Thursday, December 31, 2009

49ers Stadium: A Santa Claran speaks on the so-called "Citizens' Initiative"...

"I had a strange experience while entering Lucky's (Saratoga and San Tomas Expwy) on Monday - a young guy standing outside was trying to get signatures on a petition relating to the Stadium. I naturally assumed it was the "Santa Clarans for Economic Progress" (aka the 49ers) so I talked to him a bit. He spouted what I thought was pure misinformation, namely: "the Santa Clara City Council has decided to rescind their support of a vote on the stadium and instead just wants to go ahead with the stadium. By signing this petition you will be restoring our right to vote on the stadium." This seemed to imply that if I was *against* the stadium (which I am), it would be a good idea to sign the petition. I did not sign the petition, because I believe it does an end-run around the EIR, but I did hear him state that the City Council, except one dissenting member, had decided they no longer wanted a citizens' vote. I went into Lucky's briefly and when I came out he was gone (or perhaps at the other entrance), which was too bad because I hadn't actually looked at the petition ... which would have allowed be to confirm which petition it was.
This guy was fairly young, and perhaps he was getting paid for each signature he collected, but he sure mangled the information he gave ... I could easily see some Lucky's shoppers saying "Yeah sure, whatever, kid ... can't hurt to sign it if it allows me to vote on the stadium."


That's from a Santa Claran who saw the 49ers' very own paid signature gatherers in action this last weekend.

The 49ers' claim that their so-called "citizens' initiative" somehow 'restores' our right to vote is simply an outright FALSEHOOD. We already had the right to vote with the City Council's own measure - and the 49ers along with their paid name-getters know this very well.

Sure, it's a free country: The 49ers can do this - even though we all know that its only purpose is to keep them from being held to account for their "Do-nothing-EIR".

After all, their "initiative" is identical to the Council's own measure (they promised), and also binding (they promised) - so there's no reason why we can't vote on the Council measure instead of on the 49ers initiative on June 8th.

Is there?


It also looks like the shoe is finally on the other foot: When, in 1997, a real citizens group tried to challenge the original San Francisco stadium measures from that year, the 49ers sued the Registrar of Voters in S.F. to halt that petition drive:


Regardless of the merits of "49ers v. Nishioka": It might just behoove the San Francisco 49ers to adhere to the same standards here in our city to which they held San Franciscans twelve years ago.

With that, I would like to call upon Santa Clarans to please drop us a line:

Tell us of your own experiences with this so-called "citizens' initiative" petition, and of claims made by any of the 49ers' name-getters.

Those claims won't be hard to debunk.

The 49ers are welcome to do what they're doing - but after the Confidentiality Agreement, the hijacking of Senate Bill 43 and now this "49ers initiative", they've earned themselves a lot of scrutiny.

---------------------------------------
And now, a postscript:

"BTW - my wife just told me the exact same thing happened to her at Save Mart on El Camino last night. She actually signed the petition because she was told she was protecting her right to vote, although she is strongly against the stadium ! These folks are underhanded."

Enough said.



Thanks again for your support!
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-


Friday, December 11, 2009

49ers Stadium: THAT ballot measure?

Dear Santa Clarans,


The 49ers' "We're-writing-our-own" ballot measure arrived at the City Clerk's office earlier this morning. This is only the "intent-to-file" stage - but there's enough in it, we feel, to be of serious concern to Santa Clara's voters. By the numbers:

Section 2.A.1 Generate new revenues for Santa Clara?

  • The pathetic Fixed Ground Rent of $8M (TOTAL! Over 40 years!) comes nowhere close to covering the $67,000,000 General Fund LOSS that the stadium will cause. (Ref. 1)
  • It will certainly never make up for the upfront stadium subsidy of $114,000,000. (Ref 2)

Section 2.A.2. Create New Jobs?:
  • The last construction worker will walk off the job in the year 2014 - but we'll be paying interest and coupon for that poor job creation through the year 2053. For the money "in", the job creation "out" is miserable.

Section 2.A.3. Provide Taxpayer Protections?:
  • We really don't think so. How does squandering $114,000,000 in "corporate welfare" to the 49ers really 'protect taxpayers'? How does a $67,000,000 LOSS to the General Fund 'protect taxpayers'?

Section 2.A.4. Generate Community Funding?:
  • The Stadium Subsidizers are giving you only half of the "schools story". The TRUE story is: The City, the County and the Santa Clara Valley Water District LOSE $17.3 million in order to generate that "schools funding." (Ref. 3)
  • Bad stadium funding scheme = bad schools funding scheme. Unfortunately, that's the "New Math."

If some "plan" to subsidize a $1,000,000,000 NFL stadium requires your RDA to stop paying your General Fund what it owes, then that stadium DOES rip off your General Fund.

Registered voters in the City of Santa Clara: You'll be asked in the coming months for your signature on petitions barely originated by Santa Clarans - but surely paid for by the San Francisco 49ers themselves.

Santa Clara Plays Fair asks only this of our fellow Santa Clarans: Please consider who's really behind this "initiative" - and who's really paying for it. Urge your neighbors to be skeptical, too. Don't settle for hazy claims and glib promises - the four bullets above should make clear what this "49ers-own" ballot measure is really all about.

