refers to concerned Santa Clara citizens gathering signatures for a revote on the stadium as "snake oil salesmen". To the contrary, the signature gatherers have signs and literature that clearly show why they are collecting signatures - the terms and financial agreements voted on are not the same as those of the final agreement.

Ironically, the people that Herhold is trying to protect are the snake oil salesmen - the Santa Clara Stadium Five and the San Francisco 49ers and their front group. Those very people who did not disclose any costs in the lengthy ballot measure question, and carefully chose not to mention the San Francisco 49ers, referring to them as a "private party". Those very people who did not disclose that the stadium would cost the city General Fund $67 million dollars as was shown in a City of Santa Clara staff presentation. Those very people who wrote the ballot question as an advocacy piece for the San Francisco 49ers. Those very people who put a non-binding term sheet into the ballot pamphlet as if it represented the final terms of the city's subsidy for the 49ers. Those very people who now want Scott Herhold to pretend that the people upset about the way the terms of the agreement have changed drastically from what was put in the ballot pamphlet are the deceptive ones.

Just Say No

no subsidized stadiums

Herhold advises Santa Clara residents from his home in San Jose to "just say no" to a revote on the stadium. He mentions that this is what we tell kids with regard to drugs, gamblers craving a bet and parents who yearn for chocolates after dinner. Herhold's analogy of just saying no to these temptations is like his charge of "snake oil salesmen", EXACTLY BACKWARDS. With drug use, gambling and eating sweets - the pleasure is immediate and the pain comes down the road. Just like with a stadium. People voting yes are eager to brag about being in a city with a football stadium, and disregard the long term consequences of owning a stadium. Long term consequences like the fact that they don't make money. Which is why the San Francisco 49ers don't want to own the stadium. In the case of the city of Santa Clara, they have a unique long term consequence in that it will cost the General Fund $67 million in redevelopment agency repayment money as shown in a City of Santa Clara slide presented to the city council. So city residents should "just say no" to the temptation of owning a stadium.

The Big Fight

fight mismatch

Herhold claims that there was a big fight in which 49er opponents "threw everything but the kitchen sink at the idea". Once again, Herhold has it wrong. The opponents of the stadium had only enough money to send out one postcard during the entire campaign. One postcard. The 49ers spent over four million dollars sending out countless glossy brochures and broadcasting TV commercials.

This wasn't a situation where both sides had equal amounts of mailings and TV commercials and the voters of Santa Clara made up their mind based on hearing from both sides. To the contrary - the greater than 200 to 1 disparity in spending between the two groups ensured that only one message got out, the one from the San Francisco 49ers and the Santa Clara politicians who got in bed with them. How many Santa Clara residents know that the city's General Fund will lose $67 million in repayment money that was loaned to the Redevelopment Agency if the stadium is built? They didn't hear anything about that from the 49ers. Instead they were repeatedly told that a 10 to 20 events a year stadium would create thousands of jobs. In reality it creates only hundreds of jobs. But not full time jobs. Part-time temporary minimum wage jobs that wouldn't even fund a Comcast digital cable subscription for the year.

Far from a big fight, what took place was a one-sided propaganda campaign financed by a sports team with plenty of money to inundate the voters of a city of 120,000. The San Francisco 49ers bought an election. The first poll taken after their massive mail and TV assault began still had the stadium losing. Every subsequent poll reflected that the lies and deception were working as the number of yes votes increased each time.

Trust Politicians Sometimes

inconsistency has it's ups and downs

Herhold says that "you can question any loan" but that in this case it is not questionable because Jamie Matthews told him there is no problem. The same Jamie Matthews who saw the city of Santa Clara presentation which showed building the stadium costs the General Fund $67 million dollars in lost repayment money and yet claimed in 49ers campaign literature that there would be no impact to the General Fund from the stadium.

Herhold says that Santa Clara voters need to trust their "representational government" on the ins and out of a complex loan since they are busy people with their own "household problems". Since the Ballot Pamplet had all kinds of details about the financial terms of the agreement between the city of Santa Clara and the 49ers, it is clear that Herhold is in the minority with respect to how much information voters need and want. And while Herhold advises to just trust the politicians on the stadium, when it comes to the California High Speed Rail on which voters voted and passed he's not trusting the politicians. Which is it Scott, do we vote yes and trust (Santa Clara Stadium) or do we vote yes and not trust (High Speed Rail)?

