Santa Clara Plays Fair

49ers' Stadium Subsidies: "Let's go on a spree with the city's credit cards!"

2011-12-11T10:43:00.001-08:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

We're already getting some diversionary spin on the outlandish debt which five City Councilmembers and the 49ers want to pile on the Santa Clara Stadium Authority. Let's look at two of them, one unimportant, but the other one vital to the fiscal health of our city.

The first bit attributes to our group some imagined false focus on the increase in the total construction costs of the 49ers' stadium. Well, yeah, it has increased from $937,000,000 to $1,020,000,000 (That's $1.02 BILLION). That's an unadjusted increase of about 9%, but (maybe) 2-4% in "June, 2010 Dollars".

For us, that's not the real story.

The real story is that second bit of pap: The utterly false claim that the 49ers and the NFL are somehow contributing "revenues" for the stadium. They are not. They are instead heaping an additional $520,000,000 worth of loans onto the $330,000,000 already down to the Santa Clara Stadium Authority.

That's public debt, and it's public money.

This should never have happened. But there is a hard number of true out-of-pocket 49ers' contribution that the team, the NFL and their financiers can't hide: The 49ers sent us to the polls last June with their own bought-and-paid for 'citizens' initiative.' At the time, they "estimated" that they would be contributing $493 million toward a one-billion-dollar stadium.

Eighteen months later, our "business partner" now wants to pay only $152 million - and they want a Santa Clara Agency to service $850,000,000 in debt for a stadium that only benefits the team and the NFL.

You're entitled to ask the question: Why are the 49ers now paying only a mere 15% of the total costs of their stadium?

Why are they not paying the 53% they told us when we went to the polls last June?

Santa Clara Plays Fair urges our City Council to take this DDA back to the drawing board. The 49ers should at least be paying for their own stadium themselves, if they insist upon grabbing up all of the NFL Revenues.

They also owe Santa Clara MUCH more in Fixed Rent payments to the City's General Fund - a miserable $180 THOUSAND in the first year is unacceptable.

Finally, they should most certainly be turning exclusive control of the Second Team Sublease over to our own Stadium Authority. They shouldn't be calling the shots on the Second Team - we should be.

The five 49ers' Stadium Boosters on our City Council are letting the San Francisco 49ers go on a spree with Santa Clara's credit cards. That's simply not the answer - not for our city, and not for Santa Clarans.

Please: Come to City Council Chambers this Tuesday evening, December 13, at 7:00 pm - and speak out against the outrageous stadium subsidy.

Demand more from the San Francisco 49ers.

Thanks for all of your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

Any materials you find here in the blogs of Santa Clara Plays Fair and Stadium Facts may be forwarded to anyone, anytime.

49ers' Stadium Subsidies: The 49ers get Cafeteria-style financing from Santa Clara

2011-12-04T23:02:00.001-08:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

From Friday evening, you were given 96 hours to review the 421-page Draft DDA on the City's website. We've gone through it as thoroughly as we can. It's complex, but an analogy might help clear the air about what it really means:

You've engaged a partner to help build a new home. Your business partner controls nearly all of the negotiations with the architect and the General Contractor, so your partner's design demands come first.

You also thought that you and your partner were going roughly "halves" on the total construction cost of $937,000.00, with $444,000 down to you and $493,000 down to your partner.

You now learn that the cost to build is now a million and change.

Worse, at the eleventh hour, your partner is shoving much more of his cost onto your $444,000 line of credit. He has the unmitigated gall to tell you that, since he doesn't drive, and because he eats out and shaves at work, he isn't going to pay for the construction of the home's garage, kitchen or bathrooms.

So, after four years of dickering, your partner says that he's only liable for $152,000 of the cost of a $1,020,000 new home. He expects you to pay the other $850,000 - and he still expects to take 30-minute showers, set the thermostat to 78 degrees and use your microwave oven and flat-panel TV.

Sound bad? It gets worse: Multiply the dollar amounts above by 1,000 and that is exactly what the San Francisco 49ers are doing to us right now. What the 49ers are saying is, "We'll pay for the locker rooms and our Team Store - but we don't use the rest, so we're not going to pay for it."

We must have missed something. The 49ers will take well over $130,000,000 out of that whole stadium every year - but they won't pay for the bleachers, seats or club lounges that paying fans will be using? Consider the billions they will gross from a stadium we're paying for, and then ask yourself why the total net present value (NPV) of their payments over forty years into our city's General Fund remains at a mere $8 million.

What's even more pathetic than the lousy $8 million: The five 49ers' Stadium Boosters on our elected City Council actually give every indication that they're going to agree to the 49ers' outlandish "cafeteria-style" financing - even though it's much worse than the 49ers' own Measure J from last June.

It should be clear now why the 49ers' "J" put no limit of any kind on Santa Clara Stadium Authority debt.

