Thursday, December 25, 2008

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

We at Santa Clara Plays Fair would like to wish all of you a very fine Christmas, and every success in 2009!





Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Decision '08: Follow-up

Santa Clara Plays Fair would like to thank all of you who contacted us and who volunteered for the candidates' campaigns in the November 4th election!

Although we did not get all of the changes we still firmly support: We're quite glad to see Councilwoman Jamie McLeod returned to her seat on the City Council. We believe that Councilwoman McLeod will be the one to carefully scrutinize any "deals" with the San Francisco 49ers requiring multi-million dollar subsidies from Santa Clarans.

During the precinct walks we did, many Santa Clarans asked us why the stadium subsidy issue wasn't even on their ballots.

That's a good question for our leaders - and for the San Francisco 49ers.

It's pretty clear that, with conditions in Santa Clara as well as across the nation, those attempting to make us help pay for a millionaire's NFL football stadium could not afford to have Santa Clarans expressing their will on this issue too soon:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10968380

While we note that Councilwoman McLeod and challengers Emerson, Hardy, Lowery and Bouza were the most forthright on the issue, the rest of the incumbents only spoke of the stadium subsidy issue when they were specifically asked - or they completely ignored the stadium subsidy in their campaign literature. Surely this was no accidental omission.

Unfortunately, this will be the rule for the somewhat new City Council. It will be true for the next six months or so at least, due to the confidentiality agreement demanded by the 49ers after CFO Larry MacNeil's presentation to City Council of last April 24th.

It will be important for us as City residents to keep the issue alive while our City Council continues with the "Closed Session" meetings that it has been conducting since May of 2007 - some 41 such secret meetings as of September 30th of this year.

If you have any questions about this process or about the stance of Santa Clara Plays Fair on this issue, please contact us any time.


Best regards,
Bill Bailey
Treasurer

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Decision '08: Meet Our City Council Candidates!

Friends of Santa Clara Plays Fair, the Candidate's Forum is to be held this evening at Santa Clara City Hall, 1500 Warburton Drive, at 7:00 pm in City Council Chambers.

Also, please take a few moments to meet our candidates for the Santa Clara City Council through their websites:


Seat 3:Mary EMERSON
http://maryemerson.org/wordpress/

Seat 4: (WRITE IN:) Karen HARDY
http://writeinhardyseat4.blogspot.com/

Seat 6: Brian LOWERY
http://www.lowery4citycouncil.com/

Seat 7: Councilwoman Jamie McLEOD
http://jamiemcleod.org/blog/


Thank you for all of your support - and for your support of these four fine individuals on November 4th!


Best regards,
Bill Bailey
Treasurer

Monday, October 6, 2008

Decision '08: Santa Clara Plays Fair recommends....

We were very pleased to meet as many of you as we did at the Art and Wine Festival.

But if you didn't get our endorsement cards for City Council Seats 3, 4, 6 and 7, Santa Clara Plays Fair endorses and recommends your vote for:

Seat 3: Mary EMERSON
Seat 4: (WRITE IN:) Karen HARDY
Seat 6: Brian LOWERY
Seat 7: Councilwoman Jamie McLEOD

Councilwoman McLeod, of course, is the incumbent who's been willing to analyze the stadium "deal" in great detail. She's done a fine job for us in Seat 7, and she should be returned to the Council so that she can continue working for all Santa Clarans.

The main issue we see is the massive subsidy of a millionaire's NFL football stadium with scores of millions of dollars of YOUR money. That's cash and RDA bonds which would be far better used for the benefit of Santa Clarans rather than for one NFL team owner.

We believe that the incumbent and three challengers above will go the distance to protect the wallets of Santa Clarans. We ask that all city residents take this opportunity to bring real change to our City Council on November 4th.

If there are any questions we can answer, about who we are and why we support these candidates, please use the comment or contact links. A volunteer will respond as soon as possible.

Thanks for visiting us!


- Bill Bailey, Treasurer

Monday, September 22, 2008

Lucas Oil Stadium operating costs mount - Indianapolis, IN

First: Santa Clara Plays Fair would like to thank everyone who volunteered, who donated, who joined us and who stopped by to speak with us at the Santa Clara Art & Wine Festival.

To be able to reach as many of you as we did in the run-up to the November 4th City Council election was very gratifying - and we learned much from all of you.



And now, a little story of yet another subsidy for an NFL stadium gone wrong:

Lucas Oil Stadium, new home to the Indianapolis Colts, opened amid "gee-whiz" tours and grandiose claims in late August, and with what should have been a final sticker cost of $700 million.