Those Rascals

Herhold suggests that if you don't like the work of the city of Santa Clara politicians you should just "throw those rascals out". That is, after you have quietly allowed them to get in bed with the 49ers and completely change their stadium subsidy deal from what was put in the ballot pamphlet that you used to determine your vote. After all, every politician in the CITY NEXT DOOR is entitled to some "rascally behavior" in a democracy. Do we have that right Scott?

Brian Sussman

KSFO's Brian Sussman is Against the Santa Clara Stadium

Former KPIX (CBS Channel 5) meteorologist and current KSFO (560 AM) talk show host Brian Sussman has been a long time 49ers season ticket holder. After hearing what the ticket prices would be for the new stadium, he decided to take a deeper look at the financing for it. His conclusion is that the stadium is a great deal for the San Francisco 49ers, but bad for 49ers fans and Santa Clara residents. He says "This plan must be stopped!"

Sussman will be at the Save Mart on El Camino Real in Santa Clara on Friday, January 13th talking with signature gatherers.

Bait and Switch

Signature Gathering for Referendum due to Stadium Five Bait and Switch

The Santa Clara Stadium Five had the voters vote on a non-binding term sheet and then radically changed the terms of the deal when it was finalized. A classic bait and switch move. Clearly the voters of Santa Clara need an opportunity to vote on the actual deal with the San Francisco 49ers. To do so requires signatures to be gathered so a referendum can be placed on a ballot. The signatures have to be collected by January 18th, 2012.

Save Mart logo

There are people collecting signatures each day from 3pm to 7pm at the Save Mart at 2610 El Camino Real in Santa Clara (in the shopping center at the southeast corner of the intersection of El Camino and Kiely/Bowers).

49ers Hire Electricians to Thwart Democracy

Inimidation for Dummies

As reported in the Saturday, January 7, 2012 edition of the San Jose Mercury News, the 49ers have asked the local International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 332 to provide 10 to 20 people to act as 'interceptors' who will be paid $100 for 4 hours work. 'Interceptor' is a codeword for someone who will intimidate the people trying to gather signatures to put the stadium back on the ballot and those whose signature they are seeking.

Since the terms of the stadium deal have changed so drastically from what was presented to voters in June of 2010, a revote is clearly in order so voters can approve the actual terms and conditions, not the sales pitch that was railroaded into the June 2010 ballot. However, the 49ers are against this democratic vote. But of course that was already displayed when they (aided by the lies of the corrupt Stadium Five) flooded the City of Santa Clara with over $4 million dollars worth or propaganda in the run up to the stadium vote.

Hopefully the hired thugs of the Brotherhood will not cause physical harm to Santa Clara citizens as they seek to stop the democratic process.

The Stadium Five's Bait and Switch

The corrupt politicians of the Stadium Five on the City Council of the City of Santa Clara, at the behest of their benefactors, the San Francisco 49ers did more than lie about the "benefits" of the City of Santa Clara helping to pay for and then owning a football stadium in the leadup to the June 2010 stadium vote. They completely lied about what would take place with respect to financing. As you can see, what was voted on is quite different than what is actually going to take place:

Pie charts showing how Measure J differs from the actual DDA

It is no wonder then that outraged citizens are working to get a revote on the stadium. A vote in which the voters will be presented with actual financing, not the sales pitch financing.

City of Santa Clara Caught Giving Free Police Escorts to San Francisco 49ers Football Team

police escort

The City of Santa Clara has inexplicably been escorting San Francisco 49ers buses to the airport since 2007 - and for free. When this was discovered by a Santa Clara citizen, the city did some tap dancing. First, the city's extremely well compensated police chief Steven Lodge said that it had only happened in 2009 and 2010. Second, he claimed that it would be repaid once the Santa Clara Stadium Authority was formed. The problem for Steven Lodge and city officials - is that it ultimately came out that the free escorts started in 2007. The Santa Clara Stadium Authority wasn't approved till a vote in June 2010. You can't agree to pay in 2007, an entity that may never exist.

