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.
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 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
| Stick Location | SC Location | Candlestick | Santa Clara | Seat 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.
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 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.
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
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
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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:
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
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
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
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.
| percent | votes | |
|---|---|---|
| yes | 59.61% | 11,231 |
| no | 40.39% | 7,609 |
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
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 www.cbs5.com in the Sports section.
Millions continue to pour in from the 49ers to get public money for their stadium
| Contributor | Contribution |
|---|---|
| Forty Niners Stadium, LLC | $2,605,657.84 |
| Joint Electrical Industry Fund (JEIF) | $10,000 |
| unspecified | $50 |
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.
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.
| Period | Pollster | For | Against | Number Polled |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 22-24 2010 | SurveyUSA for KPIX-TV | 56% | 40% | 577 |
| April 2010 | ABC 7 News/SJ Mercury News | 52% | 36% | 614 |
| February 15-16, 2010 | Lindholm Research of Oregon | 45% | 45% | 200 |
| Jan. 2010 | Survey USA | 40% | 54% | 500 |
| June 2009 | Survey USA | 30% | 62% | 500 |
KQED Forum discussion on the Santa Clara 49ers Stadium
Will Kennedy and Patricia Mahan discuss Measure J on KQED public radio.
MahanSanta Clara Mayor Patricia Mahan works with San Francisco 49ers to enliven north Santa Clara residential neighborhoods
In a May 20th, 2010 KTVU channel 2 report on the 10 o'clock news, Santa Clara mayor Patricia Mahan said:
"I can envision when the fans come in for a football game, or a concert, or any other event on the weekend - that area of town - which is pretty much shuttered on the weekends, is gonna be a vibrant place to be."
Not coincidentally, Patricia Mahan's 4,655 square foot house is near Santa Clara University, far from the residential neighborhoods by the stadium. But there you have it stadium site residents - start throwing more block parties and keep the shades up in the next few months and maybe Patricia Mahan will decide that you haven't shuttered your neighborhoods on the weekends. And then she can work with the 49ers to find residential neighborhoods that are so quiet on the weekends that they need police checkpoints along with 68,500 fanatical football fans, concert goers and monster truck afficionados to bring in fun and excitement - or as she calls it - vibrancy.
Lloyd LaCuesta follows the script: pre-election don't mention the Santa Clara Stadium Authority
LaQuesta
In a May 20th, 2010 KTVU channel 2 report on the 10 o'clock news, Lloyd LaCuesta echoed the sentiments of the 49ers and their shills: the city of Santa Clara puts up $114 million, "and the 49ers would pay the rest". In reality, the Santa Clara Stadium Authority has to come up with $330 million. Per the stadium sales pitch, they will have no problem doing that - selling the name to the stadium, charging 49ers season ticket holders for the privilege of buying season tickets, charging vendors for the right to sell food and drink in the stadium, and getting money from "corporate founding partners". While the city of Santa Clara and the 49ers claim that there will be no problem getting $330 million from these sources they don't list any amounts they expect to receive from them. And they keep quiet about the fact that bonds will have to be issued since most of these sources are yearly payments - the only lump sum payment being from 49ers season ticket holders - and the bonds will have to be paid off from the income sources - if that income is sufficient.
Which raises an obvious question. If the Santa Clara Stadium Authority can easily come up with $330 million as promised by the people trying to get a YES vote on Measure J, then why didn't the 49ers just buy the stadium themselves? Why are they willing to pay $493 million which combined with the $330 milion is almost 90% of the stadium costs - and then rent it? In what other deals does someone pay almost all of the cost of something they are going to use and then not own it? If $330 million will easily flow in to the Stadium Authority, it is hard to see why the 49ers wouldn't just come up with all the money. The 49ers' brochures refer to the $35 million from the new hotel room rate tax as a "hotel investment" and remove it from the city's contribution. The 49ers could have counted on that as well since the hotels voted on it voluntarily. The hotels would have done that regardless of who owns the stadium. That gets the part that the 49ers didn't pay for down to $79 million. The city claims they were going to spend $17 million on a new parking garage even without a stadium. Now the 49ers extra contribution is down to $62 million. For another $62 million they could have owned a $900 million (even higher with typical cost overruns) stadium for 60 years. Instead, they are choosing to rent it. And yet the 49ers, their front group, and the Stadium Five say that the stadium is a great investment for the city of Santa Clara. A good investment for Santa Clara, but not for the 49ers or the 49ers owner??
LaCuesta also incorrecty stated that the term sheet is a "40 year agreement between the city and the 49ers". In fact, the term sheet is a preliminary non-binding document. The final agreement will be the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). The voters are voting on a non-binding agreement and the final agreement will be made after the election. Any guesses on whether the post-election final deal will be more or less favorable to Santa Clara voters?
And LaCuesta also mistakenly stated that the 49ers will pay all stadium operating expenses. The term sheet actually states that " 49ers Stadium Company will have the right to reasonably identify the costs and expenses in the Annual Stadium Operating Budget that will be included in Reimbursable Expenses and, therefore, be subject to 49ers Stadium Company reimbursement". The 49ers will also not pay Santa Clara Stadium Authority bond debt payments, which would put the Stadium Authority into bankrupcty if they cannot make those payments based on Naming Rights, Pouring Rights, Seat Licenses, etc.
