Wednesday, November 10, 2010

49ers Stadium Subsidy: It's 12:15 am - Where are the '49ers' stadium boosters'?

Dear Santa Clarans,


City Council took up the easy work - and then some really hard work - in Tuesday evening's City Council Meeting.

The easy stuff was the rezoning of the Centennial Way area to stuff a subsidized stadium for the 49ers onto 20 acres - along with abandoning Centennial Way itself and 'plopping' a 175-foot-high stadium wall right next to one of the Youth Soccer Park fields.

The 'stadium boosters' persisted with the same incorrect and grossly-exaggerated statements about their stadium.
Sorry, but no: You do not "create jobs" when you blow $444,000,000 only to make jobs that pay less than $6,600 a year (Let's use the 49ers' own numbers: 2,600 game day jobs. However, KMA's consultants have been telling us since June of 2007 - and again last June - that the best we can do is a $17M payroll for all of them. Less than seven thou a year is really lousy job creation - and the Term Sheet is a lousy stadium deal because of that.).

Anyway, the 'stadium spenders' walked out of City Hall a little after 9:00 pm - just in time for the Council to take up the hard work.

As you all know, our city is in serious financial trouble. The City Manager felt she had no choice but to go to the city's ten collective bargaining units and ask them to agree to no increases plus pay cuts of 5.15% - or otherwise almost certainly go through a round of layoffs which will probably lead to pink slips for city employees filling 81.75 positions.

The City Council Chamber was packed with AFSCME and IBEW members who argued against the City Manager's plan, but it passed on a 6-1 vote.

So, granted that Council had to approve the City Manager's plan for cuts-or-layoffs. But it's completely hypocritical to harp on the costs of compensating city employees out of the same General Fund that will be taking a massive hit from the 49ers stadium subsidy. If you want to speak of 'fiscal responsibility' on Warburton Drive, it all goes on the table: public employee compensation and the 49ers' stadium subsidy - not just the individual scapegoats that suit our narrow purposes at the moment.

Like it or not: The 49ers stadium subsidy will also cause continued General Fund shortfalls once we sign off on the RDA's issuance of stadium subsidy bonds. That will happen because the RDA cannot service the stadium subsidy bonds and still pay back our General Fund what it owes to us.

That's why we can only ask: Late last night, when it was time to make the really tough calls necessary to keep our city from going broke - where were the '49ers' stadium boosters'?

As usual, they were nowhere to be found. But after three-and-a-half years of similar City Council meetings, that no longer surprises me.

The rest of us Santa Clarans walked out of City Council Chambers at about 12:15 am this morning.



Thanks for your continuing support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-

Thursday, October 28, 2010

The "Final Word" before the November 2nd Election...

Santa Clarans, please do turn out at City Hall on Monday evening. This will be one last opportunity to hear our candidates for City Council and for Mayor before we go to the polls on Tuesday morning.

Final Word Forum
Date: 11/1/2010 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM
Cost: FREE

Location: City of Santa Clara - Council Chambers
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95050


Also, here is the latest release from City Hall concerning the ongoing fiscal problems we Santa Clarans face:

http://santaclaraca.gov//index.aspx?recordid=560&page=50


We encourage all residents to stay informed on just these issues - and to decide if they're a fair yardstick by which to evaluate the candidates on Monday evening.



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

-=0=-


Monday, October 25, 2010

49ers' "Motorcades 'R' Us": Yeah. It Matters.

Dear Santa Clarans,


A Santa Clara resident heard that uniformed Santa Clara Police officers were at the 49ers/Raiders game back on August 28th.
What's up with that?, the resident asked.

It's a fair question. The General Fund of the city of Santa Clara is under severe challenge. City Staff went in and cut as best they could to reduce a $20M deficit to $5M for the current fiscal year.

Yet, in spite of that, the San Francisco 49ers were enjoying motorcycle escorts by the Santa Clara Police Department to the airport, back to their training center, and up to Oakland. Billed to that same General Fund.

A journalist who telephoned a week ago remarked that it seemed like a 'nit.' I told him that Santa Clarans are already doing without a lot of 'nits':

  • Hours at Central Library have been cut from 64 per week to 55. In fact, our young people with book reports due found our Central Libary closed for both the Labor Day and Columbus Day three-day weekends - a total of six days.
  • Senior Center hours have been cut back.
  • We can't hire a trainer for the Fitness Center at that Senior Center, because "we don't have the money."
  • Approximately 100 city positions are unfilled and will remain so indefinitely.
So, let's place that decimal point a little more accurately: The San Francisco 49ers are valued by Forbes Magazine at approximately $925 million. They spent $4.5 MILLION to get Measure J, their stadium subsidy, passed in Santa Clara. We should not even be having to ask them to pay $18,000 for the city services they use, and in fact, our elected leaders should be demanding exactly that on our behalf.

It appears that they've finally done that - but only after repeated public information requests from residents.

From the "sweetheart" 49ers' training center lease, to the massive $444,000,000 stadium subsidy, to the $67,000,000 loss to the General Fund over time, to finally this.

Yeah. It matters. All of it.



Thanks for your continuing support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org

-=0=-

Friday, October 15, 2010

Candidates' Forum for Council and SCUSD Trustees this Saturday!

Saturday, Oct. 16 10:00 am -12:00 pm


Rivermark Community Candidates Forum

Don Callejon School ~ Multipurpose Room

4176 Lick Mill Blvd, Santa Clara


Santa Clarans, please turn out this Saturday to meet all of the candidates - and please vote on November 2nd!


Monday, September 27, 2010

Candidates' Forum on 9/20: Part 3 - 'Tell me about those tax incentives.'

Dear Santa Clarans,


Tax incentives for private businesses tend to get a lot of ink, especially in the most trying of economic times.

In the Candidates' Forum of last Monday, Candidates Patricia Mahan (Seat 2) and Pat Kolstad (Seat 5) were adamant: No tax incentives...

...unless it's their kind of private business.

The San Francisco 49ers are a private corporation, and in fact, they're a lot more private than most. The finances of NFL teams in general are never public information - just the way their millionaire owners like it.

Even with the 49ers a clear winner and with us losers on the deal: Mayor Mahan voted for, and former Councilman Pat Kolstad supported, a total of $444 million in subsidies for the construction of a stadium for the team.

