Dear Santa Clarans,
On June 7th, the "Committee of the Whole" Study Session report on the stadium subsidy was presented before our City Council:
"The current estimate for the total costs for the development of the Stadium is approximately $950,000,000. Approximately 15% to 25% of the development costs will relate to tenant improvements within the Stadium and will be paid by Stadco. As further detailed below, the Stadium Authority will fund the remaining development costs from a variety of sources..."*
"The current estimate for the total costs for the development of the Stadium is approximately $950,000,000. Approximately 15% to 25% of the development costs will relate to tenant improvements within the Stadium and will be paid by Stadco. As further detailed below, the Stadium Authority will fund the remaining development costs from a variety of sources..."*
Have we got that right? Santa Clara Agencies are now down for up to $800,000,000 of the costs of “developing” a $1,000,000,000 stadium for the San Francisco 49ers?
It should be clear, then, why Measure J itself contained no cap of any kind on Stadium Authority liabilities. The 49ers' Stadium Booster crowd sold Measure J to us with their claims of General Fund integrity – claims since proven to be false – but they couldn’t afford to have Santa Clarans pulling back that curtain and finding out that the Stadium Authority would then be stuck with the stadium debt that the 49ers refused to take on themselves.
Shocker #2: This very same "Committee of the Whole" report tells us that our city will be signing the binding Disposition and Development Agreement, or DDA, sometime this fall - with a complete stadium financing plan not even available to Santa Clarans until next summer!**
“Sign here,” the 49ers are saying. “We’ll tell you what it'll really cost you sometime next year.”
If a used-car dealer tried saddling you with debt on those terms, you’d tell him to go jump in the lake. Why is it acceptable for the San Francisco 49ers to do such a thing to our city?
Santa Clarans, please start asking questions about the massive stadium subsidy for the 49ers. It’s much worse than we were told on June 8, 2010 - and the “Committee of the Whole” report from June 7, 2011, is the clearest admission of that.
All the best to you this Independence Day,
“Sign here,” the 49ers are saying. “We’ll tell you what it'll really cost you sometime next year.”
If a used-car dealer tried saddling you with debt on those terms, you’d tell him to go jump in the lake. Why is it acceptable for the San Francisco 49ers to do such a thing to our city?
Santa Clarans, please start asking questions about the massive stadium subsidy for the 49ers. It’s much worse than we were told on June 8, 2010 - and the “Committee of the Whole” report from June 7, 2011, is the clearest admission of that.
All the best to you this Independence Day,
William F. “Bill” Bailey, Treasurer,
* Committee of the Whole Study Session REPORT, Page 5 of 10 ("Page | 4", middle)
** Committee of the Whole Study Session REPORT, Page 2 of 10 (Second page, bottom)
The following slide set was also presented in Chambers on June 7th, and it's very informative:
The following slide set was also presented in Chambers on June 7th, and it's very informative:
3 comments:
15% of $950,000= $142,500.
25% of $950,000= $237,500.
Anonymous - I think your math is off by a factor of 1,000.
The 49ers Stadium Corporation [StadCo] claims it wil be paying 15-25% of constructions costs, currently estimated at $950,000,000:
15% of $950,000,000 = $142,000,000
25% of $950,000,000 = $237,500,000
And that's what the 49ers are planning to pay.
The City's Stadium Authority (our city council) appears to be in charge of raising the remainder:
85% of $950,000,000 = $808,000,000
75% of $950,000,000 = $712,500,000
A pretty big bill for city of about 114,000 residents.
But I'm still less worried about the upfront costs--at least they'd come to and end if this stadium ever got built. I think it's the ongoing costs of operation and maintenance that will finally sink the city.
Say the stadium needs seat refurbishment (or some other repairs) at the cost of "just a few million dollars." The Stadium Authority doesn't have the money, and 49ers decided to withhold rent until its done (as they have done for repair issues at Candlestick).
What will give?
The issue of responsibility for operating losses and continuing repairs and maintenance is precisely why the 49ers don't just want our money for construction--they also want us to assume the risk of long term operating losses AND maintain the flexibility to move to another stadium when Santa Clara can no longer afford to meet their demands.
Thanks - I confused StadCo and Stadium Authority.
Post a Comment