Santa Clara Plays Fair: 49ers PR Campaign Hides the True Stadium Costs

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

2 comments:

Anonymous said...: Too bad you guys couldn't show the voters this video of York presenting this correct chart.; February 9, 2010 at 9:37 PM
Anonymous said...: See the first link at the end of the post; you can view the entire York interview there.

It's the pie chart that counts, though - note that the San Francisco 49ers can't even keep their stories straight.

Regards,
Bill Bailey,
Treasurer

-=0=-; February 10, 2010 at 10:16 AM

Post a Comment

Welcome!

We are a grass-roots coalition of Santa Clara citizens and interested organizations who oppose the City of Santa Clara's subsidy of a stadium for the San Francisco 49ers. We seek to prevent the use of public assets or indebtedness to build or operate a professional football stadium in the City of Santa Clara.

Our city has long deferred more important projects. We believe that Santa Clara should not tax its citizens, increase its debt, or allocate land or any other valuable assets to build a stadium.

Our concerns include:

Public expenditure of at least $287,000,000 in cash, property, and other assets. This equals to a per resident cost of over $2,500.

Less than 10% facility utilization: The stadium will be empty most days, earning no money for the city.

No Comparison Shopping The City's own consultants, Keyser Marston Associates, concluded in their report that a hypothetical office building would generate 5 times the fiscal benefits to Santa Clara, while requiring no subsidy from the taxpayers.

Little, if any, direct return on investment. Most economists and studies that have addressed this issue and most cities who have funded sports stadiums agree that there is little benefit and often adverse financial impacts in underwriting new stadiums.

Reduction in our municipal power reserve fund. Building on the proposed site would require the city to relocate or reconfigure an electrical substation on the property, an expense not required for utility needs. Spending $20,000,000 on this unnecessary project would reduce our municipal power reserve fund.

Santa Clara Plays Fair

Sunday, February 7, 2010

49ers PR Campaign Hides the True Stadium Costs

2 comments:

Welcome!

Blog Archive