With that, they supported a one-sided Term Sheet which shoves stadium ownership onto the Santa Clara Stadium Authority. The basis of the 49ers' tax liability is then roughly only the 10 days out of 365 that they're actually playing games in a stadium pretty much profitable only to them. The technical term for this assessment is "Possessory Interest Tax," or PIT - and in general, it's a huge break over what the 49ers would be paying us if they owned and operated their own stadium.

This is a big deal: Allowing the 49ers a tax incentive we would not give to any other private corporation is not only bad precedent - it's a substantial loss for us.

In addition, the 49ers stadium is going to generate only the most atrocious job creation in return for the amount of money the City of Santa Clara is leaving on the table. For that reason, when politicians claim that they deplore what they call "tax incentives," it behooves taxpayers to ask them what they really mean by the term - and who exactly is being incentivized.

Last week, I called this City Council race a contest between experience and potential. Regardless of the label, the best stewards of Santa Clara's public interests will be those who can put consistency and fairness back into issues just such as tax incentives.

Please vote on November 2nd.


Thanks for all of your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Candidates' Forum on 9/20: Part 2 - We used to call it "Fiscal Responsibility"

In the first part of this post, I acknowledged the difficult job of bringing our city's expenses into line with what's clearly a time of troubled revenue intake.

That said: There can be no talk of “fiscal responsibility” in our city without a clear and open discussion of the damage which will be done by the 49ers’ stadium subsidy.

Contrary to the statements by Seat 5 candidate and current Mayor Mahan: The issuance of stadium bonds by our Redevelopment Agency WILL cause a loss of RDA remittances to our City’s General Fund – also, in fact, a violation of the single most important Guiding Principle of January 9th, 2007.

This loss was duly calculated at $67 million by City Staff for the Term Sheet presentation of June 2, 2009 - and the Staff presentation containing that analysis was accepted on a 5-2 vote by Mayor Mahan and the other four Stadium Boosters on the Council.

Please note: The current estimations of our city's General Fund deficits don't even include the losses due to these diversions of RDA money.

In sum: A “deal” with the San Francisco 49ers which fails to yield even minuscule returns to the General Fund, but which in fact causes it to lose money, is simply no deal at all.

That’s why it was most distressing to hear from Seat 2 candidate Kolstad that the passage of Measure J on June 8th trumps all – implying clearly that Santa Clarans are not allowed to demand a better deal than the poor one offered by Measure J! This should be disturbing to all of us: First, the Stadium Boosters paste the flawed, non-binding Term Sheet onto Measure J - and they then tell us that we’re not allowed to fix what’s clearly wrong with it.

It was therefore gratifying to hear from Seat 5 candidate O’Neill a public acknowledgment of the $330 million public contribution from the yet-to-be-formed Santa Clara Stadium Authority. However, there won’t be full public disclosure of those construction money sources – or of the operating costs to be borne by that joint-powers authority – until motivated Councilmembers demand the immediate cancellation of the Confidentiality Agreement of April, 2007.

It’s been three-and-a-half years. It's long past time to tell Santa Clarans the whole truth about the Stadium Authority - and the true effects of the 49ers' stadium subsidy on our city's fiscal health.

Whether or not our votes on November 2 will change the status quo simply isn't clear. But each of us are entitled to ask the candidates where they stand on all of our city's fiscal issues - not just on some of them.


Next: 'Tell me about those tax incentives.'


Thanks for your support and best regards,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer,

Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Candidates' Forum on 9/20: Part 1 - Experience vs. Potential

The Council/Mayoral Candidates' Forum this evening compressed much material into a two-hour slot. The biggest contrast among the candidates could be boiled down to “experience versus great potential.” This was the subject of one of the moderated panel questions, in fact.

There were some recurring issues; Mayoral candidate Stampolis is a firm believer in the revitalization of Santa Clara's downtown, which was sidelined by the withdrawal of the previous bidder and which may be limited by our city's fortunes for the forseeable future. But it isn't dead.

[10/6/2010: Candidate Stampolis is a supporter of the revitalization of El Camino Real - which is an issue separate from the Franklin Mall. The error is mine.]

On driving excellence in public schools, Mr. Stampolis suggests an activist role for the city’s Mayor. This led to a difference-of-opinion between him and Mayoral candidate Matthews; while it's true that a Mayor won't be given those reins - that's what schools superintendents are for - we could compromise and promote some co-operation between SCUSD and City Departments such as Parks and Recreation and the Library. Such a process might dovetail hours and offerings of after-school volunteer tutoring and recreational activities which advance academics – say, math camps, college bowls, chess clinics, music and art. But with city services now under such severe challenge, it’s impossible to make any real predictions or demands for such programs.

[10/6/2010: See, for example, SJ2020]

Of course, the biggest item before the Forum was the state of the city’s finances. General Fund budget deficits are projected through 2016.

Santa Clarans, you’re going to hear much talk – and some double-talk – about “fiscal responsibility” in the 42 days left until the election.

At the outset, let’s be fair to the candidates: We can’t reasonably hold any of them to specific percentage reductions and headcounts in this one public forum. However, there was at least some agreement on maintaining the hiring freeze, asking for contract concessions from the city’s employee bargaining units - and controversial pay cuts. Nine of the ten unions with closed contracts have in fact agreed to negotiate with the City Manager’s office, we were told.

But the real killer going forward are unfunded CalPERS pension liabilities. Those rising contribution percentages to both the Miscellaneous and Safety Funds are set in Sacramento and not on Warburton Drive, unfortunately.


(Next up: "Fiscal responsibility" - in all of its forms.)


Thanks for your continuing support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer,

Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-


Sunday, September 19, 2010

Televised City Council Candidates Forum: Monday, 7-9 pm, City Council Chambers

Santa Clarans, if you can attend, please come to the:

Televised Candidates Forum 2010
Date: Monday evening, 9/20/2010 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM
Cost: FREE
Location: City of Santa Clara - Council Chambers
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95050

The Forum will also be simulcast on Comcast Cable Channel 15.

Newsrelease (PDF)

Agenda (PDF)


Best regards,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer,

Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-

Friday, September 10, 2010

49ers Stadium: It's not about the parking spaces - Part 2

Dear Santa Clarans,


The Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday evening should have been about the actual changes applied for by the San Francisco 49ers. But after an extended presentation by the team's public relations corps, the discussion rapidly turned towards rationalizing other faulty aspects of the very Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that has unfortunately brought us to where we are today.

Again, the so-called "parking plan" isn't. But in spite of that simple truth: The rationalizations flew thick and fast, with one Planning Commissioner actually claiming that pedestrian traffic (!) and mass transit will save the (game) day.