And please bear in mind that this measure has been thrust at us for one reason only: To prevent any legal challenges to the badly deficient Environmental Impact Report, or EIR, that came before the Planning Commission on November 18th and before the City Council on December 8th.

That EIR certainly isn't going to be in any better shape by the time we finally see some sort of "project" some eight or nine months from now.



Thanks for your support, and best regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-
============================
Ref. 1: CITY COUNCIL - City Staff's Term Sheet Presentation, 6/2/2009 (SLIDE #48)

Ref. 2: CITY COUNCIL - Term Sheet, Exhibit 7, 6/2/2009

Ref. 3: CITY COUNCIL - Agenda Report on Tax Benefits, 6/2/2009 (Page 5)
============================

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

49ers Stadium: Vote on June 8, 2010 - on WHOSE ballot measure?

Dear Santa Clarans,


We'll be voting on something on June 8th, 2010.

But we're not quite sure what. Just when the City Council went forward to direct that a measure be placed on the June Primary ballot for next year - a "citizen's group" stands up to tell us that they're preparing an initiative also.

Why not let the City Council do their work for them?

Well, after spending four hours assuring us that the EIR process was clean and that CEQA was being obeyed - stadium proponents readily admit that the reason for their initiative is to exempt the entire project from any court challenges.

That is: Court challenges associated with the faults in the environmental review process they claim aren't really there.

In fact, the Stadium Subsidizers were even honest about one other thing: They freely admitted that the San Francisco 49ers will be paying for their petition signature gatherers.

This should be cause for great concern: A group of individuals - spending lots of 49ers money - paying lip service to the notions of a fair and transparent process, but all the while, seeking to undermine it by any means necessary. Who's really behind it?

And who's really paying for it?


I'd like to offer special thanks to Santa Clarans who stayed late tonight in Chambers, and spoke up. You challenged not only the certification of an EIR-that-ain't, but you also drew bold lines under what the 49ers are really doing to the process. Thank you.



Sincerely,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-


Monday, November 30, 2009

49ers Stadium: "We don't have the money"...

Dear Santa Clarans:


I'll put that title in its context right away: When Mayor Mahan spoke those words in the City Council Meeting of last Tuesday evening, November 24th, she was referring to a proposed $60,000-per-year athletic trainer for the Senior Center.

First, she's probably right: We really don't have the money.

Let's compare two outflows from our City's General Fund: The $60K-per-year salary for a trainer to help Santa Clara Seniors stay fit & healthy versus the ongoing cost of building & operating an NFL stadium merely to increase the San Francisco 49ers' own profitability
*.

For the proposed stadium's $67,000,000 hit to the General Fund
**, you could hire a few trainers, fully staff a Northside Library & extend the hours at the Mission Reading Room -- all while reducing the City's operating deficit.

Why are we being asked to pay an astronomical $114M subsidy simply for the opportunity to gut our city's key services? Not only is the city operating under a hiring freeze - our General Fund will be suffering deficits of $8M to $13M through 2015.

I
t's true: We really don't have the money.



Thanks for your all of your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-
========================
* When I used the same discount rate and terms shown in Exhibit 7 of the Term Sheet, the cost of the salary of that Senior Center trainer over the 40-year stadium lease came to about ONE SIXTIETH - yes, that's 1/60th - of what a subsidized 49ers stadium will cost our General Fund (Net Present Value in 2009 dollars.).

** See Slide #48 in the City Staff Term Sheet Presentation of June 2.


Wednesday, November 18, 2009

49ers Stadium: The Planning Commission Punts

Santa Clarans,


The City Planning Commission voted 7-0 this evening to send the stadium's Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - as insufficient as it is - to the City Council.

However, they did so only after dismantling a Staff-written resolution in order to include their own concerns - namely, the near-total lack of mitigation of the stadium's negative impacts.

I'm a newcomer to the proceedings of the Planning Commission, and I was at first disappointed that an FEIR this bad ever went forward at all. But a long-time observer of the Commission suggested that I consider it "half a loaf." Now, at least, the lack of environmental mitigation is on the record.

The Commission's job wasn't an easy one. The timestamp on the FEIR I opened up early this morning read "November 13th", so
this Commission - and we residents - had about five days to digest 368 more pages of revisions, comments and responses. At 4,400-some pages, I'm told that our EIR is way longer than the one San Francisco wrote for Hunters Point.

However, the Planning Commission correctly noted that they were dealing with an EIR - not with a project. The slick artist's rendition of a stadium on the display screen in Chambers this evening suggests that this distinction may have been lost on the platoon of 49ers representatives who were present - but in the end, the Commission put this on the right track.

Anyway: It's one thing to pass the EIR forward with a stripped-down resolution to Council. After that, as residents, however, we're really relying on the Planning Commission to take a hard look at how much damage this publicly-subidized stadium does to our community, especially north of U.S. 101 - and how little the 49ers are doing to fix that.

If this actually ends up as a project - let it receive more scrutiny than its EIR has.

The City Council, apparently, was determined to rush this defective proposal through the Commission so that they could take it up in regular session on Tuesday evening, December 8th. It looks like your Council got what it wanted - no matter how unfairly they treated the Planning Commission on this matter.

