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=-
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
The 49ers' Stadium Subsidy: The word is out - VOTE NO ON J!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I would concentrate on the $67 million RDA redirect. The $330 million in bonds will have some revenue behind them, and will have to be insured to sell.
With respect to the $21.7 million for the Santa Clara public school schools; are there any rules stopping the City from giving some of the $67 directly to the schools? Heck, they could give the schools $40 million, and still be $27 million ahead.
That would leave just enough to cover Santa Clara's unfunded pension liabilites of $27,902,000.00 (according to pg 111 of the 2009 annual comprehensive financial report)
"With respect to the $21.7 million for the Santa Clara public school schools; are there any rules stopping the City from giving some of the $67 directly to the schools?"
Unfortunately, the $67,000,000 isn't there to give to the schools - it's lost, because the stadium funding scheme essentially tells the RDA, "Don't pay the City's General Fund what you owe it - just issue our stadium bonds, and shut up!"
As for the revenue behind the Stadium Authority's bonds - I think you'll find that the Stadium Boosters have drastically oversold the capabilities of that Agency. And you're right that their bonds will have to be insured. Not only that, we'll probably find out that the bonds issued by the SA may not even be tax-exempt - which is going to push their coupon, and therefore the costs of servicing them, even higher.
Revenues? Take naming rights: How much did the Monster Cable deal net for Candlestick? --- a pathetic $6M in four years, or $1.5M a year.
Another example: How much do you really think that the Stadium Authority is really going to collect from Personal Seat Licenses? Start your own pool, and ask your friends to name a price for a single seat, first tier, front rows and on the fifty - our people say at least $5,000 to $7,500 per seat. However, one hard-core fan we know said that it will be over $20K per seat. Who's got that kind of dough? Or are corporations going to buy up the seats that regular fans can no longer afford?
As for the unfunded pension liabilities: A subsidized 49ers stadium in Santa Clara puts us that much further away from ever covering those pension liabilities - again, because the $67,000,000 just ain't there.
Best regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer
-=0=-
The Dolphins just inked a naming rights deal with Sun Life for $7.5 million a year. I agree the revenues aren't likely to cover the Bond debt, but a bit hyperbolic to say taxpayers will end up footing $330m in bond debt.
If that $67 million dollars is real(I take the Assistant City Manager at his word), specific alternative uses should be named. This would make the voters choices more concrete - not just a big number with lots of zero's.
The Dolphins deal is only for 5 years, though, so I doubt Santa Clara can count on a longer deal which it would need in order to be sure it has the money to pay off the bonds. The two newest NFL stadiums [Dallas and NY] still haven't sold naming rights. Interesting that the Miami deal was made just days before the Superbowl.
The opponents to Measure J have never said that there will be NO income to pay off the debts, just that it is unlikely there will be sufficient income to pay operating expenses AND debt repayments, and the 49ers have specifically excluded debt repayments as a reimbursable expense.
If the City is wiling to let the stadium go into bankruptcy, then I suppose the City is protected. So far, however, they have offered NO plans for how the Stadium Authority will make up any budget shortfalls. They NEED to have a plan, even if they don't think they will need to implement it. Pretending that the stadium will always be profitable ignores the real experience of stadiums all across the country.
I didn't say that taxpayers would end up footing the bill - I said that the costs of insuring those bonds, plus their non-tax-exempt status makes it even more difficult for the Stadium Authority to foot that bill.
The "specific alternative" uses of the $67,000,000 is to have it in the General Fund, doing the work of the city, paying for police/fire/paramedics/libraries/librarians - not lost from that General Fund because of a highly-faulty stadium subsidy ripoff scheme.
The Sun Life deal for a Dolphins stadium right in Miami-Dade, FL, is scarcely comparable to Santa Clara - 40 miles south of the 49ers' namesake city, and for a stadium housing a team far less respected than the Dolphins. In other words: Start from the Monster Cable deal and work your way down from there - but I wouldn't be optimistic of getting anywhere near what the Dolphins got.
Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer
-=0=-
Post a Comment