Frankly, those claims are subject to serious dispute:

* The CS&L studies - paid for by the 49ers themselves - show that there are a mere 781 hotel rooms within 1/2 mile of the stadium. For a 49ers home game, we'll be very lucky to see even a a mere couple-of-hundred fans actually hoofing it to any stadium containing 68,500 seats.

** The kind of people who can afford $5,000-to-$20,000 for a single Personal Seat License in Santa Clara will most emphatically not be walking, cycling or taking the 57 bus to a one-billion-dollar NFL stadium. They'll be driving the Escalade or the Q45 as they are unlikely to be residents of Santa Clara. All the bike racks in the world cannot change that.

*** No hard commitments have been made by VTA for any game-day transit from the two nearest CalTrain stations to the stadium. Those train stations are nearly 3 and 4 miles from the stadium site.
For game-day traffic: CalTrain, one way or another, is going to be a big choke-point.

Irrational exuberance isn't going to fix a faulty parking-and-traffic scheme. The hard numbers already made public are very clear - and the folks who will be forced to live with them are Santa Clarans living north of U.S. 101.

Santa Clarans, please speak out on this issue to the Planning Commission and to the City Council. For our $444 million in subsidies for the 49ers, we're entitled to a lot more than we're getting.



Thanks for your support, and regards,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

49ers Stadium: It's not about the parking spaces - Part 1

Dear Santa Clarans,


In the Planning Commission meeting this evening, an applicant for an 40-unit affordable housing project was run through the grinder because his project contained a mere 51 parking spaces onsite.

Then, the San Francisco 49ers presented their zoning change and subdivision map for a stadium requiring parking spaces for 20,000 vehicles -
with only 404 of them on the stated development site. The Planning Commission approved both of those changes for the 49ers on 6-0 votes, with one absent.

Let's be clear: It's
not about the 45,000 parking spaces any one of us could scare up within a mile and a half of a subsidized NFL stadium. And no one in Santa Clara Plays Fair has ever denied that they exist.

Rather, our objection is the complete disruption of the life of our city when we must drop 160 police officers - more sworn peace officers than Santa Clara has - into the middle of 31 traffic checkpoints to direct those 20,000 vehicles to those parking spaces.

No matter how the 49ers try to spin this:
For a 13-acre stadium stuffed onto a 20-acre site, this is no plan. It simply isn't.

The reports actually presented to the Planning Commission are here.

For a quick index of their high points, see here.



Thank you for your support, and best regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-

Sunday, September 5, 2010

The 49ers Stadium: Subsidizing a Bad Project

Dear Santa Clarans,


This Wednesday, September 8th, our Planning Commission takes up the Rezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map which will allow the San Francisco to use City lands for their stadium -
nearly half the cost of which will be paid or raised by Santa Clara agencies. The four-part report to the Planning Commission may be found here.

The
DEIR for the stadium was released last July 30th, meaning that the stadium project has now been separated from its first Environmental Impact Report by over a year! However, the gross faults with that EIR process - and with the final document, certified by the City Council on December 8th, 2009 - still remain. Virtually none of the stadium's impacts on our community will be mitigated in any way.

Santa Clara Plays Fair
urges interested Santa Clarans - especially if you live north of U.S. 101 - to attend the Planning Commission meeting this Wednesday evening and speak out on the stadium project. To quickly locate bullet items you're interested in, here is a quick two-page index.

Please share this with your neighbors: The 49ers stadium subsidy is a fiscal issue for all of us - but it's also a quality-of-life issue for those of us who live in Zip Code 95054.



Thanks for your continuing support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer
,
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-

Monday, August 2, 2010

The 49ers' Stadium Subsidy: How to Buy an Election, Part 2

Dear Santa Clarans,


We filed our campaign statement today with the City Clerk, and with that, we owe you many thanks for your support.

Santa Clarans contributed nearly $19,000 to Santa Clara Plays Fair in the first half of 2010.

They contributed $35 to the Astroturf group.

But that sure didn't stop the Astroturfies - they turned right around took
$4.427 MILLION from the York family and the 49ers. That's San Francisco money anyway you slice it.

As staggering a sum as that is to buy an election, it's actually good business for the Yorks because they just walked away with a $444,000,000 pot. That's the total that Santa Clara's public agencies will contribute or raise for a $1 billion stadium which benefits the 49ers - and Santa Clara barely at all.

In the coming weeks, those subsidies will be locked in with the Disposition and Development Agreement, or DDA. That's the binding contract which gives away the store, and it does that by incorporating the worst parts of the Term Sheet of last June 2nd.

We urge Santa Clarans to get involved. If you have questions about the Term Sheet and where the stadium subsidy is going next, please ask away. The city's own documents and Council Agenda Reports tell the whole story.



Thanks and best regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

Thursday, July 1, 2010

$2.7 Million of RDA Cash - What it's Bought Us

Dear Santa Clarans,

On Tuesday evening, our City Council approved an additional $750,000 in consulting fees to be paid by our RDA for the 49ers' stadium subsidy "deal." That makes a total of
$2,700,000 in we 've spent since April, 2007, for the Feasibility Study, the Term Sheet, and now, the Disposition and Development Agreement or DDA.

What now?

Well, it's time to convert the highly-defective Term Sheet from last June 2nd - and from your June 8th, 2010, Sample Ballots - into the binding DDA.

However, without some serious and much-needed changes, this DDA will set in stone a "deal" for a subsidized NFL stadium in our city which puts Santa Clarans at a gross disadvantage. See the actual sections of the Term Sheet, and please note:

  • Section 9.1: The San Francisco 49ers, in fact, assume NO liability for any stadium operating cost overruns. They reserve to themselves the sole discretion to tell us what they will and will not reimburse to any Santa Clara Stadium Authority. This clause alone is a disaster for Santa Clarans.
  • Section 16.1: The 49ers reserve to themselves the sole and exclusive right to sublease to a second NFL team - such as the Oakland Raiders. This right - and the dollars it generates - should be granted to the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, and not to Dr. John York.
  • Section 2.4: The 49ers are charging Silicon Valley Power $20,000,000 to move the Tasman electric substation out of the way of the stadium. We've seen enough electric rate increases; we shouldn't be paying to move Tasman for the benefit of the 49ers. Hand that bill to Dr. York, please.

Before the Stadium Boosters on this City Council form a Santa Clara Stadium Authority - and seat themselves on it - we ask that Santa Clarans sound off. The Term Sheet is truly a lousy deal - and it should not inform the DDA.