Santa Clara Plays Fair encourages all residents to contribute to the debate on D
ecember 8th - particularly those residents who would end up in the shadow of a publicly-subsidized stadium.

Thanks - especially - to concerned residents who spoke before the Planning Commission this evening.

In fact, I noted that Santa Clarans speaking in opposition to the subsidized stadium actually outnumbered Santa Clarans in favor - a very positive development.



Best regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-
Ref.: http://santaclaraca.gov/index.aspx?page=1197 (First link; 8.74MB)

Monday, November 16, 2009

49ers Stadium: Rushing the Planning Commission

Dear Santa Clarans,


How is the work of the Planning Commission really advanced by a presentation on the Term Sheet of June 2nd? And by a showing of the 49ers stadium video last presented on July 14th? It's hard to describe this evening's Study Session in any other way.

Still, though, it was possible to correct some of the erroneous information still being disseminated by both the 49ers and stadium supporters in general - and to get some fine points from the Term Sheet out there for all to see.

For example:

1. Contrary to the claims of stadium supporters: The stadium DOES raid the City's General Fund of some $67 million over 40 years. (Slide #48). This occurs because of the SB 211 amendment to the RDA's authorization, as well as because of the abrogation of the Cooperation Agreement with the City. So much for the Guiding Principle of "integrity of City funds."

2. Thanks to one Planning Commissioner for reminding everyone of this: Neither the City,
nor the RDA, nor the Stadium Authority itself, has any power to demand a second NFL team in Santa Clara - the right of sublease to any second NFL team is reserved by the Term Sheet STRICTLY to the 49ers alone. (Page 24, Section 16.1). It's one more area in which we've lost control over a stadium we were told would be "ours" - even though that second team would improve the financial impact of the stadium on our city from 'lousy' to just 'bad.'

3. My favorite: Like a bad rash, the highly dubious claim of 26% mass transit utilization for a Santa Clara stadium (Page 175, Section 4.8.4.3) is still being spread around - even though the 49ers themselves told the Hunters Point developers and planners that they'd never achieve that figure in San Francisco,
and even though Candlestick Park has an actual mass transit usage rate of less than 18.5%.

But our appreciation goes also to the Planning Commissioner who questioned whether the entire EIR could be fully read and understood in time to make a decision on Wednesday evening.

He's entitled to have some misgivings. The EIR runs to about 4,050 pages and takes up 120 MB on disk. And that's not even counting the public comments and additional data that have been received since this process began.

Which begs the question: This EIR has been out there for everyone's inspection since July 30th. Did the City make any effort to get this review process started by Commissioners at that time?

Or was the real purpose of this evening's presentations simply to rush the Planning Commission into rubber-stamping a highly-defective stadium project which contributes neither financially nor environmentally to the future of this City?

Santa Clara Plays Fair urges Planning Commissioners -
as City Commissioners and as Santa Clarans - to ask hard questions, both about the $114 MILLION subsidy as well as the total lack of environmental mitigation (Section 4.8.5, Page 204, top) being offered by the Environmental Impact Report which will come before them on Wednesday evening.

We're not in that big a hurry.

The City Council shouldn't be, either.



Thanks to everyone who attended and spoke at the study session this evening, and best regards,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

49ers Stadium and SB 43: The Anatomy of a Hijacking - 2

Dear Santa Clarans,


Unfortunately, your City Council decided last night by a vote of 5-2 that voting on changes to your City's Charter is not for you.

Instead, a "Santa Clara Stadium Authority" - identically this City Council, and acting by itself - will exempt the San Francisco 49ers from the competitive bidding requirements of our City's Charter.

What the 49ers apparently learned during some of their "push-polling" of Santa Clara residents is that two ballot measures - one for the $114 million subsidy and one to exempt the 49ers from obeying the Charter - are somehow....um....well....too "confusing" for us to handle.

Whereupon, one public speaker and one Councilman informed us, in the same breath, that it was OK to deny us voters a Charter vote - but that the voters were still intelligent enough to make the call on the stadium.

So, which is it? If we're smart enough to decide on a massive subsidy for an NFL stadium - and we are - we can certainly decide whether or not the 49ers are required to obey our City's Charter as any other applicant would.

As you can imagine, the rationalizations were flying thick and fast in Tuesday's City Council meeting.

However, there's that inconvenient truth that the Stadium Spenders cannot evade: If the 49ers would build their own stadium with their own money, the City's Charter would never have applied - and none of th
e subterfuge we've witnessed since June 23rd would ever have been necessary.

I'd like to thank the members of Santa Clara Plays Fair who contacted us this last week, and of course, those who stood up
in Chambers on Tuesday to speak against our City Council invoking SB 43. Your support of one another and of the group was sincerely appreciated.


Best regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

Monday, October 12, 2009

49ers Stadium and SB 43: The Anatomy of a Hijacking - 1

Hello to all Santa Clarans,


A Staffer in the office of Gov. Schwarzenegger informed me early this morning that SB 43 has been signed into law, unfortunately.

I don't know about you, but I don't give my votes to a Mayor or to Councilmembers with the expectation that they're going to drive to Sacramento and ask State Lawmakers to deny voters the right to vote on our own City Charter.