Common Sense, the Numbers and elected 49ers Salespersons
In the 49ers stadium sales pitch that Patricia Mahan and Jamie Matthews made in the May 5th, 2010 Santa Clara Weekly the following statements were made:
Although we know the potential economic benefits to the region exceed $249 million, what convinces us is the direct benefits to Santa Clara. We approached the project with caution and backed our city manager in three years of tough negotiations. We put Santa Clara first - and ironclad protections for our city and residents are written into the law. The suggestion that our city manager would recommend something that would harm Santa Clara just simply does not hold up to common sense.
The last sentence is a phrase that no doubt has been used many times throughout history. It was likely uttered on Wall Street a few years ago by CEOs justifying the new mortgage lending techniqes: "The idea that our managers would recommend something that will harm our company just simply does not hold up to common sense". And then their companies collapsed. Unless they are corrupt, every manager believes that their decisions will not harm the entity they work for.
So you would assume that the last line would apply to the Santa Clara 49ers stadium project and the city of Santa Clara manager. That is, until you read the presentation she and her staff gave to the city council on June 2, 2009, that shows the City of Santa Clara takes a $67 million hit to the General Fund (net present value - actual dollars higher) from a one-team stadium. Showing that a huge General Fund hit was already baked into the Santa Clara stadium project at the start, and then in the same presentation recommending that Santa Clara proceed with the 49ers stadium project only holds up to uncommon sense. Or it demonstrates that the city of Santa Clara has a manager who will go along with whatever direction she gets from the Stadium Five - regardless of what common sense and the numbers dictate. Although if that is the case, you have to at least give her credit for not providing the Stadium Five with numbers that make the stadium look like a good deal.
For stadium area residents there's Good News and Bad News
The residents next to the stadium site have good news from the city of Santa Clara - police checkpoints will prevent stadium goers from parking in their neighborhood. These checkpoints will also offer them an excellent opportunity to get to know some of the 160 area law enforcement personnel who will be necessary to control stadium events. But they also have some bad news from the city of Santa Clara. Police checkpoints will prevent friends and relatives from visiting while stadium events are taking place. The city of Santa Clara has refused the requests of these neighborhoods to grant parking passes for visitors. Is it necessary to mention that none of the Stadium Five live anywhere near the stadium site? Nor, of course, do the ex-politicians who are also shilling for the 49ers like Pat Kolstad and Lisa Gillmor.
A stadium area resident speaks to the Santa Clara city council about police checkpoints and restricted
access to his neighborhood during stadium events
Pro and Con on Santa Clara Measure J find agreement - it's gonna be noisy and traffic will be bad.
Anything for a Vote - The City of Santa Clara's cheap political trick
In order to help convince the voters of Santa Clara to agree to allow the city to subsidize and own the ultimate politician's
trophy - an NFL football stadium - for the
benefit of the San Francisco 49ers ownership; the
Stadium Five, city staff, and the
San Francisco 49ers decided to use a cheap political trick.
They added a 35 cent ticket surcharge to each NFL ticket which will yield a maximum of $250,000.00 per year. The
term sheet refers to this ticket surcharge as the
City of Santa Clara Senior and Youth Program Fee.
The ballot question that Jamie Matthews wrote adds two more hot button
issues, broadening it to being used
for "senior/youth/library/recreation". However, Matthews was careful not to mention the tiny (relative to the city's budget) dollar amount.
The $250,000 maximum remains in affect for 40 to 60 years. It is never adjusted for inflation. And of course there is no need to adjust something that only exists to try and con voters in 2010, for inflation that takes place between 2014 and 2074. The city of Santa Clara General Fund is currently $150.8 million. $250,000.00 is 0.165% of this year's General Fund budget. If you spent $100 dollars at a restaurant and left a 0.165% tip it would be 17 cents. The $250,000.00 a year for 40 years has a net present value of $3,000,000 which does not come close to making up for the $67 million loss to the General Fund (net present value - the actual dollar loss is even larger) that is caused by building the stadium for one team. And the 0.165%, as surprisingly small a percentage as it is, will go down steadily over time. And it will actually never be as high as 0.165% because the first year it will be in effect - 2014 - will have a General Fund budget even larger than the one for the 2009/2010 fiscal year. With 3% inflation, in 40 years the city General Fund budget will be $489 million and the $250,000.00 will be down to 0.05% of the budget. And that is without factoring in the aggressive population growth each city council undertakes which will make the $250,000 even more insignificant over time than inflation alone.
So when you see "and additional funds for senior/youth/library/recreation to City's General fund" on your ballot question, be aware that the amount is tiny compared to the General Fund and very small compared to the $67 million the General Fund loses from constructing a one team stadium per a report presented to the city council by city staff on June 2nd, 2009. Be aware that it is a cheap political trick designed to allow a sentence to be added to the "ballot question" - minus any dollar figures - to try and convince you the stadium is bringing in significant amounts of money for several hot button city programs.