Please write to the City Council today. Email them. Call them. Fax them.



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

-=0=-

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

49ers: $444,000,000 -- Santa Clara: ZERO

Dear Santa Clarans,


We'd like to thank all of you who gave, volunteered and shared in the drive to defeat Measure J. We would never have accomplished as much as we did without your volunteer efforts and contributions. We played it fair. We were right on the facts and we treated our fellow Santa Clarans with the respect they've earned.

But the disappointing loss on Measure J isn't merely a loss for Santa Clara Plays Fair.

It's also a serious loss to the City of Santa Clara.

Measure J tells us that we can spend money like San Jose - and like Sacramento - and that we can get away with it. We can't.

The worst part is that Santa Clarans might finally learn exactly why Dr. John York 'isn't in the stadium business.'

The subsidy of Dr. John York's stadium is still wrong. It will not deliver for Santa Clara. We ask that all Santa Clarans step forward and that they oppose that massive giveaway. Please continue your involvement with Santa Clara Plays Fair - and encourage others to join.

We look forward to hearing more from more of you.



With best regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-
One other little note: Would everyone please return all "NO on J" election materials - walking and tabling materials, as well as all yard signs and stakes - to 1009 Las Palmas Drive? Look for the "Burma Shave" signs on the east side of Las Palmas between Benton and Homestead. Otherwise, call 1-877-703-4300 for pickup.

And please accept our thanks in advance. ---- B**2


Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Your Last Chance to STOP the 49ers Stadium Subsidy: PLEASE VOTE NO ON J !

Dear Santa Clarans,


As Santa Clarans, we have on this one ballot the most important issue that our city has ever faced.


Measure J will tell us whether our future will be in the hands of Santa Clarans - or in the hands of the San Francisco 49ers.


The 49ers and their "stadium boosters" used the Confidentiality Agreement of April, 2007, to deny us voters information on the stadium subsidy to which we are entitled. They hijacked Senate Bill 43 to take from us control of our own City Charter. When they couldn't get the language they wanted on the ballot, they paid hirelings to get what they wanted - and they weren't even truthful with Santa Clarans while they were doing that.


What Measure J really means: We're being told that we "need to" hand $444 million dollars in public wealth over to a private corporation.


In return, we will get crumbs.


I believe that Santa Clarans will support a fair process. But there is no way that the last three years have been in any way fair to us: Three years have gone by with
seventy-seven secret meetings between the 49ers and our City Council. Two million dollars of RDA cash have been spent on consultants and lawyers. Our city's budget will close this fiscal year $15 million in the red - and the 49ers stadium subsidy will make those deficits far worse in coming years.

Some people in other communities might just throw in the towel - but we don't think that our fellow Santa Clarans are the sort to give up. It's for this reason that we urge all of you:
Please don't leave the job of protecting Santa Clara to others. We really need your help to defeat Measure J at last and to restore our city to us.

Please vote NO on Measure J. Encourage others to vote NO.

More than at any other time, the future of Santa Clara truly depends on you.




Thanks for all of your support,

William F. "Bill" Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

Sunday, June 6, 2010

The 49ers' Stadium Subsidies: Your Sample Ballot says, "Let Silicon Valley Power pay for it!"

Dear Santa Clarans,


Please see the
Term Sheet in your Sample Ballots:

  • Section 2.4: Silicon Valley Power - and not the team - is being forced to pay $20,000,000 for the relocation of the perfectly-functional Tasman electric substation. Adding insult to injury: Tasman will be moved even closer to the residents of Gianera Street - while our electric rates increase 34% from January, 2006 to January, 2011.

Yes, we postponed rate increases longer than we should have. However, I support those rate increases completely, because presentations by our utility managers before City Council show me that I'm still getting a good deal from our City's electric utility.

But what I object to is the San Francisco 49ers making us pay $20,000,000 to move an electric substation that does not need to be moved. The Stadium Boosters have been double-talking this issue since May of 2007 - and they are just as wrong now as they were then.

Late news: City Council has approved the new Yahoo! campus - with Yahoo! paying for their own new electric substation.

If Yahoo! can do it - so can the San Francisco 49ers.

Santa Clarans, do you see how far the stadium subsidy for the 49ers really extends? Please vote NO on Measure J - and you will STOP the ripoff of our city's electric utility.



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

-=0=-

The 49ers' Stadium Subsidies: Your Sample Ballots *PROVE* the 49ers' Lease Subsidies!

Dear Santa Clarans,


The previous post analyzed the leakiest of the Term Sheet clauses - which in fact does NOT protects taxpaying Santa Clara residents.

Here, let's examine our own Sample Ballots to see just how the 49ers deny us fair returns for the land they're taking for their stadium - a stadium which Santa Clarans will be paying to subsidize:


  • Section 4.3(a): The 49ers pay a pathetic ground rent of only $180,000 in the first year. This ground rent only rises to $1M a year in the year 2024 - and to its maximum of $1.5M in 2050. Just compare these payments with what Cedar Fair already pays into our General Fund: $5.3M per year - every year. That's SIX TIMES as much as the 49ers ever will ever pay us. It's TEN TIMES as much in 2009 dollars.
  • Section 17.3: The "sweetheart lease" on the 49ers Training Center will be extended to run concurrent with the stadium lease itself. That lease pays our city a paltry $26,000 a year for 11 acres of prime Silicon Valley real estate. This section locks in yet another "subsidy" which has been benefiting only the 49ers since 1987. However, the five Stadium Boosters on our City Council have no intentions of fixing this travesty - instead, they're demanding that you as voters make it even worse.

Please, neighbors and voters - don't take the word of the Stadium Boosters on what this highly defective "Term Sheet" says. Instead, please read it yourselves - the truth is in your voter Sample Ballots.

The Stadium Subsidies on your voters' ballots make the city of Santa Clara a victim - never a partner. On Tuesday, please vote NO on Measure J.



Thank you and best regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

Friday, June 4, 2010

The 49ers' Stadium Subsidies: Operating Overruns are ON US - NOT on the 49ers!

Dear Santa Clarans,


Santa Clara Plays Fair urges all voters: Please - examine the actual language of Measure J in our Sample Ballots.

The last three blog posts here covered the worst of the
City Charter language.