Santa Clarans, please demand more. See the SCPF homepage for details on the Study Sessions this Tuesday and Thursday - and for contact information for Mayor Matthews and the City Council. It is vital that you make your views on the massive stadium subsidy known.

Especially since that subsidy has more than doubled in eighteen months.

Not even Measure J justifies that.

Thanks for all of your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

Subsidizing the 49ers: That $10 million We Don't Have is just the Tip of the Iceberg

2011-11-22T00:47:00.000-08:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

Very shortly, our City Council will have met behind closed doors with the San Francisco 49ers exactly ONE HUNDRED TIMES since May 1, 2007.

Publicly, however, there's been only four years' worth of total hype about the stadium's financing. In early December, at least some preliminary Disposition and Development Agreement, or DDA, for the massive subsidy of the 49ers' stadium, will finally come before Council. Can you residents, ratepayers and taxpayers attend some or all three of these meetings at City Hall, and speak out against the 49ers' Stadium Subsidy?:

Tuesday, December 6th, 2011: "Council Committee of the Whole" Study Session I
Thursday, December 8th, 2011: "Council Committee of the Whole" Study Session II
Tuesday, December 13th, 2011: Public Hearing, City Council Meeting

Time: 7:00 pm Location: City Council Chambers, 1500 Warburton Drive

Santa Clara Plays Fair urges Santa Clarans to attend as many of these meetings as possible - and to speak out.

So, what's a DDA, and what's a Term Sheet?

The DDA is the binding Development Agreement, which places massive amounts of public subsidies - and control over the stadium itself - in the hands of the 49ers. The Term Sheet of June 2, 2009 is its predecessor document --- which gives away the store to the 49ers:

1. The wretched Ground Lease with the City pays only $180 thousand the first year any stadium opens - but the 49ers will easily gross over $130 million in television rights and luxury box rents that same first year. Not a penny of those "NFL Revenues" benefit our city or its agencies - it all goes into Jed York's pockets.

2. We voted away any right to sublease to a 2nd NFL team - and we gave that exclusive right to Jed York and the 49ers.

3. It's unlikely that the Santa Clara Stadium Authority can generate enough revenue to operate the 49ers' stadium for them year-round - so, on June 7th, City Staff acknowledged that the Stadium Authority will probably give up control of the stadium for six months of every year. Calling the 49ers's stadium a "municipal stadium" is simply inaccurate - virtually every development we've seen since Measure Jed merely proves how little control we have over "our" stadium.

4. We were assured that the team would be paying 'substantially' more than the pathetic $5 million a year that the Stadium Authority was supposed to get originally - but we won't know what the 49ers will be paying until the Study Session Agenda is issued, probably on Friday evening, December 2nd.

5. The $10,000,000 in Stadium Authority money voted for "make-ready" work this last Tuesday? The Stadium Authority does not even HAVE $10 million. It may have most of the $4 million that it got from the RDA after our Council "parked" that four mil with the 49ers themselves - but the remaining $6 million will have to be borrowed from the 49ers themselves, with interest payable. Make no mistake; this is the start of a perpetual cycle of indebtedness for at least one Santa Clara agency.

It's become quite clear over the last seventeen months that the "deal" with the 49ers has only two purposes: To saddle Santa Clara's agencies with all of the stadium debt - and to give the profits, power and control to Jed York and the 49ers.

If you can speak out on December 6th, 8th and 13th - will you tell our City's leaders that the 49ers are not paying nearly enough for their own stadium. ? Public debt IS public money.

Before they sign any legally binding "deal" with the San Francisco 49ers, the five 49ers fans seated on our City Council owe us Santa Clarans a much better deal that Measure Jed gave us over a year ago.

Nothing is stopping Council from fixing a horribly bad stadium deal - but they'll have to stand up to the San Francisco 49ers in order to do that.

Thank you for all of your support,

William F. "Bill" Bailey

Treasurer

1(877)703-4300

Please visit our blogs at:
http://www.santaclaraplaysfair.blogspot.com/
http://stadiumfacts.blogspot.com/

-=0=-

49ers' Stadium Subsidies: Sorry, they're not for you, Mark.

2011-10-12T23:34:00.000-07:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

Gosh, will he or won't he? Check out the pop press for the latest speculation on why Jed York will/won't agree to take on Mark Davis and the Oakland Raiders as his tenant.

That's the way the question should be phrased, because Jed York has far more power over the Raiders - and over Santa Clara - than any of us have over him.

The rule that never changes is a very straightforward one: It's about the money, and it's never about the football.

More than a few heirs of millionaire NFL team owners have learned that the hard way, as they've inherited fat assets with bare-bones cash accounts. The children of Georgia Frontiere (St. Louis Rams) and Jack Kent Cooke (Washington Redskins) know exactly how this works. They ended up selling controlling interests in their teams so that they could pay off inheritance tax bills for tens of millions of dollars that were due in mere months after the passing of the majority owner.