Reason #1 - Measure J will result in a net $67 million loss to the City's General Fund.
Will Kennedy speaks to Santa Clara Plays Fair
(id SCvoter on youtube.com)
on Reason #1 of
top 10 reasons
to Vote No on Santa Clara Measure J
Most Santa Clarans are not aware of this finding which appears in the city's economic study. What this means is that even after all direct and indirect stadium revenue to the General Fund is counted, the General Fund still ends up losing a net $67 million -- because the revenue is not nearly enough to offset the cost. Unfortunately, the 49ers marketing materials falsely claim that the General Fund will not be impacted. It will, by $67 million.
You may have read that no General Fund money goes into building the stadium. This is literally true, but misleading, because redevelopment money which would otherwise flow into the General Fund will be diverted to pay for stadium construction. This diversion, plus other losses caused by the stadium total $98 million. The expected stadium General Fund revenues over the 40 year lease, including rent and all new taxes, total only $31 million. The result is a $67 million net loss. (i.e. 98-31=$67 million).The General Fund is used by the city to pay for police, fire, libraries and parks, etc. The loss of $67 million will have a major impact on these services. The current General Fund budget is approximately $150 million. $67 million is enough money to keep the city going for over 5 months. While the 49ers promise that there will be no taxes, less money in the General Fund will eventually result in either reduced services or new taxes. The City Council just hasn't addressed that yet.
The $67 million figure is in "net present value" or today's dollars. In nominal dollars, the figure is much greater. We use "net present value" because it is used by city staff, and is consistent with standard accounting principals.
Source: Slide 48 in City's 6/2/09 Powerpoint presentation, "City General Fund Considerations"
Location, Location and Location - the three most important things in Real Estate
One of the revenue sources for the City of Santa Clara's General Fund is property taxes. When a Santa Clara resident pays property taxes $10.20 of every $100 paid goes to the City of Santa Clara General Fund. The higher property values are the more the city receives. What happens to property values when a stadium comes to the neighborhood? It isn't mentioned by the 49ers or their front group, but there are residential neighborhoods right near where the 49ers (and likely the Raiders as well) will play. And most people probably assume that the Stadium Five would not place an NFL stadium next to residential neighborhoods. But the Stadium Five are not championing a stadium because it will be good for the city or will not negatively impact residential neighborhoods. They were given a presentation by city staff that showed the city's General Fund would lose $67 million from a stadium. They still voted for it. The city and its people are less important than their relationship with the San Francisco 49ers and their legacy:
"This $1 billion construction project would be the largest this valley has ever seen."
Jamie Matthews and Patricia Mahan in a San Jose Mercury News editorial page article on April, 16th, 2010.
"This site, we believe, would give the fans a great game-day experience and that's what
it's all about: doing what's best for the 49ers and doing what's best for the fans."
Patricia Mahan in a 6/19/2007 Mercury News article that showed her
courting NFL and 49ers brass.
Are people more likely or less likely to buy a house near an NFL football stadium?
What will potential buyers think when they are out with their real estate agent and they are told - "We'd better not look at houses in
northern Santa Clara today because the 49ers are playing and we will get caught in a terrible traffic jam." Will driving by a big looming
stadium make a potential buyer feel like they've found their neighborhood? It is highly probably a
football stadium will suppress property values in the area, resulting in less property tax
money for the city's General Fund and the city's school system
than if no stadium is built.
It is 100% certain that none of the Stadium Five lives anywhere near the proposed
San Francisco 49ers NFL stadium site. A stadium that according to
Tim Kawakami of the Mercury News, needs
the Raiders in order for the San Francisco 49ers to pay the bills. Two football teams mean that 20 consecutive Sunday
afternoons from August through
December will bless the neighborhood with the arrival of 68,500 fanatical football fans.
With the city's General Fund currently bleeding red ink ( $13.5 million for fiscal 2009-2010 ), and projected to lose even more next year, losing property tax revenue from an NFL stadium is contraindicated. Especially in light of the $67 million loss the general fund will already take from a one-team stadium ($31 million loss with the 49ers and Raiders) and the city projecting deficits for the next five years.
Coming soon to a Santa Clara residential neighborhood near you.
City of Santa Clara deficit grows larger
While originaly projected as a $6.7 million deficit when the budget was made for fiscal year 2009/2010 (July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010), a recent revenue report to the City Council on March 30, 2010, revealed that the deficit for 2009/2010 is now expected to be $13.5 million. The city will need to dip deeper into their capital reserve (also known as the emergency reserve). The capital reserve fund will be down to only $2.5 million after this years withdrawal. A deficit is also projected for the coming years. At the April 27th, 2010 city council meeting, city manager Jennifer Sparacino stated that it was expected that the 2010/2011 budget deficit would be larger than the $13.5 million deficit for the 2009/2010 fiscal year. With the capital reserve fund drained, future deficits will have to be dealt with exclusively via the General Fund - by either cutting expenses and services and/or increasing taxes.