Sadly, it's clear that the city and football team had no arrangement whatsoever for payment for these needless police escorts, whose sole purpose is likely to let police officers rub shoulders with their football playing heroes. Talk of payment only came when the practice came to light to the general public. More sad evidence of how in bed city officials are with this professional football team. So deeply entangled, that they waged a campaign of lies in order to give the football team public funds and a huge property tax break, all at a cost of $67 million to the city's General Fund. So deeply entangled that the San Francisco 49ers pay less than $2,000 a month to rent 11 Santa Clara acres in extremely expensive Silicon Valley. And this sweetheart rent, originally granted in 1988, will now continue for another 40 to 60 years as a result of the deal the city cut with the football team as part of the June 2010 election.

City of Santa Clara passes the Hat

hat with money in it

Although able to spend millions of dollars on consultants studies and other efforts regarding a football stadium that, per city reports, will cause the city to lose $67 million dollars; the City of Santa Clara is now unable to come up with the $80,000 dollars for the annual 4th of July Fireworks show. But four councilmembers (Caserta , Moore, Matthews and Mahan) decided to have it anyway. They are asking for citizens to help pay for it, and have set up a "Paypal like" link on their website to accept contributions.

As the City of Santa Clara continues to pass the hat in the coming years to pay for activities, it is important for residents to remember the huge amount of money the 49ers football stadium will divert away from the General Fund. Those who voted Yes on Measure J will be responsible for this loss. Yes on J voters should make the maximum contributions they can to help the city withstand the financial hit their stadium brings. Those who voted No on Measure J should also help out and provide as much encouragement as possible to the Measure J yes voters and let them know how important it is for them to maximize contributions.

Santa Clara Measure J results - Money talks

briefcase full of money

The final yes vote percentage was even higher than the latest poll done near the end of May. This follows the trend of a higher yes percentage with each poll as the 49ers misinformation campaign proceeded. And it is closer to the 66% yes vote margin the last poll saw from absentee/mail-in voters.

Measure J Results

The $4,010,345.49 spent through May 22, 2010 by the San Francisco 49ers amounts to $357.09 per yes vote. But in June 2009, before the 49ers had spent a dime on propaganda, there were already 30% of Santa Clarans ready to vote yes. 30% of the 18,840 people who voted (40.6% of registered voters) is 5,652. So the 49ers propaganda picked up 5,579 votes. Which means the 49ers spent $718.83 cents through May 22 (final total will be higher) for each of the yes votes that they picked up from their advertising campaign. At some point it will become illegal to buy votes with propaganda, but for now, the 49ers used that capability very effectively. And for Santa Claran voters, they apparently weren't aware of that ancient proverb that still rings true today - "Be careful when a sports team and politicians get in bed together and repeatedly tell you what to wish for".

Dennis O'Donnell - preseason 49ers voice - shills hard for them on CBS 5

Dennis O'Donnell O'Donnell

Dennis O'Donnell took a new tack on his 11:30pm Sunday night CBS 5 sportscast in trying to justify the city of Santa Clara giving a subsidy to the San Francisco 49ers for a new stadium located next to residential neighborhoods. O'Donnell told a despicable whopper: that nothing else can be put on the parking lot other than a stadium. And it wasn't enough to say it once, he had to repeat it with all the hype and forced conviction a local sportscaster can muster. But for his lie to work you had to forget that Will Kennedy just mentioned the deal loses $67 million for the city (net present value - actual dollars higher) per a city report. Which means maintaining the parking lot would be preferable to a stadium. As expected, Lisa Gillmor chose to ignore the general fund loss shown in the report. She used a familiar tactic of the Stadium Five: talk only about money not leaving the General Fund for the stadium, and remain silent about the city report that shows money destined for the General Fund gets diverted to the stadium, leaving the General Fund with tens of millions less money than if no stadium was built at all.

