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(125 words or less, and please include your address and telephone, which will not be published.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=-
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Councilmembers Kennedy & McLeod: 49ers stadium is not a good deal for Santa Clara
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The latest Santa Clara Weekly says the $67m loss is bogus. The City will collect every penny in RDA money. It will just take a little longer. How can that be. Doesn't the RDA's ability to collect Tax Increment end in Dec 2026?
And this is assuming that the Yorks don't come and hit up Santa Clara for more money while the stadium is half-constructed, with the threat that they'll stay in San Francisco unless Santa Clara forks over more money, at which point Santa Clara has to pay up or they would be stuck with a half-completed white elephant with no conceivable use. After all, they're leaving San Francisco after years of using such threats to extort more money out of the SF city government, why do we think the Yorks have suddenly changed their spots? This is as big a boondoggle as the Arizona Cardinals stadium, which is bankrupting Glendale, or the Cincinnati Bengals stadium, which is bankrupting Hamilton County (a much larger entity than the City of Santa Clara).
A city of 100,000 people simply doesn't have any business playing in the billion-dollar stadium business. If the South Bay wants a stadium, let's put together a consortium of local communities to pay for the stadium, rather than putting the burdon upon one small city. We have better ways to use that money, such as redeveloping the moribund warehouse district near the railroad tracks or building a new public library on the land set aside for it in the Rivermark neighborhood. Let rich people get their welfare the old fashioned way -- i.e., by earning it on the free market. I have no problem with the notion of renting the land to the 49ers for the stadium, but cost of building and maintaining the stadium? Not one thin dime of corporate welfare. No on J.
I want to understand where the money comes from in the agreement which will provide $330 million from the stadium authority. Where does this huge capital come from? Tim on Forbes.
We've gotten no description of the Stadium Authority's finances since the one issued by City Staff in Dec. of 2007:
http://santaclaraca.gov/ftp/csc/pdf/49ers-20071218-AgendaReportreStadiumProjectFinancingandProposedAlternateStadiumSite.pdf
At that time, it was estimated that the split would be: $185M in construction loans, then bonds, with $145M for naming rights, Personal Seat Licenses, etc.
The bonds are paid back through the stadium's operations - but they're taxable, they're insured - and they'll be one grade above junk bonds. It's mighty expensive debt service.
The 49ers consider the details of the SA to be proprietary - so we're not entitled to know how "our" Stadium Authority is structured - not until after the June 8th election, apparently.
Just one more good reason to vote NO ON J.
Rgds,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer
-=0=-
First comment:
"Stadium Boosters" are enraged that "Slide 48," detailing the $67,000,000 loss to the General Fund, was ever made public.
Now, unable and unwilling to put themselves and the City Staff back on the public record to refute the $67M loss on the public record, they're attempting to do it with slick brochures - and, unfortunately, misinformed editorial comment in the Santa Clara Weekly.
The Weekly has no grounds in fact to claiming that the $67M will, in fact, ever be paid back.
And they know that.
Please don't believe it - this is a real General Fund loss.
If the "Stadium Boosters" truly believe otherwise: Then get the City Council to march the City Staff back into Chambers, and make them say, "Just kidding, we didn't mean it."
But please: Let's stop lying to Santa Clarans about the General Fund ripoff. You cannot pass an SB211 amendment - nor can you forgive the RDA's agreements to the City - without incurring a monetary loss.
The logic of the "Stadium Gang" never ceases to amaze.
Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer
-=0=-
Agree...if the Stadium Advocates want to kill the $67m objection to the stadium, it would be easy to get Staff to rerun numbers and refute the claim. I think they did make that request, and thats why The Assistant City Manager reaffirmed the numbers just last week in the Mercury News. How could the Council Members forego $67m when The City is running a deficit?!
"How could the Council Members forego $67m when The City is running a deficit?!"
I honestly do not know.
To get an idea of the perverse logic surrounding General Fund losses, see this blog post from last November:
http://santaclaraplaysfair.blogspot.com/2009/11/49ers-stadium-we-dont-have-money.html
The "Stadium Boosters" can't think logically or be consistent - and our City could be the victim of that incompetence.
Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer
-=0=-
Our biggest banks got big bailouts
and Niners want big bucks too
When Santa Clara City goes under
Who will bail it out - if not you?
CSK
Post a Comment