But that's exactly what happened on July 8th and September 9th.

The upshot of all of this: The 49ers are demanding a $114 million dollar subsidy for their stadium - and with this rather compliant City Council relying on SB 43, the 49ers will almost certainly have the power to spend that public money in violation of our City's Charter.

If there is to be an exception to the Charter of the City of Santa Clara - benefiting ONE millionaire NFL team owner and giving him his OWN one-billion-dollar football stadium - then we Santa Clarans are entitled to vote on whether or not he's entitled to that exception.

But it looks like that vote will in all likelihood be denied us.

The recommendation of the Charter Review Committee concerning SB 43 will be an Agenda Item at the City Council Meeting to be held on October 27. As residents, ratepayers and taxpayers, we're entitled to attend and to make our views known to the City Council. I encourage all Santa Clarans to be there, and that they urge this City Council NOT to invoke SB 43. This law clearly benefits only the San Francisco 49ers - not us.

Instead, the City Council should be putting the "49ers City Charter Carve-out" on the ballot right alongside of the "49ers $114M Stadium Subsidy" itself.

Santa Clarans are entitled to BOTH votes. The 49ers and the City Council know that.

A special thanks to all of you for expressing your views
to Sacramento on SB 43.



Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

Monday, August 17, 2009

49ers Stadium: Draft EIR, Pt. 4 - Mass Transit and Sandbagging the Numbers...

UPDATE, September 12th: Good news! -- The deadline for public comment on the Draft EIR has been extended from Monday, September 14th to Monday, September 28th:

http://santaclaraca.gov/pdf/collateral/49ers-20090911-Notice-time-extension-for-DEIR-comment-period.pdf

If you possibly can, please comment
on the DEIR per the instructions in the link above. To get started, check the four posts below, "Draft EIR" - and contact any of us if you have any questions.

--Bill Bailey

= =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Recall
that San Franciscans voted on June 3, 2008, to give full permission for the Hunters Point development to go forward. That development makes a new stadium for the San Francisco 49ers the centerpiece development on a site of 638 acres - in San Francisco - and it gives the 49ers everything they asked for - except for the hundred-million-dollar public cash subsidy they're still demanding from Santa Clarans...


Last week, I spoke with someone familiar with the negotiations over the Hunters Point development in San Francisco.

The mass transit utilization figures for the 49ers stadium at Hunters Point came up in discussions with the MTA - and the 49ers told the MTA people that they didn't believe that MTA could achieve a 20-25% utilization of mass transit at Hunters Point!

Not only that: A survey of transit modes for Candlestick Park over the interval 2002 through 2007 showed a mass-transit utilization of only 18.5%.

O.K., time out:

The 49ers are happy to see us assume a 26% mass transit usage figure here in Santa Clara - but when San Francisco's MTA proposes nearly the very same number for Hunters Point, the team's representatives feign skepticism?

This kind of inconsistency should be setting off a lot of alarm bells, and it should make Santa Clarans deeply suspicious of exactly what went into our own Draft EIR. Sandbagging the mass transit estimates for Hunters Point and inflating those numbers for Santa Clara merely allows stadium supporters to ignore a potential traffic nightmare - affecting homeowners as well as businesses - until it's too late to do anything about it.

We shouldn't be doing business like that.

Santa Clarans, you have until Monday, September 14th, to comment on the Draft EIR, and Santa Clara Plays Fair would like to urge you to speak up:

http://santaclaraca.gov/ftp/csc/pdf/49er-Stadium-DEIR/49er-Stadium-DEIR-NOA.pdf


If you have any questions about the DEIR, or if you need background information for any comments you'd like to submit, please contact us any time.

We'll help in any way we can.



Thanks for all of your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

49ers Stadium: Draft EIR, Pt. 3 - Mass Transit

Dear Santa Clarans,


The Draft EIR presumes a 26% usage of mass transit for 49ers game day traffic (See pp. 175-6, Section "
4.8.2.3 Existing Transit Service").

Quick. By a show of hands: Do you believe that number?

One of the ways to rationalize the figure you like is to work backward - not only from the total number of seats in the stadium you want - but also with an eye on the stadium with which your own will be compared.

That's Candlestick Park, of course. As you can imagine, any mass transit utilization significantly lower than San Francisco's on 49ers game days pushes your number of auto trips up.

You can't afford that perception.

This concern isn't new - it was raised as a significant objection by several speakers at the original EIR scoping sessions moderated by City Planning Department Staff back on September 2, 2008. This writer was one of them. Very few people believed the "
one-quarter-will-ride-the-bus" claim even then.

That's why it's a little disconcerting to find it yet unchallenged by the consultants who produced this section of the Draft EIR almost eleven months later.

See "Table 15" on page 176, and note that the occupancy is estimated at 2.7 persons per vehicle.

If we were truly to see that in practice, fine - but the price of being wrong will be yet another unsustainable increase in the vehicular 49ers traffic described in the previous blog post. If the seventeen Northside intersections serving those vehibles are already completely degraded to Level E and Level F already, then for any miscalculation in the mass transit figure, we'll have to invent a whole new Level of Service (LOS) for those intersections: Level G, for "Gummed up".