The
Term Sheet portion of your Sample Ballots, however, reflects not only the 49ers' bad faith - but our own city's unwillingness to negotiate a fair deal for Santa Clarans. By pasting this defective Term Sheet into the Sample Ballot, the Stadium Boosters are actually destroying their own case for a subsidy for the 49ers:

  • Section 9.1: The 49ers WILL NOT cover operating cost overruns for their stadium - Instead, they reserve to themselves alone the right to tell us what is and is not reimbursible to the Santa Clara Stadium Authority.
Section 9.1 gives the 49ers a loophole through which they can drive a truck - leaving the city's Stadium Authority to make either up the difference themselves or "do without." This is exactly why the Stadium Boosters' claims of "ironclad taxpayer protections" are utter nonsense.

There is only ONE "taxpayer protection" possible for our city on Tuesday, June 8th - and that is a resounding NO vote on Measure J.



Thank you, everyone, for your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

Monday, May 31, 2010

The 49ers' Stadium Subsidy: Want to See for Yourself if Santa Clara Taxpayers are Really Protected under Measure J? - The Taxpayer Protections Myth

Dear Santa Clarans,


The Stadium Boosters trumpet their so-called "Ironclad Taxpayer Protections" in Measure J - but they are anything but. Please check your voter Sample Ballots for:

Section 2. Purposes and Findings, Part 2B2 Taxpayer Protections:

"An affiliate of the San Francisco 49ers....will also be required to pay operating expenses of the Stadium to the extent these expenses exceed the Stadium Authority's operating revenues."
Sounds good - if it were true.

As it turns out, the Term Sheet that the Stadium Boosters are using to pad Measure J states as follows, in Section 9.1:
"...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."
In other words: It's only reimbursable to the Stadium Authority if the San Francisco 49ers - alone - agree to reimburse it.

What kind of "ironclad" protection is that? Virtually none at all, if a "sick" Stadium Authority has no other recourse than to go back to the City of Santa Clara for more subsidies.

Add to this the $67,000,000 loss to our General Fund caused by the stadium subsidy from the RDA - and you simply do not have real "taxpayer protections."

For real taxpayer protection: Vote NO on Measure J.



Thanks and best regards,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

Sunday, May 30, 2010

The 49ers' Stadium Subsidy: Want to See for Yourself if Santa Clara Taxpayers are Really Protected under Measure J? - The SCHOOLS Myth

Dear Santa Clarans,


It's time to dispel yet another myth from the 49ers and supporters of their massive $444 million stadium subsidy. Please examine your voters' Sample Ballots, and see this one under "Section 2. Purposes and Findings":

Section 2A4 - "Generate Community Funding"

The stadium's development generates money for schools? Sorry, but that is simply not the case - what the stadium's development really does is to divert RDA funds owed to our City's General Fund away from the City. The total loss to the City is $67,000,000, (Slide 48), as projected by City Staff last June 2nd.

The schools get only a third of that, by the way. This means that the City loses big time so that the school district can get only a pittance.

Please note: The San Francisco 49ers, and their stadium, contribute not one penny to Santa Clara's schools.

The five Stadium Boosters on our City Council can't back away from this: Note that they themselves approved the Term Sheet, along with the report above, on a 5-2 vote. Yet, now they're suddenly claiming
that they can shut off a stream of money owed by the RDA to the City and not lose any money.

That simply just defies logic.

We need that money. Our City's fiscal year is about to close with a budget deficit of about $15 million, and the City projects those budget deficits to continue through 2015 - and they don't even include the losses caused by the 49ers stadium subsidy.

In short, the tiny amount of "Community Funding" comes nowhere near offsetting those losses to our General Fund.

To protect our City's General Fund: We urge you to vote NO on Measure J next Tuesday, June 8th.


Best regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

Saturday, May 29, 2010

The 49ers' Stadium Subsidy: Want to See for Yourself if Santa Clara Taxpayers are Really Protected under Measure J? - The JOBS Myth

Dear Santa Clarans,


As it turns out, your Sample Ballots for June 8th actually contain the real truth about Measure J. Over the next few days, we'll take some of the biggest whoppers from just the text of the City Code Language, and we'll see why they don't measure up to the claims of the Stadium Boosters:

Section 2A2 -"Create New Jobs":

What kind of jobs? Well, let's allow the 49ers their claim of 2,650 gameday jobs. However, the city's own consultants have been telling us for three years that the stadium will create only 515 full-time equivalent jobs - meaning that the 49ers are essentially promising stadium jobs that last only 50-70 days a year. Those jobs will have no benefits. No future. No bargaining-unit protection of any kind. They'll pay easily less than $10,000 per year.

Again: What kind of jobs? The stadium's construction jobs will disappear in about three years - while Santa Clara's agencies end up servicing the debt we owe on that job creation for forty years.

Stadium Boosters apparently expect us all to fall silent simply because they're using the word "jobs." Sorry, but we don't buy it - we say that Santa Clara's voters are entitled to take apart those "jobs" claims to expose how paltry that job creation really is.

Add to that the fact that very few Santa Clara residents will actually fill jobs in either of the two categories above (see Page 4) - and anyone would be entitled to ask, "Why are we spending so much for so little?"

Good question. The next time someone tries to silence you with the "jobs" buzzword, ask him, "How many? For how long? And how much do we have to pay in order to create them?"


Thank you for all of your support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

Thursday, May 27, 2010

The 49ers' Stadium Subsidy: How to Buy an Election

Dear Santa Clarans,


The San Francisco 49ers seem to be showing us just how an election can be bought - if one has the money. Our campaign finance reports were due at 5:00 pm today, and they revealed the following:

The 49ers Astroturf group has taken in a total of ***$3,647,780*** so far this year, virtually every penny of that from the San Francisco 49ers themselves.

Not one contribution from a single Santa Clara resident was itemized in any of their campaign statements, a stack that ran to scores of pages.

I declared a total of $16,362 in cash contributions to Santa Clara Plays Fair.

A total of $15,248 of that was contributed by Santa Clarans.

If the 49ers' millions were truly buying an element of truth for Santa Clarans, we could talk about it. However, they simply aren't - All we're getting is the same old glitz, buzz and hype, all designed to conceal the corporate welfare being paid to the 49ers and their owners.

None of the money that the 49ers are pouring into the Measure J con job makes a $444,000,000
subsidy a good deal for Santa Clara.

And that's all the more reason to keep speaking out, Santa Clarans.

"J" is for Jeopardy - On June 8th, please VOTE NO!



Thanks for all of your support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-


Monday, April 26, 2010

Merc/KGO poll: Santa Clarans, we can connect the dots!

Dear Santa Clarans,


While examining the Merc / KGO poll, it might be worth looking at the
two sets of pie charts presented, rather than simply the first.