A Santa Clara stadium, with Jed York as his landlord, doesn't really solve that problem for Mark Davis.

Also, the subsidy that Santa Clarans are going into debt to pay? It's up to at least $500,000,000 and will likely end up being much more than that. Other than giving the Raiders a place to play, the subsidy - as well as that sublease - benefit the 49ers far more than it will ever benefit the Raiders. Or us.

Note also that the 49ers will be making sure that any stadium they're in will be geared to market their brand - not Raiders jerseys. The sale of NFL gear is big business, and all of the profits from those bobble-headed dolls go into the pockets of the 49ers (and not to a single Santa Clara agency). It doesn't pay Jed York to have any brand-dilution going on in a stadium he controls.

Silly fan emotionalism doesn't mean a thing in any discussion of the Raiders' future (It certainly doesn't in any discussion of our futures). When millionaire NFL team owners do that thing that they do, it may be an accidental sop to one fan constituency or another - but that is never the priority for the millionaire NFL team owners who are really calling the shots.

It's about the money. Always is.

Thank you for all of your support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer,

Santa Clara Plays Fair.org

-=0=-

49ers' Stadium Subsidies: A Cult of Secrecy

2011-10-09T14:16:00.000-07:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

This writer asked at the July 5 meeting of the City Council and Agencies that any dollar amounts taken in by the Santa Clara Stadium Authority in the sale of stadium Personal Seat Licenses, or PSLs, be public information. Santa Clarans in Chambers that evening, plus television viewers on Channel 15, were told by City Staff that this is confidential information - even though those PSLs are being sold by a Santa Clara City Agency and not by the 49ers.

Some months ago, I asked in Chambers that the dollar amounts actually committed to in any Letters of Intent for the parking overlay on private lots be disclosed publicly. Santa Clarans were denied that information also. But what was most disturbing on that occasion was that we were refused not by our own City Staff, but by Lisa Lang, VP of Communications for the San Francisco 49ers - who had no business even speaking for the Stadium Authority.

A few weeks ago, CalAware petitioned City Hall for the release of the public safety report for gameday security in a billion-dollar-stadium paid for mostly by us.

And they were refused.

(A correction --- Neither CalAware nor the First Amendment Coalition were refused this report because they were not the ones who requested it. But you can still follow the trail in the link above to find out just who that shy party was. We might even find out why the source of the original request is mentioned virtually only in the last sentence. Thanks to several members of Santa Clara Plays Fair for pointing this out. -- BB, 10/11/2011)

This is a big deal. After the shootings, beating and parking lot brawl at Candlestick Park on August 20th and September 18th, we as residents are absolutely entitled to know that, of 160 police officers handling a massive traffic jam of over 20,000 vehicles, some portion of them will be protecting members of the public, and in particular residents on the north side of our city.

The refusal of the Stadium Authority even to tell us how they're going to protect us during NFL events at a stadium we're paying for simply isn't acceptable. The 49ers - and the NFL - have no business telling us what we can and cannot see.

The use of the Closed Sessions of our Council and our Agencies to conceal this as well as the true costs of the stadium subsidies from us is simply another nail in the coffin of open government. We have a culture of secrecy that's rapidly becoming a cult.

Surely, the All-American City deserves much better. Will you please speak out? Contact the Council directly .

Demand more.

Thanks for all of your support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

49ers' Stadium Subsidies: Selling out Great America does not help Santa Clara

2011-09-20T00:12:00.000-07:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

We can quickly put the sale of the Great America theme park to JMA Ventures in perspective.

The San Francisco 49ers are pulling the strings, of course, and they've solved their legal problems with Cedar Fair with a $70 million grease job. But based on our city's treatment of Cedar Fair these last several years, I'm not surprised if CF is glad to be out from under the Great America theme park.

The upshot is this: None of what happened today makes the 49ers stadium subsidies a better deal, or even a good deal, for Santa Clarans. We're still down for what will probably be well over HALF A BILLION DOLLARS in corporate welfare for the 49ers. We'll still be getting peanuts in return.

There are some other points to bear in mind. The theme park still pays our city's General Fund of $5.3 million, minimum, every year. Over the life of the proposed "give-away-the-store" stadium lease, the theme park will pay us TEN TIMES as much as the San Francisco 49ers ever will! Whatever JMA - and the 49ers - are planning, we as residents should insist that the current lease continue to pay off at its current level. Any renegotiated lease should be as good or better for our city - and NO development rights should be surrendered to JMA or to the 49ers.

However, based on the sweetheart deals that the Stadium Boosters on our City Council have already struck with the 49ers, both for the Training Center and for the stadium, any reasonable resident should be deeply suspicious of where the sellout of the Great America theme park is really going to take us.