And it will take only an incremental increase in private vehicles to cause that kind of bedlam.

Considering that the Draft EIR's explicit "mitigation" of that jammed traffic is in fact NO mitigation at all, we're running a real risk if we uncritically accept numbers such as the ones in the report.

To their credit, the authors were quite honest about the fact that no firm commitments for game-day service were made by any transit agencies. With the extremely difficult fiscal state both of our County government as well of of our VTA, this should not be in the least surprising.

Forty-Niners transit service may yet be implemented in the fashion dreamed of in the Draft EIR - but we may be assured that it will be subsidized by County residents far less than we Santa Clarans are expected to subsidize the stadium. If riders find themselves using such a service, they will probably be covering as much of its cost as the VTA feels that they can bear.

To close, I'd like to offer a rather stark thought exercise. It should make us challenge any overly-optimistic figures for bus, light-rail, (and even chartered-coach) usage figures - and it goes like this:

Are the people who can afford $3,000.00 to $6,000.00 for a Personal Seat License in a one-billion-dollar NFL stadium really the ones you're going to see on the 57 bus?




Thank you for your continued support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

Thursday, August 6, 2009

49ers Stadium: Why are we Subsidizing the Training Center?

Dear Santa Clarans:


The real truth about Santa Clara's "sweetheart deal" and longstanding subsidy of the 49ers Training Center on Centennial Way has been out there for all to see. But it was sharply underscored in Council comments before the Term Sheet vote in Chambers on June 2nd.

Here's the deal: If you had a chance to secure a 99-year lease on 11 acres of prime Silicon Valley real estate and still pay only $25,000 a year for those 11 acres even after some twenty years, you'd be foolish not to take advantage of any city government foolish enough to offer it. That's what the San Francisco 49ers took from our city over twenty years ago.

The Hyatt Hotel, just up the street, pays $1,465,982 a year for only 1.8 acres:
 

http://santaclaraca.gov/ftp/csc/pdf/49ers-20090602-List-of-Maj-Ground-Leases.pdf 

The fact that the Hyatt pays 350 times what the 49ers are paying per acre per year is disgraceful, especially in view of the profits earned by the 49ers.

What would be almost comical if it weren't so costly to the city: Stadium proponents are actually selling the stadium as some kind of boost to hotel and tourism in Santa Clara - even though the consultants' presentations of June 23 themselves showed those returns to be mere peanuts:


http://www.santaclaraca.gov/ftp/csc/pdf/49ers-CSL-Synergy.pdf


But there was a more insulting aspect to this total giveaway of the lands under the 49ers Training Center - and I'll simply let the speaker say it in his own words:

"If for some reason we are not able to move forward with our plan in Santa Clara, then there is no guarantee that the training facility will remain at this location."

That's Jed York himself quoted in yesterday's Mercury News - and we heard similar threats over a year ago when the 49ers didn't find our City Council to be deferential enough to the team's completely unreasonable demands.

Frankly, this resident, ratepayer and taxpayer would be pleased if the city would again take rightful control over those 11 acres of land. We could then negotiate a new lease with a new tenant paying Santa Clara far more than what the 49ers are paying us today.


The embarrassing terms of the current Training Center lease are only a subtext to the issue of the stadium subsidy itself - and it reveals what the short-sightedness on these issues will ultimately cost every Santa Claran.

Both subsidies should be halted at once. Please let the Mayor and the City Council know how you feel on this issue:


MayorAndCouncil@santaclaraca.gov 



Thank you for your support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

Saturday, August 1, 2009

49ers Stadium: Draft EIR, Pt. 2 - Street Closures

To Santa Clarans, and to Santa Clarans who work along Tasman Drive:


It sure took us quite a few years to finally get Tasman Drive to fully connect Sunnyvale and Milpitas. Linking technology businesses north of U.S. 101 with their suppliers, employees and customers is a major achievement - and in fact, that one boulevard could be considered a major contributor to the productivity of the people that work along it.

But after all that it took to get that major artery done: We just learned from the 49ers' architect in the July 14th City Council Meeting that,
as a result of 49ers game-day traffic congestion, Tasman Drive is going to be CLOSED to traffic from Centennial Way westward to the hotel, Convention Center and Great America entrances.

I guess that's what we call "mitigation".

Sure enough, this closure was finally revealed fully in the Draft EIR (main memo), . If you want to see this graphically, please turn to page 186 in the report and examine, "
Planned Road Closures and Intersection Control" / "Figure 61".

It's not convenient for stadium supporters to acknowledge it: But this is a productivity hit for the very technology businesses that often rely on the ability of their employees to reach their workplaces well outside the usual nine-to-five window. It's part of the way we work here in the Valley - and it's the way we produce. It doesn't matter that it's on 49ers game days - it shouldn't be happening at all.

It's the last kind of economic activity that should be in any way hindered by a football game, of all things.

As if that weren't enough: The Draft EIR (main memo), same map, also made clear the real impact of 49ers traffic on the residents of the Agnew neighborhood. If you live in Zip Code 95054, note that
as a result of 49ers game-day traffic congestion, Agnew Road will be CLOSED to through traffic from Lafayette Street to Mission College Boulevard.

Also, seven checkpoints along Lafayette Street will control access to residential areas eastward of the Agnew area.