That second pair of pie charts made it pretty clear: 63% voiced concern over the costs of a 49ers stadium to Santa Clara taxpayers, and 64% recognize the traffic nightmare caused by stadium events, NFL or not.

Santa Clarans are connecting the dots.

They're right. The General Fund loss of $67,000,000 caused by the stadium subsidy ripoff is exactly what will affect Santa Claran taxpayers.
There is no way that our General Fund can possibly absorb such a loss without real cuts - either in staff or in services or both.

They're right again.
It's not possible to absorb 20,000 cars on NFL game days while paying overtime to 160 police officers - and you can't keep even a semblance of peace and order in our neighborhoods north of U.S. 101.

The total of $444,000,000 in subsidies for a 49ers' stadium causes real losses to Santa Clara's taxpayers and to the quality of life in our neighborhoods.

That's why "J" is for "Jeopardy." We urge all Santa Clarans to connect the dots - and vote NO on June 8th.



Thanks, Santa Clarans, for your support,

William F. "Bill" Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

Saturday, April 24, 2010

The 49ers' Stadium Subsidy: "A contract is a contract."

Dear Santa Clarans,


Cedar Fair is demanding that their lease for the Great America theme park be renegotiated, as you've heard. Regardless of the merits of that action, it's worth focusing on the response of Mayor Patricia Mahan: "No. We have a contract. A contract is a contract."

Santa Clara Plays Fair would like to remind Mayor Mahan and the other four elected "Stadium Boosters" on our City Council that a Guiding Principle is a Guiding Principle:

"7. Great America Theme Park/Cedar Fair must agree to and cooperate with any proposed stadium project sited on existing City-owned lands leased or committed to them."

(Agenda Item 5D.1, 1/9/2007)

Note, however, that Cedar Fair puts more Fixed Ground Rent into our City's General Fund than the San Francisco 49ers ever will. Simply compare the $5,300,000 Great America fixed lease payment with the most that the 49ers will ever pay us, $1.5M. Cedar Fair is entitled to be a bit exasperated with the Council's "Stadium Boosters."

Not only that, the City Council got the news this last Tuesday evening: The city's worsening deficit makes it imperative that we protect our General Fund dollars wherever we can.

But subsidizing the San Francisco 49ers causes even worse General Fund losses than we have now - and Cedar Fair, which gets NO subsidy at all from our city while paying us far more, has just drawn a bold red line under that fact.

Regardless of the Cedar Fair action: To protect Santa Clara's General Fund on June 8th, Santa Clara Plays Fair urges you to VOTE NO ON MEASURE J.



Thanks for all of your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-


Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Councilmembers Kennedy & McLeod: 49ers stadium is not a good deal for Santa Clara

Dear Santa Clarans,


Please visit the San Jose Mercury News for a well-informed statement of why a subsidy for a 49ers
stadium is a really bad deal for Santa Clara:

http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_14831892

Councilmembers Kennedy and McLeod, of course, are more than qualified to speak to the issue. For three years, while other members of City Council were content with mere boosterism, Kennedy and McLeod were asking the tough questions. The answers to those questions should be enough to make every voting Santa Claran question the very sanity of the $444,000,000 stadium subsidy:

"The most damaging hit is to the city's general fund, which pays for services to residents. The staff report shows that the stadium deal will result in a net $67 million loss to our general fund. Money that should flow into it from the Redevelopment Agency will be redirected to the stadium. And yes, that loss includes all of the rents, projected taxes and other income that the city will receive from the stadium."
[Emphasis mine.]
The broken link in the article is easily fixed:

http://santaclaraca.gov/ftp/csc/pdf/49ers-Term-Sheet-Presentation.pdf

See especially slide #48 - contrary to what the "stadium boosters" are now claiming, that $67,000,000 ripoff of our city's General Fund is REAL.

We urge all Santa Clarans: Please - let two responsible elected officials tell the real story on the stadium subsidy. Then write the Letters Editor at the San Jose Mercury News, and tell them you appreciate Councilmembers Kennedy and McLeod getting the truth out there for all to see:

letters@mercurynews.com
(125 words or less, and please include your address and telephone, which will not be published. Please don't CC: us; your letters to the Mercury News Editors should be original material.)

Great backup to this opinion piece: Please consult "Ten Top Reasons to vote NO on Measure J."



Thanks for all of your support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

The 49ers' Stadium Subsidy: The word is out - VOTE NO ON J!

Dear Santa Clarans,


You've been very generous in your support of Santa Clara Plays Fair. We've used your contributions to reach out to as many of our neighbors as we can. Also, many of the folks who've donated are also giving their time to walk precincts - and meet even more Santa Clarans.

We're sharing the rest of the story on the massive 49ers stadium subsidy,too.

Not only about the $444M itself.

Our walkers are getting the word out about the $67M General Fund ripoff, too.

Will you join us? And will you speak out? Please contact us anytime and let us know how you'd like to get the REAL Facts out to more Santa Clarans.


Thanks again for all of your support,
William F. "Bill" Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

Monday, March 22, 2010

The 49ers' Stadium Subsidy: Skin in the Game

Dear Santa Clarans,


Santa Clara Plays Fair filed its campaign finance statement this afternoon.

In that mere nine pages, you will find $1,908 in cash contributions from Santa Clara residents - people who live here**.

In the 49ers' "Astroturf" group's same statement, you will find a mere $35 from Santa Clara residents.

...and in those 44 pages, you will find OVER A MILLION DOLLARS coming from the San Francisco 49ers.

If you're looking at a mailbox full of the 49ers' slick brochures - making completely unsustainable promises and trumpeting misleading numbers - the above campaign finance statement from the 49ers Astroturf group pretty much explains that. The cool million is designed only to fool Santa Clarans into giving the team $114,000,000 up front and raising $330,000,000 more for them.

And after we do that: Our General Fund WILL LOSE $67,000,000, as well.

We urge Santa Clarans: Please don't be fooled. The massive stadium subsidy from Santa Clarans buys almost nothing for Santa Clara. It rewards only the San Francisco 49ers.

Anyway, thank you, Santa Clarans, for all of your support.

You've got skin in the game.

On June 8th, please vote NO ON Measure J - It's NO JOKE.


Best regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

===================================
** Out of a total of $1,928, we received a single $20 bill from a San Franciscan.

Monday, March 15, 2010

The 49ers' Stadium Subsidy: Santa Clarans, Please VOTE NO ON J!