Note also that the theme park lease requires that a recognized amusements firm be the actual operator of the park. JMA and/or the San Francisco 49ers most certainly do not qualify. They better have a plan for theme park operation by a third party, paid for by either or both of them and not by us.

In fact, in view of the beating and shootings at Candlestick Park on August 20th - and in view of the brawl in Candlestick's parking lot ~~Monday~~ Sunday evening - we should be drilling the 49ers hard on this one point alone.

After that: There will be the care, upkeep and improvement of the theme park so that it continues to be a credit to our city's Entertainment District rather than a gamepiece for the 49ers. Let's face it: The 49ers aren't going to pay football dollars to keep up a theme park with returns far less than an NFL team - so look for the whining, givebacks and bad deals to begin shortly after the press buzz on today's sellout wears off.

JMA Ventures and the San Francisco 49ers really do owe Santa Clarans some solid answers. The 49ers and their "stadium boosters" have spent close to three years whining that Cedar Fair stood in the way of "their" stadium, so it's going to be very interesting to see how this crowd rationalizes the 49ers' treatment of that same theme park.

If they and JMA let Great America degenerate to the condition that Candlestick Park is in today, we Santa Clarans are going to find ourselves in a lot of trouble.

Thanks for all of your support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer,

SantaClaraPlaysFair.org

-=0=-

Traffic, More Traffic and the Cooked Numbers behind the 49ers' EIR

2011-08-28T15:27:00.000-07:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

It's taken nearly two years. But someone is shining some bright lights on the completely insupportable claims that the San Francisco 49ers have made concerning the massive traffic jams and private-parking mess they'll be causing in Santa Clara. If you can, pick up a copy of today's Sunday San Francisco Chronicle, and see:

49ers' stadium plan stirs debate over parking

The Stadium EIR was the perfect example of consultants telling a client just what they were paying to hear - but those cooked numbers did a great disservice to Santa Clara and to Santa Clarans. Now, a real traffic analyst from Walnut Creek, Mr. Steve Abrams, has analyzed the 49ers' claims the way this should have been before the team ever presented their EIR. He's done so at no cost to anyone.

The issue of the massive traffic jams on NFL game days - and the use of a 160-officer traffic force to manage about 20,000 private vehicle-trips - is rooted in one of the biggest howlers we heard in the fall of 2009: The claim by the San Francisco 49ers that mass transit utilization would be 26% at a stadium here at the same time that it was less than 19% at Candlestick Park.

Keep in mind that CalTrain at the time was going through a severe financial crisis. Only this March, before that crisis had abated somewhat, CalTrain was actually proposing to close College Park, Santa Clara and Lawrence Stations - the three stations closest to the proposed Santa Clara stadium site!**

Bye, bye, mass transit crowd.

If you have a moment, please give a fair reading to what Mr. Abrams has written about the 49ers' traffic jam plans. The increase in private vehicles packing our streets north of U.S. 101 is not merely incremental - it will have a serious effect on the level of service, or LOS, at intersections which even the 49ers themselves were finally forced to acknowledge are already among the worst in our county.

As for the statement that the 49ers took the issue up "conservatively," and that the infrastructure here is "equal to or superior to any in the NFL," I'll simply refer everyone to this one figure from the 49ers own EIR. I'll then ask, "If our infrastructure is as good as you're claiming, why are you closing four streets, barricading 31 intersections, and demanding identification from residents in the Agnews area as they try to return to their own homes?"

Note that none of this is required at Candlestick Park today. Note also that the 49ers will be reimbursing us only a portion of what game-day traffic management - and public safety - will actually be costing us. In view of the shootings and the beating at Candlestick last weekend, we're entitled to ask hard questions on that second point alone.

At any rate, four years from now, let's ask Santa Clarans who make their homes in the Agnews and Lafayette corridors if the 49ers told the truth in 2009.

By then, of course, it will be way too late.

Santa Clarans, you have a stake in this wherever you reside in our city - but if you live north of U.S. 101, this will affect just about every aspect of your daily lives, both during the construction of a subsidized NFL stadium and in its operations after that. Santa Clara Plays Fair urges all Santa Clarans to inform themselves on just what the stadium subsidy is truly costing all of us, and not just in dollars.

Please take a moment to share your concerns with the Mayor and City Council here, and contact Santa Clara Plays Fair anytime if you have questions about the EIR or about the stadium subsidy itself.

Thanks for your continuing support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

Ref. available early 8/29/11: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/28/SPV81KRMCC.DTL

** Front page, San Jose Mercury News, Feb. 4, 2011

Comments by Santa Clara Plays Fair on the 49ers's Draft EIR of July, 2009

49ers' Stadium Subsidies: Our RDA is now the 49ers' ATM

2011-08-16T23:43:00.000-07:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

It's about the Stadium. Really. It is.