Be prepared to show your Driver's License to enter or leave your own streets on 49ers game days and major-event days.

In sum: It's simply disingenuous of the "stadium spenders" to tell us that the infrastructure we have is just "ready-made" for an NFL stadium -
and in the next breath, to tell us that we're going to pay $114 million in subsidies so that a major thoroughfare serving far more productive and beneficial businesses will be completely blocked anytime the 49ers are playing.




Thanks for your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-


49ers Stadium: Draft EIR, Pt. 1 - Traffic

Dear Santa Clarans,


The Draft EIR for a publicly-subsidized 49ers stadium was released on Thursday morning, and of course, it runs to many hundreds of pages. But it's certainly worth opening up the exhibits to see in detail the environmental degradation caused by an NFL stadium - especially a stadium our leaders intend to subsidize with hundreds of millions of dollars in public cash and in sums guaranteed by Santa Clara agencies:

http://santaclaraca.gov/index.aspx?page=1546


The traffic problems
alone should give anyone, especially Santa Clarans living - and working - north of U.S. 101, reason for great concern. The main memo is a rather plump 373 pages, but it's worth it:

http://santaclaraca.gov/ftp/csc/pdf/49er-stadium-DEIR/49er-Stadium-DEIR-Text.pdf

I urge all of those interested to load it up anyway! Stop by the kitchen for a cup of joe, and then examine the charts, tables and conclusions you'll find in the document above. From here on, I'll reference
page numbers at the bottom of each page plus the titles, which will make the city's own data easier to find:

Page 203, "
4.8.4.6: Summary of Significant Traffic and Transportation Impacts" - An NFL stadium will cause significant adverse impacts at SEVENTEEN traffic intersections near the stadium.

Traffic control for this massive flood of cars will be provided by a multi-city police force of some 160 officers. "Adverse impact" is measured by intersection Level of Service, or LOS, which is measured in seconds of delay per vehicle. Those delay times will increase anywhere from two to five times as a direct result of 49ers traffic, with Level A being the fastest travel and Level F the slowest and most congested.

The
49ers traffic degrades all seventeen intersections to Levels E or F - and that's real traffic congestion.

Also, the authors try mightily to sever the impacts of Sunday NFL games from the impacts of weekday games - but 20,364 vehicular trips are 20,364, no matter what day of the week they're on. See Table 15 on page 176 for a very good summary.

As a result, I'm simply not buying the claim that NFL events will cause impacts that severe on a mere four days a year. It should be pretty clear that those days of congestion will be the rule for all NFL events and for all of the other major events which attempt to "fill" a stadium.

There's a word you're going to hear misused frequently when stadium supporters try to rationalize some of the real environmental problems caused by an NFL stadium, and that word is "
mitigation". But note from report page 203, near the top, "The project does not, therefore, propose to implement any of the physical improvements described below."

Apparently, that means that we're going to "
mitigate" the worst kind of traffic jams on Northside intersections by simply putting police officers in the middle of them - paid for by a Santa Clara Stadium Authority, yet to be formed.

In sum: From the standpoint of the traffic congestion alone, Santa Clarans are entitled to ask why we're settling for such degradation in the quality of life in our city's northern neighborhoods
- and why we're paying $114 million in public funds for the privilege.



Thanks for all of your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-


Thursday, July 9, 2009

49ers Stadium: Santa Clarans Testify AGAINST SB 43 in Sacramento!

Santa Clarans,

I can't do better than this eyewitness account of yesterday's hearing of the State Assembly's Committee on Local Government.

Please hear what Erlinda Estrada and her husband, John Hogle, SCPF Members, learned when they drove to Sacramento and spoke before that Committee AGAINST SB 43:


"John & I had a grand old time today. The Assembly Committee on Local Government voted 5-2 to allow SB43 to go forward, pending amendments, to the Assembly floor. Some members of the Committee wanted a number of changes before the bill proceeds further.

"Committee Chair Caballero said that she wanted the language revised to ensure that a process is in place to ensure the citizens of Santa Clara can weigh in on whether this "design/build" process is appropriate for the city. Two voted against it moving forward, Duval and Knight. Among their reservations were 1) it was a local issue and should be decided locally 2) they felt voters should have their voices heard in a charter change and 3) Knight even wondered why, if it's such a good deal, the 49ers didn't just build it without city help

"Senator Elaine Alquist, author of the bill, also had thrown in some other amendments at the last possible moment, including something about highways. That seemed to rub several committee members the wrong way and they wanted her to basically "clean up" the bill.

"Those who spoke in favor of the bill: Mayor Patricia Mahan and Councilmember Kevin Moore (both supposedly speaking for themselves, not in their official capacity); Lyle Hannigan (sp? 49ers); Danny Curtin representing carpenters; someone from the Building and Trades Council. Engineer Mark Smith noted that his group (ACEC) had reservations about the bill's variance from the state's current design/build requirements.

"Those opposing the bill: a very eloquent Jamie McLeod; Ciaran O'Donnell; John Hogle; and I.