But just as the ticker-tape is being swept into the trash bins are we finally hearing that Lucas Oil Stadium has serious problems with meeting its operating costs. A very illuminating article in the Indianapolis Star of September 18 makes clear how serious this is:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080917/LOCAL18/809170383/1195/LOCAL18

This first came to our attention with a message from the Field of Schemes website:

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2008/09/the_stadium_tha_1.html


In a nutshell: Indy's Capital Improvement Board [CIB] has found that the $10 million estimate for operating Lucas each year is far too low: "Officials at the Capital Improvement Board, which operates the city's stadiums and convention center, plan to draw $25 million from reserves this year and in 2009, $20 million of which will go to higher stadium operating costs." [Indy Star article]

The Indy Star article reveals that a former CIB head urged that operating costs be rolled into the original construction costs - as was done for two earlier stadiums in Indianapolis. As this was not done, the City of Indianapolis, population 781,000, is now on the hook to cover the increased expenses of running Lucas Oil Stadium - abbreviated, appropriately enough, "LOS".

There was another scary item in that same article: The notion that Indy's CIB would use their Convention Center proceeds to cover the Lucas Oil Stadium shortfall.

If one could imagine the same scenario in Santa Clara, simply note that our own Convention Center already operates at a loss and that it requires its own subsidy. If the yet-to-be-formed Santa Clara Stadium Authority finds itself with an operating shortfall in an NFL stadium in Santa Clara, there will not be too many other sources to bleed for cash.

Finally, in closing, here's what a citizen's group had to say about the entire affair:

"Pat Andrews, vice president of the Marion County [IN] Alliance of Neighborhood Associations, said the public isn't interested in finger-pointing. She said state and city officials shouldn't have built a new stadium without a solid plan for how to maintain it.

"They're all to blame," Andrews said. "They went and paid for toys instead of food and rent. The operating costs problem is just the icing on the cake. This stadium will be an albatross across our necks for years." [Indy Star article]

There is a lesson in this for us here in Santa Clara - with our own population about a seventh of Indy's and while we contemplate a public subsidy for an NFL stadium which is likely to cost up to 40% more than Lucas Oil Stadium.

The election on November 4th may be a fine opportunity to apply that lesson.



Thanks for all of your support!

-Bill Bailey, Treasurer

Thursday, June 5, 2008

49ers Stadium Poker

In that high-stakes poker game we call "No-limit Stadium Sold 'em", the City of Santa Clara just 'checked'.

In a rather illuminating article in the San Jose Mercury News, we Santa Clarans learned for the first time that we may not even see the "advisory" measure on a Santa Clara stadium subsidy on our November 4th ballot:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9486415

At Santa Clara Plays Fair - and over a quite a few kitchen tables in our city, we imagine - this is disconcerting news.

The postponement of the "advisory" from a General Election in an even-numbered year to a Special Election in an odd-numbered one has the effect of manipulating turnout to suit the whims of the pro-subsidy crowd and the San Francisco 49ers. It permits certain narrow political and financial interests, having everything but the well-being of our city in mind, to hijack this debate.

We've been told that the "advisory" would reflect "the will of the people" - and at least one City Councilman has promised us that it will be obeyed.

But if the City Council is insistent that a ballot measure be deferred: Then the way to truly poll the wishes and hopes of many more Santa Clara households is to insist not only that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be complete, but also that any ballot measure be binding. For the additional election costs of $600,000, Santa Clarans are entitled to as much.

Now, it should be noted that the Mercury News dispatch wasn't really designed to inform us Santa Clarans - it was really a report on Measures G and F in San Francisco's own precincts on Tuesday.

With their votes on June 3rd, San Franciscans made quite clear in their affirmation of G (62% voted YES) and their rejection of F (63% voted NO) that they are placing no additional roadblocks in the path of the development of Hunters Point. A new Hunters Point will include the San Francisco 49ers as a prime tenant and give them just about everything they want...

...except for a cash subsidy.

Apparently, however, the York family and the 49ers front office still believe that Santa Clara can be squeezed for a massive payment of corporate welfare in the amount of $160 million - which San Francisco itself has refused to pay. That is the real reason why the team's accountants and financial advisors continue to put our City at the top of its list.

While any subsidy is under consideration, that 'list' is a hit list. Because of that, we at Santa Clara Plays Fair feel that Santa Clarans should beware of the results of Tuesday's election - good news that failed to affect the stated plans of the San Francisco 49ers.

Why is that, we wonder?


-Bill Bailey

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Feasibility Study indicates $111 million impact to the General Fund

The numbers are in, and the proposed stadium subsidy adds up to be a big fat loser for the city of Santa Clara. The city's General Fund would lose $111 million in cash, lost revenues and opportunity costs. To see where all that money goes, check out this presentation.

You will see that NFL events will provide no financial benefits to the city. In fact, in this proposal, the City would have to subsidize NFL events with revenue from non-NFL events. Rather than enriching a for-profit enterprise, let's focus on the needs of real Santa Clarans.

We can do better than this. We must do better than this.