And yet the Stadium Five continues to push for a
city subsidized and owned NFL football stadium, which
city documents show on page 48
that the General Fund
will have $67 million LESS if a stadium is built for the San Francisco 49ers ($31 million less if the
Oakland Raiders also use the stadium):
If the issue is jobs - the answer is not a billion dollar NFL football stadium
On the April 25, 2010 Channel ABC News 11:00pm newscast report on the Santa Clara San Francisco 49ers stadium, 49ers point woman Lisa Gillmor was shown saying that it was about "jobs, jobs, jobs". And that the stadium was a great thing for a bad economy. She knows that the 49ers polling shows that this is the biggest reason people are saying they will vote yes on the idea of the city of Santa Clara helping to pay for and then owning an NFL football stadium.
Can you pay the rent on
a stadium job? No. Can you make a car payment on a stadium job? No. A stadium job would be less desirable than a job selling
Christmas trees - it offers equivalent pay, but less hours. An NFL football stadium is almost never open. And only open a portion of the
day on the few days that it is open. It would be used 10 days a year for the
San Francisco 49ers and another 10 if the Oakland Raiders come. Throw in a concert, an international soccer game, a monster truck pull, and a
Christmas tree lot is still comfortably ahead in hours. When almost a billion dollars is spent you expect some good jobs.
Not part-time temporary low wage
jobs. Will most of the part-time temporary low wage stadium jobs go to Santa Clarans - the people of the only city paying for the stadium?
No, Santa Clara is much smaller than next door neighbor San Jose and is only one city among 15 in Santa Clara County, not to mention other
nearby counties. What would Lisa Gillmor say if one of her kids told her they were quitting their full time job or dropping out of
college in order to get a new
stadium job selling refreshments or taking tickets a couple dozen days a year? Her shriek would be heard as far away as the
stadium site - and that's a long way away. None of the current and
former politicians cheerleading a new NFL football stadium in the city of Santa Clara live in the neighborhoods near the stadium. The
neighborhoods that will be affected by the traffic, the noise, and the tens of thousands of fans celebrating victories and decrying losses
after games while leaving a stadium that will not have parking for the vast majority of them.
And the same problems that exist for stadium jobs exist for any jobs created as a result of the stadium - restaurant/bar/hotel - jobs. How many new jobs - that is - how many people would be hired by restaurants, hotels and bars in order to accomodate a stadium that is only open a few dozen days a year? It seems likely that they would just ask some of their staff - many of whom are working part-time already - to work additional hours. Stadium related jobs have an additional problem - anyone flying in to see a 49ers game doesn't have to stay in a Santa Clara hotel. They don't even have to stay in a Santa Clara County hotel. If they are coming to the Bay Area for a weekend, of which only 4 hours will be spent in a Santa Clara San Francisco 49ers stadium, they will likely rent a room near where they will be spending most of their weekend. Downtown San Jose, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, etc. People driving or taking mass transit to the game will have far more choices of restaurants in Mountain View and San Jose than they will in Santa Clara. Which is why stadium proponents will talk about a stadium benefiting the region - since Santa Clara is only a small part of Santa Clara County and the Bay Area. And yet Santa Clara is the only city that will pay for it, the only city that will be responsible for it's expenses, the only city that will have to issue bonds to pay for construction.
Santa Clara Oakland Raiders stadium
Most, if not all of the 49ers supporters who storm Santa Clara city council chambers wearing read and cheerleading for a new
city subsidized and owned NFL football stadium seem to think there is only one team in the mix. But, the term sheet mentions a
second team in several places, including
Section 16
.
A second team is also
shown on
page 48
of the term sheet presentation
(the page that shows the city General Fund loses $67 million with a one team stadium and $31 million from a two team stadium). Tim
Kawakami of the Mercury News said that from what he has heard
the 49ers can't pay for the stadium without the Raiders
. And the proposed stadium has large electronic exterior displays that
can easily change from week to week - just like the stadium in New Jersey that hosts the Jets and Giants. And yet
no one is talking about the Raiders coming to town. Could it be 49ers fans don't to want to share the stadium??
Santa Clara 49ers Stadium leases
40 to 60 year Santa Clara San Francisco 49ers stadium leases
The stadium site (aka ground site)
will be owned by the
city of Santa Clara, who will lease it to the
Santa Clara Stadium Authority under what is called the
ground lease in the term sheet.
The Santa Clara Stadium Authority will then lease the stadium to the
Forty Niners Stadium, LLC, in what the term sheet calls the
stadium lease. The Forty Niners Stadium, LLC will lease the stadium to the
San Francisco Forty Niners, LTD in what is referred to as the
team sublease. At their discretion, Forty Niners Stadium, LLC can also lease the stadium to the
Oakland Raiders, the 2nd team sublease.
The Ground Lease, Stadium Lease and Team Sublease all have the same term: 40 years minimum, with 5 options to renew for another 4 years - bringing the maximum lease period to 60 years. Forty Niners Stadium, LLC has the option as to whether they want to exercise a lease extension or terminate the leases. The 2nd Team Sublease, while controlled by the Forty Niners Stadium, LLC, is supposed to be subject to the same terms as the Stadium Lease, but presumably that does not include the 40 year term. Section 16.2 of the term sheet even talks about a temporary 2nd team sublease of up to 3 NFL seasons while the Oakland Raiders wait for a new stadium to be built.