When Council voted this evening to hand over to Sacramento, EVERY YEAR, ten percent of the property taxes generated in our Redevelopment Agency, we were told about the hardship that would ensue if we couldn't operate the RDA in perpetuity and force it to dispense cash to the San Francisco 49ers all along the way.

Yes, other projects are at stake. But the real purpose of Council's actions this evening is to protect the ability of our RDA to borrow cash from the 49ers and pay it back at a rate of up to 8.5% a year - using our property tax dollars.

The use of public monies to subsidize a millionaire's private enterprise, in fact, makes Santa Clara's RDA a poster child for eliminating RDAs in California altogether, which our City Council and RDA were obviously unwilling to do.

The blather, frankly, began almost immediately after the RDA Giveaway this evening. One of the more absurd claims I overheard was that we were wrong to oppose the "new" RDA - because the money comes back from Governor Brown, freshly laundered and folded, 'for schools and stuff.'

Don't you believe it.

Balancing the State Budget will never favor local schools. If you really want to protect local schools: Phase out redevelopment so that those property taxes can finally be disbursed the way they were originally intended to be shared.

It won't happen immediately. But forcing the RDAs to pay off their debts and clock out would mean at least $10,000,000 per year into Santa Clara Unified Schools EVERY YEAR - far more than the pittance being passed through by the SB 211 amendment the Council passed for the 49ers in February (To get an idea of the dollars involved, see the July page in your City Calendar.).

There's an even darker side of the precedent that our Council-and-RDA chose this evening, though: Imagine that day in the very near future when the next Governor decides that $2.7 million a year out of our RDA is not enough for his budget shenanigans in Sacramento. He demands $6 million per year instead. What then?

We could imagine an even worse scenario: A State Legislature so addicted to those RDA dollars that it actually prohibits the dissolution of local agencies in order to keep our local property tax money flowing their way. Think Sac politicians won't interfere still more in our local affairs? They certainly did with SB 43.

What the Santa Clara City Council did this evening is foolish and dangerous on multiple levels.

But worse than that, it protects the interests of the San Francisco 49ers far more than it protects Santa Clarans.

Thanks for all of your support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

49er's Stadium Subsidies: Property Taxes now Payable Directly to Sacramento

2011-08-14T21:37:00.000-07:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

This Tuesday evening, the Stadium Boosters on our City Council will probably cave in - again - on the 49ers stadium subsidy.

It's likely that they'll agree to pay 10% of the North-of-Bayshore's property tax increment to Sacramento, year after year. That's after paying Sacramento $11.2 million dollars upfront. The City's own Council Agenda REPORT is here.

Terribly sorry. But this is the price of keeping the RDA alive so that it can continue to subsidize the San Francisco 49ers.

A short background: On June 7th, we were told that the RDA could not afford to write stadium subsidy bonds, but that it would have to borrow cash from the 49ers themselves at a much higher rate of interest. On June 14th, the city's Fiscal Year Budget for 2011-12 was approved, and it was admitted then that Redevelopment Agency property tax increment would probably be 8-3/4% less this year than last.

The issue documents for the RDA's 2011 Tax Allocation Bonds paint a more serious picture than that: Our RDA will collect approximately ten percent less in tax increment in the coming year than it did last year. So, you may expect $27 million in property tax revenues - not $30 million.

Now, we hear that 10% of $27 million, or $2.7 million PER YEAR, EVERY YEAR, is now payable directly to Sacramento, an unprecedented redirection of local property tax money. This is being done simply so that the Stadium Boosters in our city can continue to pile stadium debt on both the RDA, and in particular, on the Santa Clara Stadium Authority.

If someone had told me five years ago that our city would reach a point at which real property taxes would go out the door to Sacramento - simply so that our city's Agencies could then assume hundreds of millions of dollars in debt for a millionaire's football palace - I simply would not have believed him. No City Council, and no Redevelopment Agency, I would have replied, would ever lose that much perspective over the mere bragging rights to an NFL stadium.

That, however, is exactly where we are likely to be after Tuesday evening's City Council Meeting.

Please note that this is precisely the loss of RDA funds to Sacramento that the Stadium Boosters told us that Measure J would prevent.

Santa Clarans, please speak out. Speak up. Tell the City Council how wrong they really are on this issue.

All the best, and thank you for your ongoing support,
William F. "Bill" Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlays Fair.org

-=0=-
A fragment from the Agenda Report linked above:

"To fund the initial year remittance of $11,151,131 the following fund sources are available:

Forgo 2011-12 deposit into the Housing Fund, which should yield about $6 million...
Use 11-12 Net Tax Increment, which should yield about $2 million
Finally, use unspent...discretionary 10% Housing Fund monies..."