"We all spoke about how this seemed to be an attempt to circumvent the Charter review process and amend the Charter without a vote of Santa Clarans. Both John and I pointed out how we were blind-sided by this bill and how it was a "stealth" move on the part of Alquist (I noted how the only thing about this bill posted on Alquist's web site was posted at 5:30 pm Tuesday, July 7th). The Committee did seem receptive to us and seemed impressed that citizens showed up at all.

"I think this whole affair shows the residents of Santa Clara how little the Council trusts us or even thinks of us in their pursuit of this stadium."


I can only agree with that last paragraph.

Santa Clarans, thanks to all for your continued support.


Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-


Tuesday, July 7, 2009

49ers Stadium: Looks Like They Don't Trust Us, After All...

Santa Clarans, it was good to meet as many of you as we did in Central Park on Saturday before the fireworks display.

But it looks like it might just be time for a different kind of fireworks: We just learned that a hijacked State Senate Bill, with its original language completely deleted,
now allows Sacramento to determine that a stadium subsidy of $114 MILLION is what's "right" for Santa Clara - and that a stadium can be constructed with a sole-source contract in violation of City ordinances.

The bill is SB 43, and it was originally written by Sen. Elaine Alquist, SD-13, to make changes to the Business and Professions Code.

But only days ago, the bill was routed into the State Assembly, and the name of a new author was appended: The Assembly Majority Leader, Assy. Alberto Torrico, AD-20. The original language on "health professionals" was completely scrapped. In place of that, we now see language which tells ONLY Santa Clarans that a stadium subsidy is in their best interests, and that ONLY the San Francisco 49ers will be allowed to build that stadium with a sole-source construction contract - while spending $114 MILLION of our money.

So, a hijacked Senate Bill now hijacks the rights of Santa Clarans to enforce their own City Charter? Because Sacramento has decided that a subsidized NFL stadium is "good" for us?

And this breathtaking usurpation of our City's own ordinances? It comes from a State Legislature which has proven itself utterly unable to work with the Governor to fix a completely out-of-control fiscal disaster at State Level.

This State Legislature is competent to tell Santa Clarans that they need to waste $114 MILLION in subsidies on an NFL stadium which benefits only the San Francisco 49ers?

Santa Clara Plays Fair urges all Santa Clarans to tell this City Council - and the San Francisco 49ers - that they are completely out of line if they support SB 43 in any way. Please visit this link, and register your objections:

http://santaclaraca.gov/about_us/email-us.aspx?MayorandCouncil

We take pains to note: It was this very City Council - and this very management of the 49ers - that promised us that our voices would be heard and that the process for a stadium would be a public and open one.

If so, then why was it necessary to work out a back-room deal for a State measure which violates the lawful ordinances of a Chartered City?

Don't the San Francisco 49ers trust us to do what's right?



Thanks for all of your support and best regards,
Bill Bailey
Treasurer

-=0=-

The actual language of SB 43 is here:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_43_bill_20090630_amended_asm_v96.html

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

49ers Stadium: Joint Session, June 2nd

We'd like to thank our neighbors, our members, and every concerned Santa Claran who took time on Tuesday evening, June 2, to comment publicly on the Stadium Term Sheet.

Regrettably, the "proceed" option was approved, and by a vote of 5-2. But we encourage Santa Clarans to keep speaking out on this issue - loudly and repeatedly.

At the meeting, this writer heard Jed York tell an interviewer that the only way a stadium deal works is by a public-private partnership.

I could not disagree more. The financing for an NFL stadium in Santa Clara still includes a demand for a handout. And if our technology companies in our city do well without a handout, so can the San Francisco 49ers.

The handout, in this case, is for a stadium which will gives us only 500 jobs paying less than $35,000 a year.

The next step in the process: Preparing the Disposition and Development Agreement and finishing the EIR.

The final step (maybe) is the vote of Santa Clarans, probably in March of 2010.

We're certainly aware that the details of the stadium financing in Santa Clara are complex - which may just be the way "stadium subsidizers" like it.

But if there are any questions that residents have, any of us at Santa Clara Plays Fair will be happy to share what we learned while we spent a weekend and most of a Monday reading and re-reading the many pages of supporting material for the Term Sheet.

Please post comments, email us at the addresses on the home site, or telephone us at 1(877)703-4300.



Thanks for all of your encouragement and support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

49ers Stadium: Can it be? A Term Sheet?


At last. Maybe.

After two years of secrecy, SIXTY-EIGHT closed-session meetings and $1.1 MILLION of RDA money spent on consultants' fees: Your City Council has set a date for a public session so that we can finally see the 49ers' stadium "term sheet".

This public session will be held on Tuesday evening, June 2, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers.

Santa Clara Plays Fair urges as many residents as can possibly attend to be there - and that they make themselves heard.

Now, actual dollar figures will be scarce until the Agenda for this meeting appears on the City Clerk's Agenda webpage, probably on Friday evening, May 29th. However, there is a dollar figure that SCPF urges Santa Clarans to insist upon:

$0.00.

That means, "NO SUBSIDY". But last evening, it became abundantly clear even from the limited information that City Council was willing to share that
they still insist upon spending public money, probably close to ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS, to subsidize an NFL stadium costing a cool BILLION.

That is just plain wrong - especially considering the economic turmoil in which we now find ourselves and our City. We highly recommend that all Santa Clarans speak out, and that they reject this subsidy out of hand - loudly, often and in Chambers on June the 2nd.