49ers multi-million dollar stadium campaign paying off - for SCU students and godaddy.com
The San Francisco 49ers and their paid allies have promised a lot of part-time temporary low wage jobs if a stadium is built in Santa Clara, a minority of which would go to Santa Clarans. Well, they don't actually call them part-time temporary low-wage jobs - they refer to them as full-time equivalent jobs. Bundling several dozen part-time temporary jobs into a "full-time equivalent job" is a good tactic, since it avoids pointing out the obvious problem of a stadium with regard to jobs creation - a stadium is almost never open, and only open for a part of the day. And it makes it easier to grossly overstate the amount of jobs. Not to mention that the jobs are at or close to minimum wage. You can't pay the rent on a stadium job. You can't even make a car payment on a stadium job. The math is not pretty: 10 dollars an hour times 5 hours a day, times 20 days a year means a stadium job would end up getting you a total of $1,000.00 for the year. Or looked at another way, a stadium job is equivalent to 2.5 weeks of a fulltime low wage job. Even taking the ridiculously optimistic "vote for it" projection of stadium proponents that the stadium will be open 40 days a year only raises the annual salary to $2,000 and the hours to the equivalent of four weeks of low wage work.
Nevertheless, the "full-time equivalent jobs" have begun (and going to mostly non-Santa Clarans as would happen with stadium jobs) even before the stadium is built. The San Francisco 49ers front group Santa Clarans for Economic Progress have been hiring Santa Clara Univerity students since January to help sell the stadium subsidy and ownership by Santa Clara to Santa Clarans. Their campus ad:
Santa Claran's for Economic Progress
Campaign Internships
We are looking for students who are interested in learning how a local campaign works.
Gain valuable experience and network with local activists. Previous campaign experience not required, but highly valued.
Requirements include ability to use basic word processing and spreadsheet software, work ethic, and willingness to work
outside of normal business hours. Interns will likely spend much of their time talking to the public and must also be flexible
in an ever changing environment. Some positions will be mostly in-office, some will require significant time in the field.
Please send your resume to mia@scforprogress.com and include: short statement why you'd like to work on this campaign, what
you hope to gain from this campaign, your hours of availability (any time between 9am to 10pm, 7 days a week), if you speak
any additional languages, and any other info you'd like us to know about you.
Interviews will begin soon and applications are excepted on a rolling basis. We expect internships to end around June 10, 2010.
Hopefully none of the SCU student workers are accounting majors, as they will become disenchanted if they see slide 48 prepared by city workers which shows with numbers that the stadium causes the city of Santa Clara to have less money if a stadium is built than if it isn't. And hopefully none are Sociology majors as they will become disenchanted once they see that the stadium is being built right next to a residential neighborhood.
It makes you wonder how much of the millions of dollars from the San Francisco 49ers are being used to hire "precinct walkers" that aren't Santa Clara University students?. We know that the people who collected signatures for the initiative were paid to do so. Are the precinct walkers all hired hands as well? Several million dollars does give you the resources to hire a lot of people. Isn't it strange though - the stadium is such a great deal according to the Stadium Five, and yet the San Francisco 49ers have to spend millions of dollars to get it sold. Since when do great deals have to be hammered down people's throats with lies and false promises?
The millions are trickling down and benefiting others as well - the 49ers front group has been
buying and activating some domain names through godaddy.com:
But they did forget this one: VoteNoOnJ.us. By buying up VoteNoOnJ domain names could the San Francisco 49ers be signaling that they realize they would be renting a stadium that has no parking, no BART, and no hope of making payments unless the Oakland Raiders share it - and are thinking about reversing course?
Are you against Santa Clara Measure J (San Francisco 49ers stadium) ?
The San Francisco 49ers are spending millions to convince the voters of the City of Santa Clara to agree to subsidize and own a football stadium for their benefit. Among other things, that buys a lot of lawn signs. If you want to display your opposition to the stadium, Santa Clara Plays Fair has "No On Measure J" signs for you. But since there is no wealthy corporation paying for the signs it would help if you could make a financial donation, either for the yard signs, for the flyers they distribute, or for a campaign mailer they would like to do to get out the truth about the Santa Clara San Francisco 49ers stadium subsidy .
In addition to displaying a lawn sign, you can volunteer to assist them. Help fight the millions of dollars and falsehoods of the San Francisco 49ers and their employees and political allies, by:
- Walking neighborhoods to get the truth out about the stadium subsidy and ownership.
- Host a house party to provide your neighbors and friends with the facts the San Francisco 49ers and Stadium Five don't want them to know about and to counteract the lies being told.
- Write a letter to the editor of the Santa Clara Weekly or San Jose Mercury News.