3. Subsidizing the San Francisco 49ers, One Year Later: "Sign here! We'll tell you what it costs next year..."

2011-07-04T18:01:00.000-07:00

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..."*

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,

William F. “Bill” Bailey, Treasurer,

SantaClaraPlaysFair.org

-=0=-

* 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:

PowerPoint Slides, Staff Presentation: POST MEETING MATERIAL

2. Subsidizing the San Francisco 49ers, One Year Later: How to Lose a "Municipal Stadium"

2011-06-16T00:14:00.000-07:00

Dear Santa Clarans:

When the 49ers' paid "stadium boosters" wanted your vote on Measure J last June, they went through some tortured verbal gymnastics to persuade us that this stadium was somehow "ours." Now, a year later, we can finally see how untruthful that really was.

The City Council formed the Santa Clara Stadium Authority to own and run the stadium for the team - and to protect the interests of Santa Clarans in the stadium deal. That Authority was originally charged with selling subsidy bonds to get the stadium built. We were also told that the Authority would be getting the naming rights sold and the concessionaire agreements signed.

This city Agency is even stuck with selling the very same Personal Seat Licenses, or PSLs, that left behind such a stink in Oakland.

Now, we learn that the original foundation of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority is built on sand: Not only is it exceedingly unlikely that the Santa Clara Stadium Authority can possibly raise the $330,000,000 needed for the stadium's construction - it's not even clear that the Authority could possibly operate a Santa Clara Stadium for the $20 million to $30 million every year that will cost.

In violation of the Term Sheet itself, the 49ers have even taken control of the naming rights negotiations.

In fact: For the first time last Tuesday, we actually heard that the Stadium Authority - this same City Council - is planning on borrowing money from the 49ers just as the Redevelopment Agency will be forced to do. Any such cash advance to the RDA will have to be paid back at an interest rate of up to 8.5% per annum. Wait until we find out what the Stadium Authority will be charged for the loans it takes from the 49ers.

But it gets even worse: The "solution" to our problems, apparently, is now a "triple-net" lease which puts the stadium under the control of the 49ers themselves six months out of the year - and which actually includes periodic options for the Stadium Authority to hand the stadium over to the team for the entire year, every year.

Back in February, Mayor Matthews actually tried calling the 49ers' stadium a "municipal stadium."

Last Tuesday evening - almost exactly a year after Measure J - our city's elected officials admitted that it's no such thing.

That's how you lose control of a "municipal stadium" - a stadium they told us was "ours."

Next: "Sign here - we'll tell you how much you're paying sometime next year!"

Thanks for all of your support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair.org

-=0=-

1. Subsidizing the San Francisco 49ers - One Year Later

2011-06-09T00:57:00.001-07:00

Dear Santa Clarans:

It's been a year since less than one third of Santa Clara's registered voters passed Measure J.

So, how about that $444,000,000 stadium subsidy for the San Francisco 49ers? Well, this is what we learned on Tuesday night in City Council Chambers:

The good news is that the RDA will probably be unable to write some $28,000,000 in bonds to subsidize the 49ers' stadium for them. However, the bad news is that the RDA may well end up borrowing from the 49ers themselves more than $30,000,000 in order to meet just the $40,000,000 commitment we made to the team when we approved Measure J.

This does matter. If you could sell bonds and service their debt at 5.75% - no guarantees on that, by the way - then why would you borrow cash at up to 8.5%? Because Measure J locks you into doing exactly that. It allows us virtually no relief in a poor economy that's hammering homeowners as well as their city governments.

Wasn't the SB 211 amendment supposed to fix this by extending the authority of the RDA so that it could write those "stadium bonds"? Apparently, that didn't work - and now, there's no going back: The losses to our city's General Fund, some $19,500,000 over time, cannot be reversed because the SB 211 amendment cannot be rescinded.

Anyway, that's us: We're not only stuck with General Fund losses due to the stadium subsidy - but the costs of capital to our Redevelopment Agency are probably going to be significantly increased. As the RDA is now authorized to collect tax increment through 2027, there will be a lot of RDA money flowing into the pockets of the 49ers, improving their cash flow but not helping Santa Clarans or any of their public agencies.

Measure J virtually assured that our Redevelopment Agency would essentially be turned into an ATM for the 49ers. The news out of City Hall on Tuesday evening just underlined that in red.

Next: How to lose control of a "municipal stadium."

Thanks for all of your support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer,

Santa Clara Plays Fair.org

-=0=-

The 49ers' Subsidies: "They're a bad idea, so let's do 'em anyway!"

2011-05-22T17:05:00.000-07:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

We link to Neil deMause's "Field of Schemes" website from our homepage because the guy really gets it. Today, with this essay, he proved that once again.

