The Santa Clara San Francisco 49ers Stadium Five v3.0 (2010-2012)
Gillmor
Kolstad
Mahan
Matthews
MooreThe Santa Clara San Francisco 49ers Stadium Five v2.0 (2008-2010)
Caserta
KornderThe Santa Clara San Francisco 49ers Stadium Five v1.0 (2006-2008)
They are determined that the city of Santa Clara will build and own a monument to their "greatness". Not a Pyramid as they are not Pharaohs,
but a money losing NFL football stadium. A 14 acre monstrosity on a 17 acre site.
A structure that even in their most overly optimistic "vote-for-it" projections will be used 40 days a year.
A piece of real estate which the San Francisco 49ers owner, a real estate magnate,
does not want to own. Why? Because NFL stadiums don't make money.
If they did there wouldn't be a book on the shenanigans
that goes on between super rich owners and politicians and a hoodwinked public - Field of Schemes.
When it came time to vote on whether the proposed Santa Clara San Francisco 49ers stadium should be built according to the city charter, the Stadium Five chose to take the loophole given to them by State Senator Elaine Alquist and the California State Legislature (via SB 43) and refuse to have competitive bidding on the project. The Stadium Five also chose to disallow the voters of Santa Clara to make the decision as to whether the city charter should be followed and voted unanimously to remove that vote from the June 2010 special ballot.
When the San Francisco 49ers began sponsoring a ballot initiative to get the city to subsidize an NFL football stadium for them, the Stadium Five voted unanimously to cancel their ballot measure, knowing that the ballot initiative could be written as an advocacy piece and the ballot measure could not. And knowing that a ballot measure is subject to legal challenges that a ballot initiative is not subject to. The Stadium Five would prefer that the San Francisco 49ers write what you see in your ballot pamphlet rather than the City of Santa Clara!
In days gone by leaders built pyramids to show their greatness
today they build money losing NFL football stadiums
Who is Right - The Real Estate Magnate or the Stadium Five?
Denise Debartolo York is from a family that made their fortune in the real estate business. The vast majority of her fortune is still in real estate. Denise Debartolo York could afford to build and run an NFL football stadium on her own. The San Francisco 49ers, run by her husband John York and son Jed York, could afford to build and run an NFL football stadium on their own. But the Yorks and their financial advisors have chosen not to. In their expert opinion it is not a good investment. On the other hand, the Stadium Five is jumping up and down claiming an NFL stadium is a great investment and desperately wants the city of Santa Clara to own one. Why would the Yorks and their advisors, real estate investment professionals, think the stadium is a bad investment and yet the Stadium Five think it is a great investment - even claiming it can't fail?
MahanFor example, Santa Clara Mayor Patricia Mahan said at the June 2, 2009 council meeting:
"I have no fears that going forward this project will be a tremendous success"
First, the Stadium Five probably don't believe that the stadium is guaranteed to make money or be a "tremendous success". They are all politicians and are used to using exaggeration and falsehood in order to convince the public to go along with what they want. Secondly, the Stadium Five are dealing with other people's money, while Denise Debartolo York is dealing with her money. So the Stadium Five can make all kinds of claims, even believing some of it, but in the end they won't lose a penny of their own money if what they are saying is untrue. They are spending the money of the taxpayers of Santa Clara, of which they are only a tiny fraction. Whereas Denise Debartolo York has to make the decision based on whether she will lose her own money. A big difference and why she says owning the stadium is a bad deal while the Stadium Five says it's a great deal. And finally, politicians look at the building of a stadium as a tremendous plus on their resume - even if it loses money for the city. As long as the stadium is the site of large events - like NFL football games - they see it as something they can brag about bringing to the city.
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.