Top 10 reasons to Vote No on Santa Clara Measure J
The people at Santa Clara Plays Fair along with Will Kennedy and Jamie McLeod have written the top 10 reasons for Santa Clarans to Vote No on Measure J :
An Open Letter to Santa Clarans
by City Councilmembers Jamie McLeod and Will Kennedy
and by SantaClaraPlaysFair.org
A major campaign is underway to encourage Santa Clarans to vote for a football stadium (Measure J). We oppose the stadium because we believe that public money should be spent on the public, and any private investment of public money should have a positive return on investment. The following are the top ten reasons why we oppose the 49ers stadium subsidy. An explanation and information source is provided.
Top Ten Reasons Why We Oppose the 49ers Stadium Subsidy
- Measure J will result in a net $67 million loss to the City's General Fund.
- Funding for Santa Clara Unified School District comes from the city's Redevelopment Fund, not from the 49ers or the Stadium.
- Measure J extends the Sweetheart Rent Deal on the 49ers Training Center -- they pay only 1% of what other businesses pay the City.
- Most Stadium jobs will be part-time and low wage, the construction jobs are temporary and fewer than 7% will go to Santa Clarans.
- Tax Money will be spent on the stadium, despite the 49er's campaign claims.
- The Economic Impact of the Stadium is Minimal
- The 49ers' claim that they will pay operations and maintenance costs has a major loophole.
- The 49ers can decide to bring in the Oakland Raiders, even if the city opposes it.
- Measure J will result in $6 million less being spent on affordable housing.
- Measure J commits the City to a 2-TO-1 LOSS on our Investment.
Jamie Matthews - dishonest San Francisco 49ers shill
Matthews
At the website of the San Francisco 49ers front group
Santa Clarans for Economic Progress,
Santa Clara city council member Jamie Matthews
goes to bat for the City of Santa Clara subsidizing the San Francisco 49ers:
Next to a
picture of a broadly smiling Matthews the question is asked:
On the June 8th Stadium vote: Are the Taxpayers at Risk?
Jamie Matthews responds:
"Not at all. The measure's iron-clad language states that there can be NO new city taxes and NO use of
the city's general fund for this project. There will be no cost to Santa Clara residents. Period."
Jamie Matthews
Santa Clara City Councilmember
In a presentation given at the June 2nd, 2009 city council meeting by city employees, a Powerpoint slide on page 48 showed a consultant's estimate of how the city's General Fund will do with or without a San Francisco 49ers stadium being subsidized and tax sheltered by the city. With one football team the General Fund will have 67 million dollars less than if a stadium is not built. With two football teams (the Oakland Raiders have made no public statement regarding a willingness to move to Santa Clara) the General Fund will have $31 million less than no stadium. This is due to money destined for the General Fund being diverted from the city's Redevelopment Agency to the stadium. And yet Jamie Matthews claims there is no use of the city's General Fund for the project??
The city of Santa Clara is currently running a deficit and is projected to run a deficit for the next five years. The stadium causes the General Fund to have less money, per a presentation given by city employees, and yet Jamie Matthews claims with surety there won't be any tax increases (or cuts in services - a cost) due to the San Francisco 49ers stadium project??
The Santa Clara NFL football stadium would last for a minimum of 40 years and a maximum of 60 years per the (non-binding) term sheet that has been prepared. The San Francisco 49ers put some of their employees on unpaid leave for a period of time in the summer of 2009 due to financial problems. There is no guarantee that the 49ers will be able to make their lease payment for all 40 years and the lease is not even with the San Francisco 49ers. It is with their firewall affiliate - Forty Niners Stadium, LLC. What if the Forty Niners Stadium, LLC can't make lease payments and the San Francisco 49ers move to the Oakland Colesium? And Forty Niners Stadium, LLC does not pay all the bills of a proposed Santa Clara NFL stadium. They only pay what the term sheet calls reimbursable expenses. The Forty Niners Stadium, LLC is not obligated to pay what the term sheet calls excluded expenses. Excluded expenses include the debt payments of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority. You won't hear about the Santa Clara Stadium Authority debt from Jamie Matthews or the other Santa Clara politicians shilling for the San Francisco 49ers. You won't hear about Stadium Authority debt from the San Francisco 49ers or their front group Santa Clarans for Economic Progress. It is even hidden in the term sheet, being mentioned in some places, and being left off conspicuously in others. What happens if the Santa Clara Stadium Authority can't pay it's debt which it is supposed to finance from stadium naming rights - which have lost favor in recent years and have gone down in amount (the Oakland Colesium hosts two sports teams and currently has no naming rights deal)? It's either bankruptcy or a bail out from the city of Santa Clara General Fund. Would future politicians even consider bankrupcty? It seems a bail out would be their only choice. That would mean a future hit to the General Fund on top of the hit the report presented by city employees already demonstrated. And yet Jamie Matthews claims there is no risk to Santa Clara taxpayers??
The city is using money from it's redevelopment agency, it's utility reserve fund, and from taxes it is collecting from
hotels. The total of all stadium construction expenditures by the city (per the
non-binding term sheet)
is $114 million dollars.
And yet Jamie Matthews claims that there is "NO cost to Santa Clara residents. Period."
Jamie Matthews is a dishonest San Francisco
49ers shill. Period.