You'll see some brief but straight-on-point paragraphs on the inane waste of public money that goes into sports palaces - and the illogical thought processes of journalists and Councilmembers who think they understand the issue but who really don't:

"When newspaper columnists (and, presumably, elected officials) are able to think to themselves, "Sure, virtually every economist agrees that public sports facilities are a terrible deal, but this is a public-private partnership, so that's a totally different thing!" then there's really no reasoning with them. And as recent events have shown, when people really want to believe in something, they have an amazing capacity for cognitive dissonance. "

If you're still under the illusion that subsidizing a stadium for the San Francisco 49ers in Santa Clara is any kind of 'public/private partnership': Ask yourself why the 49ers will walk out the door with over $130,000,000 in broadcast, luxury box and club seat revenues the first year - and why our city's General Fund gets only a stinking $180 thousand. That's what Measure J really does to our city.

The principle is the same here as it is for any arena in Sacramento - only here in Santa Clara, we'll pay many times more per capita for the exorbitantly overpriced entertainment being served up by the San Francisco 49ers. That's a massive public subsidy of $444,000,000 - all so that we can get jobs paying less than $7,000 a year.

We're blowing a lot of public wealth on nothing but bragging rights. Santa Clara Plays Fair urges residents to demand more - much more - from this City Council and from the San Francisco 49ers.

Thanks for all of your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org

-=0=-

The 49ers' Subsidies and Truth-in-Borrowing

2011-05-15T14:08:00.000-07:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

On April 19th, the City Council, Joint Financing Authority and Redevelopment Agency approved the sale of bonds for ten-some "refurbishment" projects in our city's North of Bayshore Redevelopment Area. It's anticipated that this bond sale will raise up to $35 million, and that at minimum, $25 million will go toward fixing stuff up - but that any remainder will go directly to subsidize the San Francisco 49ers.

You can see all of that here by clicking on "POST MEETING MATERIAL." The "refurbishment" means just that. NO new projects are in fact being constructed.

In fact, you'll find in this "carve-out" an unspecified sum for the "refurbishment" of a North Side Library not even yet built! The cost of building the North Side Library itself will be an additional $19.7 million. Not one shovel has turned any dirt for that Library, for the reason that our City's General Fund cannot afford the approximately $800K to $1M every year it will cost to pay librarians and to put books on its shelves.

In other words: There's enough in our General Fund to suffer $67 million in losses over time in order to subsidize the San Francisco 49ers - but not enough to hire a Trainer for our Senior Center and not enough for a fireworks display in Central Park this 4th of July (voted down at this same City Council meeting, in fact). There's not enough money to pay any additional Librarians - or to keep our Central Library open for the 64 hours a week it was open only one fiscal year ago.

Just as troubling: On April 19th, one of the bond consultants for the city acknowledged verbally that the 2003 Tax Allocation Bonds are being serviced at a cost to the RDA of about 5% per year - but that the 2011 'Refurbishment and Stadium Subsidy' Bonds will have a cap of 8.5%. This greatly increases our debt service costs - either to the RDA or to any successor Agency. That candid admission didn't make it into any of the written records I've examined.

In fact, this rather begs the question of what our Santa Clara Stadium Authority will face when it issues nearly four times this face amount in bonds. Some $120M to $150M in Stadium Authority paper must not only be insured - it will not even be tax-exempt.

We better pray that the 49ers get us some decent Naming Rights proceeds, even as they violate their own Term Sheet by doing so. In particular, we better pray that every last one of those Personal Seat Licenses, or PSLs, gets sold...

...at $5,000 to $20,000 apiece, by the way. Can you hear us, "stadium boosters"?

Anyway you slice it: Forty-Niners' stadium debt, paid for by Santa Clarans through their Agencies, is going to be a killer.

Thanks for your ongoing support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

The 49ers' Stadium Subsidies: There are Naming Rights, then there are Naming Rights

2011-04-05T20:24:00.001-07:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

Open up the stadium's Term Sheet and note from the last line of Section 7.3(b) on page 10:

"Unless otherwise agreed by 49ers Stadium Company, Naming Rights Revenue will not include revenue from rights to name or sponsor components of the Stadium, or from advertising or promotional activites, all of which are included in the Team Revenue." [Emphasis mine.]

The Santa Clara Stadium Authority will be paying massive debt service as a part of its $330 million portion of the 49ers stadium subsidy. Yet, less than an hour ago, one of the 49ers own representatives tried to tell me that every cent from the sponsorship of the overall naming of a stadium in Santa Clara will flow into the Santa Clara Stadium Authority.

Really? Check out this evening's "Stadium Naming Rights Marketing Agreement," part 2.2:

"The Parties acknowledge that Stadco and/or the Team may also separately retain the Naming Rights Broker to perform sponsorship brokerage services for Stadco and/or the Team."

If they use that same broker - and the "halo effect" of the overall stadium naming rights - in order to inflate the naming rights take from any "Joe Montana Gate" or "Bill Walsh Concourse," the 49ers really will score - better than they did last playing season and probably better than this year.