Dear Santa Clarans,


If you visited the main webpage, you know it's official as of this morning: The Registrar of Voters has given us a letter for the 49ers' Stadium Subsidy Measure which will appear on our ballots on June 8th.

That giveaway is Measure "J," but we promise you, it's "No Joke!"

It's deadly serious, in fact. Tucked away in its bland, feel-good, "not-a-single-dollar-sign" language is a scheme to:

  • Hand the San Francisco 49ers $114,000,000 upfront,
  • Raise $330,000,000 more for them, and
  • Lose $67,000,000 out of our City's General Fund.
Unfortunately, this is a ballot measure bought-and-paid-for by the San Francisco 49ers themselves, and it's built on myth-making. Let's debunk those myths by adding a few dollar signs:

SAY NO TO THE 49ERS SUBSIDY!


If you have any questions about the real numbers behind Measure J - the numbers that the San Francisco 49ers are terrified you'll find - please contact us anytime, and we'll prove them with the City's OWN data and reports.

VOTE NO ON "J"une the 8th - Protect our City and its General Fund!



Thank you for all of your support,

William F. "Bill" Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-

Sunday, February 7, 2010

49ers PR Campaign Hides the True Stadium Costs

Dear Santa Clarans,


In a June 3, 2009 interview on Chronicle Live, "49ers' President Jed York broke down the financial details of the team's proposed stadium deal with the City of Santa Clara," and acknowledged the true stadium construction costs:
























The $937 million stadium price tag includes $444 million from Santa Clara and its agencies as follows:

  • $114 million as a direct subsidy from Santa Clara (12%),
  • $330 million from Santa Clara's joint powers agency, the Stadium Authority (35%).
But since Jed York's interview, the 49ers PR campaign has lumped the $330 million from Santa Clara's Stadium Authority in with the team's contribution to inflate the team share to $823 million (88%). This misleading information has been mailed into our homes, appears on a 49ers stadium booster's website, and unfortunately has been reproduced in newspaper articles. In Jed York's online letter to 49ers fans, he reduces Santa Clara's share even further, from $444 million to only $79 million.

The $330 million from Santa Clara's Stadium Authority is not mentioned in either the 49ers stadium ballot initiative or in the text of the Term Sheet. Santa Clara's city council agenda reports and Term Sheet Exhibit 14 list the details of Santa Clara's $444 million contribution to the stadium.

Santa Clarans should be provided with complete and correct information about all of the stadium construction and operational costs.

Voters in Santa Clara have the right to know how much debt our city will incur, so we can make an informed decision without being misled about the total cost of a stadium to our city.


Submitted by Chris Koltermann,
Member of the Board, Santa Clara Plays Fair

-------------------------------------------------------------
References:
1) The June 3, 2009 Chronicle Live interview of Jed York:
http://www.csnbayarea.com/pages/landing?blockID=57145

2) The Term Sheet, Exhibit 14, and City Presentation June 2, 2009:
http://santaclaraca.gov/ftp/csc/pdf/49ers-20090601-Exhibit-14.pdf
http://santaclaraca.gov/ftp/csc/pdf/49ers-20090601-term-sheet.pdf
http://santaclaraca.gov/ftp/csc/pdf/49ers-Term-Sheet-Presentation.pdf

3) The stadium ballot question and initiative:
http://sireweb.santaclaraca.gov/cache/2/ydxjb32taot0c245wxk2xpyj/15490702062010015454400.PDF


Tuesday, February 2, 2010

49ers Stadium Front Group Files Financials - Just Under the Wire

Dear Santa Clarans,


Looks like the 49ers "front" group is finally stepping out from behind the curtain. They managed to rush their Campaign Statement, or Form 460, into the City Clerk's office right under the 5:00 deadline yesterday afternoon.

There were no surprises here: For the year ended December 31, 2009, this group took in nearly *** $364,000 *** in monetary and non-monetary contributions...

...and a mere $645 of that actually came from Santa Clara residents.

So, who's at the helm? From the group's Statement of Organization, only Dr. John York himself, his VP of Communications - and a lawyer from Burlingame.

Not one single Santa Claran.

Santa Clarans, when those slick ads start pouring in to your mailboxes these next fews months, please make no mistake: They're not coming from other Santa Clarans.



Thanks for all of your support,
William F. "Bill" Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-
Links to the two reports above:


http://www.netfile.com/agency/csc/



Wednesday, January 27, 2010

49ers Stadium: How "binding" is "binding"? Really?

Dear Santa Clarans,


Last night in the City Council meeting, the Council voted to create Resolutions for Council which will order the $114M stadium subsidy to a vote on June 8th. Good news...

...except for the fact that the so-called "binding" vote is based on a document not only greatly deficient - but in fact, not even binding itself.

Note that the 49ers "bought-and-paid-for" initiative was stuck in our faces with the Term Sheet of June 2, 2009, pasted onto it.

But if one goes to pages 2 and 3 of the Term Sheet itself, one finds that both the City and the San Francisco 49ers declare that document to be non-binding.

So: What is the binding document which will tell Santa Clarans exactly what our elected leaders are promising the 49ers? When will THAT be complete?

That would be the Disposition and Development Agreement, or DDA.

And that's due to be complete only on or about July 13th - 35 days AFTER that election.

This is why our group urged City Council last night to place the "49ers-very-own" initiative on our ballot on November 2nd - not on June 8th - so that Santa Clarans would have a firm agreement on which to vote. We stand by that - but we're not surprised that the massive stadium subsidy train is again being waved through the station at maximum speed.

Santa Clarans, we encourage you to make your objections known to the City Council and to the Mayor.

For this expenditure of $114,000,000 of public money, Santa Clarans surely deserve better.



Thanks for all of your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-
Source: http://santaclaraca.gov/ftp/csc/pdf/49ers-20090601-Exhibit-5.pdf
(Page down to Section 1.3 on pages 2/27 and 3/27.)


Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Aldyth Parle does NOT support 49ers initiative!

Breaking news! Live from Santa Clara City Council!

Councilwoman Aldyth Parle has clarified her position. Ms Parle had previously appeared to support the 49ers' astroturf ballot initiative. She has now explained her intentions. Due to an illness in the family she missed some council meetings, and was not aware that Council was on track to put a measure on the ballot. She only agreed to support the initiative because she was led to believe that it is the only way that the voters will have a say. Now that she is aware of the facts, she wants her name removed from the list of astroturf supporters.