Santa Clara sued over biased stadium ballot wording
A Santa Clara citizen has filed a lawsuit in Santa Clara County Superior Court over the misleading and biased language on the June 10, 2010 special election ballot regarding Measure J - the city of Santa Clara subsidy and ownership of a new San Francisco 49ers NFL football stadium. The city attorney predictably claims the suit is without merit. But clearly a ballot question written by the same politicians who appear on the website of the San Francisco 49ers front group Santa Clarans for Economic Progress shilling for the stadium, and a ballot question that was modified by those same politicians after the San Francisco 49ers front group stormed city council chambers and demanded it be changed, is going to lack objectivity.
Ballot "Question"
What is termed a question is actually a question followed by seven misleading pro-stadium sentences. They separate the original question and the following pro-stadium sentences with semi-colons, allowing the city and the Stadium Five to make a claim that is in fact a "ballot question". Not surprisingly, none of the negatives of the stadium are included in the ballot "question".
Most notably, the ballot question fails to mention the $67 million that the city's General Fund loses if the stadium is contructed versus no construction. This figure is from a report by a consultant hired by the city to study the issue. $98 million that was going to go to the General Fund gets diverted to the stadium. Even adding in the overly optimistic claims that the stadium will make $31 million (the 49ers real estate magnate owner doesn't see the stadium as a profitable enterprise) leaves the General Fund with $67 million less with the stadium, than without. No new taxes, except for those necessary because the General Fund loses $67 million.
Nor does the ballot question mention using $20 million in Utility Emergency Reserve funds to move a utility station to provide a small amount of parking for the stadium. Moving a utility station for NFL football stadium parking is not something that Utiity Emergency Reserve funds are intended for. No new taxes, except for those necessary to replenish $20 million into the Utility Emergency Reserve.
While saying that future city politicians are under no obligation to bail out a money losing Santa Clara Stadium Authority with General Funds, it fails to mention that they not only could do so, but it's almost a given that they would do so. An NFL football stadium is a vanity buy for local politicians and some of their citizens and nothing looks worse than a city owned stadium that some current and past politicians were claiming was a sure thing going bankrupt. No obligation to bail it out, but pretty unthinkable that a bankrupt Santa Clara Stadium Authority would not be bailed out. No new taxes, except for those necessary in the future for a bankrupt Santa Clara Stadium Authority bailout.
The ballot measure mentions additional funds for the hot-button areas of senior, youth, library and recreation (only senior and youth are mentioned in the term sheet) from a 35 cent ticket surcharge on NFL tickets. But the ballot question fails to note how small these payments will be - fixed at a maximum of $250,000 per year, and not adjusted for inflation - ever. The $250,000 a year for 40 years doesn't come close to making up for the $67 million the General Fund loses if the stadium is built (and that is before any Santa Clara Stadium Authority bail out). $250,000 is a tiny fraction of the city's $150.8 million dollar general fund budget for 2009/2010 and the 35 cent ticket surcharge is clearly a political trick. The token payment allows "provides youth and senior money" to be thrown around with abandon by the San Francisco 49ers and the Stadium Five.
San Francisco 49ers continue to try and buy the Santa Clara Measure J election
The San Francisco 49ers via their
front group
Santa Clarans for Economic Progress,
continue to pour money into the Santa Clara Measure J election. And why not spend a few million when
you are going to get hundreds of millions from your subsidy city? Their
Form 460 for the period 1/1/2010 to 3/17/2010 reveals that
the San Francisco 49ers and their firewall entity
gave an additional $1,042,037.40 in cash and services to try and buy the
June 10, 2010 Measure J election. Bringing their total so far to $1,404,687.65 in less than five months. Again, a
little price to pay for getting a
small city to take on the financial burden of helping to fund construction and then owning and paying the bills for
a money losing NFL stadium for 40 or more years.
Santa Clara councilman Will Kennedy says City loses in 49ers Stadium Deal
KennedyIn an interview with PublicCEO.com Santa Clara city councilman Will Kennedy explained why the Santa Clara 49ers stadium is a bad investment for the city of Santa Clara. He says "There would be more money in the general fund if we did not build." Will Kennedy, along with Jamie McLeod voted against the Santa Clara 49ers stadium deal on June 2nd, 2009 after the term sheet was presented to the city council, while the Stadium Five voted unanimously for it.
As councilman Kennedy points out, one of the problems of the stadium is that it takes money from the Santa Clara Redevelopment Agency that could have gone to paying back the city's General Fund from money that was borrowed. Kennedy points out that according to a report by a city consultant , the city's General Fund would end up with $98 million if the stadium is not built, versus $31 million if it is built. The stadium causes the city to have less General Fund money - $67 million dollars less. And this figure doesn't include General Fund losses that will take place if a future Santa Clara city council votes to use General Fund money to bail out a bankrupt Santa Clara Stadium Authority.
Another problem with the stadium deal that Will Kennedy points out is that it extends the incredible rent subsidy given to the 49ers for their practice facility out another 40 to 60 years. How much of a subsidy do the San Francisco 49ers get for their 11 acre practice facility? They pay less for 11 acres than it would cost to rent a 4 bedroom house in the same area - $22,000 per year. Per acre the San Francisco 49ers are paying 1 percent as much as what the Hyatt Hotel down the street pays.