Is it unrealistic to insist upon the "zero dollar" figure above? Not at all. One need examine only the funding of the Meadowlands Stadium for two other NFL teams, the New York Jets and Giants. The two teams secured
100% private financing, with the NFL chipping in. Total cost? $1.6 Billion - 60% MORE than the subsidized stadium being forced upon Santa Clara.

And the Meadowlands' public subsidy?:

$0.00.

There is absolutely no reason why that cannot be done here - and both our City Council and the San Francisco 49ers know that.



Thanks for all of your support,

Bill Bailey
Treasurer



Sunday, February 8, 2009

49ers Stadium: Al Davis - The Devil You DO Know...

Last week, the commercial press gushed all over the millionaire Yorks coupling with the millionaire Al Davis on a joint 49ers-Raiders stadium. The budget disaster in Sacramento finally pushed it off the front page. But it's still worth looking at - hard:

First: How does a joint stadium eliminate the massive subsidy being demanded by the 49ers? Sorry, but if two multi-millionaire NFL team owners can build a joint venue, then all public subsidies should definitely be off the table. These two team owners - and not our RDA - should be covering the construction and the annual operating costs of any stadium. The silence of the press on this issue poorly serves Santa Clara and Santa Clarans.

Second: Why did Al Davis spend close to 27 years suing nearly all of his major partners? In 1980, Al Davis sued his own League to get out of Oakland. In 1995, he sued them and Oakland/Alameda County over his return there. In July of 2007, the last such legal action - again blaming the NFL for the fiasco in Oakland twelve years earlier - was finally tossed out of court. John Ryan of the Mercury News wondered: When do the costs of Mr. Davis' lawsuits exceed the total price of an NFL stadium?

Not funny.

This "shotgun stadium"
is the second time NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has interceded in the badly-flawed stadium gamble - while managing barely to mention our city by name. (See below.)

This time, Commissioner Goodell isn't simply demanding that the San Francisco 49ers make Al Davis a partner. Without coming right out and saying it:
He's really demanding that WE Santa Clarans make Al Davis a partner.

Talk about the Devil we
do know: Imagine Al Davis ever agreeing (1) to share equal responsibility for a billion-dollar stadium, (2) to pay our General Fund a rightful Ground Lease - or even (3) to sign a lease lasting as long as the massive indebtedness that both teams are demanding of our RDA. That's until the year 2026.

Preposterous.

Conclusion: Stadium supporters should stop wasting our time with distractions such as this one. It's time that they told Santa Clarans - honestly - what they're really demanding:
Public subsidies amounting to scores of millions of dollars.



Thanks for your support,

Bill Bailey
Treasurer

(Click here for more than you really wanted to know about our new "stadium partners".)

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

49ers Stadium: Other People's Money

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell's recent visit to Oakland was reported by the San Francisco Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/15/SPDL14O310.DTL


When asked about concerns that either the 49ers or the Raiders would move to Los Angeles, Commissioner Goodell dodged the question - but he also inadvertently gave a pretty clear idea about the agenda of millionaire sports team owners in general:

"We're worried about the California market in general. If you look at our stadium situations - San Diego is trying to address (its) stadium situation, San Francisco, the Oakland Raiders ... I think collectively we have to try to address these matters on a statewide level as well as in the local communities," Goodell said.

What's "statewide" got to do with it? Don't outrageously-priced stadiums "serve" localities rather than State residents?

Californians, and not just Santa Clarans, may want to prepare themselves. As more and more communities challenge that old orthodoxy about high-priced athletic stadiums being "good for business", athletic leagues and not just the NFL are lobbying State legislators, and not City Councils, to get their heaping of public money.

My guess: Commissioner Goodell may well have taken a page from Seattle Seahawks owner Paul Allen, Microsoft billionaire. When Seattlites made it clear that they would probably never go for local bond issues sucking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the public purse and blowing them into sports stadiums - Mr. Allen simply went to Olympia, Washington, to get what he wanted:

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2005/03/promises_promis_2.html


Although quite a few Washingtonians may never have realized it: $300 million dollars in public monies were provided by all of them for the very Qwest stadium in which few of them will ever set foot.

Seattle City Councilmember Nick Licata even testified before the U.S. House Domestic Policy Subcommittee on Taxpayers Financed Stadiums, Conventions Centers, and Hotels on exactly this issue. The text of his testimony, a mere two pages worth, is very well thought-out and worth a read by all of us here in Santa Clara:

http://domesticpolicy.oversight.house.gov/documents/20070329144725-38118.pdf

If Commissioner Goodell is truly advocating an end run around local funding decisions controlled by local taxpayers, taxpayers should be deeply concerned. Expressed in starkest terms: If you don't give millionaire NFL owners like Dr. John York what they want, they'll go lobby in Sacramento and they'll take it from you anyway.

Now, it remains to be seen how even Commissioner Goodell and the NFL owners would even dare to ask for money at State level, especially with the State budget deficit now pushing some $42 billion.

But from what we've read and seen out of the stadium supporters - it sure wouldn't stop them from trying.



With best regards,
Bill Bailey
Treasurer