Thursday, January 7, 2010

49ers Stadium: A Santa Claran asks for some REAL "disclosure"


"HI Bill,

I wanted to tell you about my experience with the people standing in front of CVS on Homestead in the Mariposa center. I was approached like anyone else coming in or out of the store about this initative.

He asked if I wanted to sign it so that we could have it on the ballot and vote on it in June. I asked him if he was for or against building the stadium. He told me he was for it.

Not knowing too much about this process or protocal and all the long tedious steps that it takes to move forward on something so huge, I immediately felt suspicious. I asked him why he was in such a hurry to get it on the ballot. I told him it feels like you're trying to jam it on the ballot before everything has been discussed & debated with the city council and how can you put it on the ballot before all the issues are hashed out.

He told me "On the contrary, that by putting this initative on the ballot it would force everyone to put everything out on the table. That everything would have to be disclosed so that the people could have an up or down vote on the stadium once and for all."


I was at SaveMart with my mother today and they were out there yelling at people passing by to come sign the petition. These two particular guys seemed to be more aggressive and even more vague about what the initative was about. As we were leaving the store they tried their approach with my mother & I and they got any earful back. Instantly they started playing stupid when we starting telling them we understood exactly what their initative was all about. We proceeded to educate others as they approached the store or leaving that this initative was very misleading and urged them NOT to sign. A few people walked on without signing it :)
I hope you find my experience helpful and useful.
Warm regards,
(...A Santa Claran...)

[Emphasis mine.]


Another "49ers-Own-Initiative" signature guy just got caught playing "fast and loose" with the facts.

For starters, the 49ers
once again claim, in essence, that their initiative is the only path to the June 8th ballot. That's utterly false.

Also, the empty claim that their initiative somehow 'puts all the info out there' begs the question: What additional information will this "49ers' Own Initiative" make available to Santa Clarans which we can't get with the City Council's measure?

Answer: Not one thing.

If the San Francisco 49ers want to "force everyone to put everything out on the table," then they could start by telling Santa Clarans the truth about this initiative: That they're doing it to keep anyone from challenging their worthless Environmental Impact Report in court. That's the only reason for it.

What's particularly insulting about the signature gatherer's second claim above: Santa Clarans have been waiting for over two-and-a-half years to hear the truth not only about the $114,000,000 upfront subsidy and why we have to pay it - but also about the $330,000,000 to be raised by a "Santa Clara Stadium Authority."

The last honest description of this is in a City Staff memo dated - are you ready? - December 12, 2007! (See "Part E", on "Page 16 of 30")

Remember, we're talking about a total contribution of
$444,000,000 to be raised by Santa Clara and its Agencies. Does it sound to you like the San Francisco 49ers really want the truth about their publicly-subsidized stadium out there for all of us to see?

Based on what I'm hearing from Santa Clarans this week, I seriously doubt it.




Thanks for sharing your experiences with all of us,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

49ers Stadium: Signature Gatherers Misrepresent "49ers Own Initiative"

"Bill ~ I ran into one of these guys at Save Mart on El Camino Real on Sunday and as I was going into the store, he was talking to some other guy about the positive things on getting the stadium, giving him a handout, etc.
After my shopping, I exited the store and he yelled to me, asking if I was a registered Santa Clara voter? I said I was but that I was NOT in favor of the stadium, so I didn't want to sign his petition.
He told me that it was not about that, although he was in favor of the stadium, but that it was just an initiative to make sure the issue was place on the ballot in June. (He was a bit loud & pushy, but I didn't think to ask your question or who he was working for!)
I asked him again, was he sure that this was just to get the initiative on the ballot and nothing else, because I saw him give the other guy a pro-stadium handout and I didn't want to sign anything that was in favor of the building of this wasteful & unnecessary stadium. He said "Oh NO, even though he was for the stadium, this is just to get the issue on the ballot!"
When I read through it, I didn't see anything that made me feel that this was put on by the 49ers, and I thought to myself: 'I think I read or heard somewhere that the City might be able to keep this from being voted on', so I went ahead and signed their petition.
I did feel strange about it afterwards though. Like maybe I had been sold a bill of goods or like how you feel after talking to a slick car salesman!
I just wish I had gotten your e-mail sooner! I would have handled this situation differently, primarily I wouldn't have signed his petition!! But, nevertheless, if I see another one of these guys, I will ask "the question", just to see what they have to say.
It's OK to use this story......maybe it will help someone else in their dealings with these tricky guys.

--- Santa Clara Plays Fair Member


So, in essence, Santa Clarans are being lied to in order to get them to sign the "49ers Very Own Initiative" petition. Signature gatherers are claiming: 'Sign this or you won't get a ballot measure on June 8th.'

That's an outright falsehood - and the 49ers and the Stadium Subsidizers knew it very well.

The City Council's own measure is the one that belongs on the ballot - not the 49ers' initiative. There is only one purpose for the team's initiative - and that is to hide the completely worthless Environmental Impact Report certified by the City Council on December 8th, and to make sure that there can be NO legal challenges to it.

In other words: By signing the 49ers' petition, Santa Clarans are depriving themselves of all legal remedies under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Why would anyone sign a petition now that deprives them of their legal rights later?



Thanks for your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

49ers Stadium: Another Santa Claran on the 49ers' Shill Petition Drive...

"Every time I go to Safeway at Homestead / Kiely in Santa Clara there are VERY LOUD obnoxious people at each entrance SHOUTING at people to sign their petition to put the 49er stadium on the ballot. I'm glad I checked your Yahoo! and blog sites to see who they were. The people were so offensively loud that I wanted to complain to Safeway management."

Residents, would you be willing to complain to our Mayor and City Council instead?:

MayorAndCouncil@santaclaraca.gov

By their inaction, and in fact, by their active complicity, the "stadium friendlies" on our City Council are the ones who have set us residents up for the circus that one resident described above.

Sure, the 49ers have the right to do what they're doing. However, as residents, we're entitled to demand that those name-getters - paid for by the 49ers and not by Santa Clarans - tell the truth when they are accosting residents and demanding signatures on the
"49ers' own initiative."

In fact, you should be able to ask any signature gatherer paid by the 49ers the following:

"If the 49ers' petition initiative is IDENTICAL to the Council's own measure as you've claimed - and if both are BINDING - why do Santa Clarans need the 49ers' initiative?"

...and you're entitled to a truthful answer to that question.

Please mail/email/phone in your comments, as well as claims made by the 49ers, which you would like to see addressed. We'll answer you as soon as we can.



Thanks for your support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-