Who funds Santa Clarans for Economic Progress?
A required campaign document reveals the truth. The San Francisco 49ers front group Santa Clarans for Economic Progress filed their required Form 460 (Recipient Committee Campaign Statement) with the City of Santa Clara Clerk's Office on 2/1/2010 to detail their contributions and expenditures for 2009. Although they had been touting themselves as a "grassroots organization", the Form 460 revealed that to be a lie. 99.73% of their contributions ( $362,650.25 ) came from the San Francisco 49ers or the 49ers firewall entity Forty Niners Stadium, LLC. Only 13 people living in Santa Clara gave money to the group totaling $725. Four people living outside of Santa Clara contributed an additional $240 dollars and one company in Santa Clara contributed $20. A box labeled "Sponsored" was also checked (there was no box for "front group"). Where the form asked for Committee Name they wrote:
Santa Clarans for Economic Progress, sponsored by and major funding by Forty Niners Stadium, LLC and a coalition of local residents, business owners, retirees, homeowners, civic leaders and native Santa Clarans.
| Component | Contributions | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| San Francisco 49ers and Forty Niners Stadium, LLC | $362,650.25 | 99.73% |
| coalition of local residents, business owners, retirees, homeowners, civic leaders and native Santa Clarans | $985 | 0.27% |
When you see Santa Clarans for Economic Progress you can substitute San Francisco 49ers. The ballot initiative that the people of Santa Clara are being asked to vote on is an advocacy piece written by the same group that stands to benefit from it - the San Francisco 49ers. The fact that a ballot initiative can be an advocacy piece was one of two reasons the Santa Clara Stadium Five withdrew their own ballot measure (which would have had to have been written in a more objective and truthful way) in deference to the San Francisco 49ers ballot initiative.
While Santa Clara politicians talk about what a great deal owning an NFL football stadium will be, it is important to remember that the San Francisco 49ers have chosen not to own and run an NFL stadium. If football stadiums were profitable enterprises, the billionaire team owners around the country wouldn't bother trying to get local governments to help finance them and run them. They would just finance and run them themselves. And there would be no need for books like Field of Schemes.
Proposed Santa Clara 49ers Pyramid
Why politicians are so anxious to use public funds to subsidize billionaires in the unprofitable enterprise of running a football stadium is partly revealed in the statements "it will put us on the map" (which it doesn't do - the team retains it's name - "San Francisco 49ers") and the phrase that an ex-politician shouted into the public microphone at a Santa Clara city council meeting - "great leaders build!". A football stadium to them is what the Pyramids were to the Pharoahs. A monument to their greatness. But while a Pyramid cost a lot of money to build, it didn't require bonds to be issued with 30 years of interest payment and a lump sum repayment of principle, didn't steal money from the Redevelopment Agency that would have gone to the city General Fund, and they didn't perennially lose money like an NFL football stadium. Wouldn't it be nice if they just built a pyramid? They could call it the Santa Clara San Francisco 49ers Pyramid. It would cost less to build, lose less money, and actually would "put us on the map".
2/10/2010 - Santa Clara City Council backs down to San Francisco 49ers
The San Francisco 49ers and their front group Santa Clarans for Economic Progress stormed Santa Clara city council chambers on Tuesday night, and as expected, the city council caved and rewrote the ballot initiative question. The only surprise was that one of the Stadium Five broke ranks on the issue. Joe Kornder remained uncowed by the San Francisco 49ers and voted along with Jamie McLeod and Will Kennedy against changing language from what three city council members and city employees had come up with.
2/9/2010 - 49ers and their Front Group unhappy and will protest at Council Meeting
GillmorThe San Francisco 49ers and their front group Santa Clarans for Economic Progress are not happy with how the city wrote their initiative. Pursuant to California Election Code it is the perogative of the city council to write the ballot question rather than the San Francisco 49ers or their front group. But front group spokesperson, ex-politician Lisa Gillmor, says they are not happy with wording regarding money taken from utility funds. The San Jose Mercury News article also complains (presumably due to input from Gillmor) that the initiative doesn't address operating costs. The implication is that it should mention the claim of the 49ers and the city of Santa Clara that there will never be any impact to the city General Fund from the stadium. There have been two firewalls erected to protect both parties - the City of Santa Clara has created the Santa Clara Stadium Authority and the San Francisco 49ers football team has created the Forty Niners Stadium, LLC. The idea is that in the event the NFL football stadium becomes a money loser (a likely event which is why the San Francisco 49ers don't want to own it), the city will be protected as the debts will belong to the Santa Clara Stadium Authority. The Santa Clara Stadium Authority will go bankrupt and the city will be under no obligation to bail them out. But would the Santa Clara politicians allow that? Highly unlikely, just looking at the way the NFL stadium deals are catnip for current politicians like the Stadium Five and ex-politicians like Lisa Gillmor and Pat Kolstad. And given the fact that a stadium bankruptcy would be extremely embarassing, it is almost inconceivable that future Santa Clara politicians would not use money from the General Fund for a stadium bail out.