And not content with making up Santa Clara zoning regulations, O'Donnell managed some time to bellow about jobs - knocking the number of stadium jobs up to a previously unheard of 7,000. Of course not a peep from O'Donnell about the fact that an NFL stadium is almost never open. Any jobs at it, or related to stadium events, would be so low in hours that they defy categorization. Part time? No, that implies a regularity. Seasonal? No, because there are almost no hours even when the stadium is "in season", unlike a seasonal job as a life guard, ski lodge employee, Christmas tree salesman, etc. They can best be called "jobs for someone who really isn't looking to work very much". But hey, polling says that Santa Clarans will vote for the stadium on the basis of jobs creation, so O'Donnell was sure to bray about it before declaring that if he lived in Santa Clara he would vote for the stadium.

Will Kennedy talked about the General Fund problems the city of Santa Clara has - showing that the city is in no position to afford a $67 million dollar loss to it. He mentioned cutting back library hours as one of the cuts they are currently having to make. But Dennis O'Donnell was quick to squash any talk about the city struggling financially. He scolded Kennedy with "The 49ers aren't reponsible for you cutting back library hours". And Dennis O'Donnell is mostly right, although millions of dollars to consultants and lawyers and countless hours by city staff have been spent over the last three years in preparation for owning the stadium, most of the current city of Santa Clara cutbacks are not a result of the 49ers stadium. But with a $67 million dollar loss to the General Fund coming from a stadium, that statement won't be true in the future. Although it is highly likely that O'Donnell and other 49ers shills will still continue to make it.

June 6 Measure J debate on CBS Channel 5

Will Kennedy and Lisa Gillmor will debate Measure J on KCBS Channel 5 TV at 11:30pm on Sunday, June 6th, 2010 on a show called Gameday. If you miss the broadcast you should be able to find it later at in the Sports section.

Millions continue to pour in from the 49ers to get public money for their stadium

money tree
Contributions for 3/18/2010 to 5/22/2010 to
their front group
Forty Niners Stadium, LLC $2,605,657.84
Joint Electrical Industry Fund (JEIF)$10,000
These latest contributions bring the total contributions of the San Francisco 49ers to winning the Measure J election to $4,010,345.49. Sounds like a lot of money, but the 49ers paid at least 9 of their players over $4 million each in 2009. But the question is...

Are the 49ers millions buying votes??

At the time that the Stadium Five decided to subsidize and own an NFL football stadium for the benefit of the San Francisco 49ers the public was firmly against the idea. Even in January 2010, almost two months into the 49ers campaign to convince them it was a good idea, Santa Clara voters were still firmly against it. But eventually, over a dozen brochures, innumerable yard signs, and countless commercials bought with millions of dollars have convinced a majority of Santa Clarans that subsidizing an NFL stadium is a good idea.

shill warning alert sign

Of course it takes more than money to convince people that a money losing stadium is a good idea. It takes lies, gross exaggeration and most important of all, leaving out the negatives. And the Stadium Five, rather than represent the people of Santa Clara - as is their responsibility as elected officials - and give an honest picture of the situation, they chose instead to shill for the 49ers. The Santa Clara 49ers stadium has an incredible negative that is baked into it right from the start. Per a presentation from city staff, the city's General Fund loses $67 million from a one-team stadium. But you won't hear about that from the 49ers or their political shills. Incredibly, while a homeowner must disclose all the negatives of their home to potential buyers, politicians and sports teams are under no obligation to detail the negatives of a sports stadium when they try and sell it to the public. And they do not have to exercise any restraint in overstating and distorting positives. For example, jobs can be spoken about in the most general terms - without giving hours, pay or duties. To give the details of the jobs would completely burst the "NFL stadiums bring jobs" bubble. So the 49ers and their shills were careful not to do it. And they were very careful to mention the public costs as little as possible. And they used a convenient fact - that the State of California is so broke it has sometimes claimed some redevelopment funds from California cities, to lie that the State would take ALL redevelopment funds if they weren't used for the stadium. Mayor Patricia Mahan is particularly fond of spreading that lie - "Use it or lose it" - is the phrase she uses to do it.

Santa Clara Measure J polls
PeriodPollsterForAgainstNumber Polled
May 22-24 2010SurveyUSA for KPIX-TV56%40%577
April 2010ABC 7 News/SJ Mercury News52%36% 614
February 15-16, 2010Lindholm Research of Oregon45%45%200
Jan. 2010Survey USA40%54%500
June 2009Survey USA30%62%500

 Older ->