Please. Let's not pretend for a minute that the Santa Clara Stadium Authority is going to get the best deal it can possibly get under those conditions. Putting even more cash into the pockets of the 49ers doesn't help us pay off the massive debts we'll have from the stadium's construction - or from operating it for the 49ers.

The massive stadium subsidy means well over $130 million in broadcast royalties, luxury box contracts and club seating for the 49ers in the first year of any stadium in our city.

It means a stinking $180,000 for our City's General Fund.

But - as usual - we saw this evening in City Council Chambers that the stadium subsidy "deal" isn't intended to benefit us.

It's only designed to benefit the 49ers.

Thank you for your continued support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org

-=0=-

49ers Stadium Subsidy: Fireworks of a different sort

2011-03-30T14:07:00.000-07:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

Item 7C2 from Tuesday evening's Consent Calendar got pulled for discussion. Sounds innocuous - but it actually lit up the night sky, if only briefly.

City Staff informs that it will be virtually impossible for our city to have a fireworks display at Central Park this July 4th. Not only do we not have the $65,000 it will cost, we don't even have the City Staff to supervise and conduct it.

Click the icon here for the details.

Boosters of the San Francisco 49ers' stadium subsidy have made this quite clear: It's OK for our RDA (what's left of it) to abolish its own debt deadline to subsidize the stadium, causing our city's General Fund to lose a nominal $19,500,000 over time. (See table, last page.)

But we can't afford $65,000 from that same General Fund for fireworks this year?

If these are truly the priorities of the "stadium boosters," maybe it's time for "fireworks" of a different sort.

When speaking of fiscal responsibility in Santa Clara, it ALL goes on the table - the subsidy for the San Francisco 49ers as well as our General Fund's ongoing spending patterns. Anyone trying to attack one and not the other is simply not giving Santa Clarans the whole story.

You as residents of Santa Clara can help put that discussion back in perspective. Please get involved. Contact the Mayor and City Council and tell them what you think.

Look upon it as another sort of "red glare."

Thanks and regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-

49ers Stadium Subsidy: "Parking" $4.5M of RDA Funds

2011-03-21T23:58:00.000-07:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

"Thank you" to the public-spirited residents who spoke in this evening's Special Meetings of the RDA and the Stadium Authority. We got the meeting materials less than 90 minutes before those two meetings – so, not a bad turnout.

We didn't win, but Councilmembers Kennedy and McLeod stood up for this very important principle: Let's not give public money to a private corporation with no signed development agreement - and with no guarantees from the San Francisco 49ers themselves. However, the vote still went 5-2 in favor of the 49ers Stadium Raid.

Summary: The "stadium boosters" on the Council are claiming that Measure J licenses them to do this - to essentially "park" RDA cash in the accounts of a private business to keep it out of the hands of the Governor. We call it "RDA Keepaway."

The rationalization? Sell the $4.5 million as being "only" for "make-ready" infrastructure - sidewalks, driveway cuts, paving, piping - which we "claim" we would do even if the stadium deal were to fall through.

You can drive a cement mixer through that argument: One doesn't need to hide funds with a third party to buy fire hydrants for Tasman Drive.

Footnote: Those meeting materials, by the way, included letters from the public on this $4.5 million giveaway - and of the 54 distinct responses I found, all 54 were AGAINST the handing over of public money to the (very) private 49ers. See here (click POST MEETING, see pages 26-96).

Thank you - everyone - for all of your support.

Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-

49ers Stadium Subsidy: "Let's just give it to 'em right now!"

2011-03-19T12:57:00.000-07:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

Please see the Mercury News' coverage of the Special Meeting of our RDA and Stadium Authority to be held on Monday evening:

Santa Clara's next idea to keep stadium money from state: Give it to 49ers

Do we understand this correctly? Our RDA - identically our City Council - is going to take $4.5 million in RDA cash and hand it to a stadium developer which just locked out their own NFL Players and which has not even come up with its OWN financing for the stadium?

In the bitterest of divorce actions, one spouse desperately moves assets around to conceal them from the other spouse's lawyer. Here, we're handing RDA cash over to the San Francisco 49ers simply in order to keep it out of the hands of Governor Brown.

Not only that: The Mayor himself informs that we cannot even view the text of the motion for Monday evening until Monday morning at the earliest. That's not open government, no matter what rationalization the "stadium boosters" on the Council are using this week.

If you can make it to City Hall at 7:00 pm on Monday evening, March 21st, please come and watch your city government in action.

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

-=0=-

49ers' Stadium Subsidy: A promise is a promise

2011-03-15T22:28:00.000-07:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

The promise: The General Fund of the City of Santa Clara will take NO hits - directly or indirectly - due to the 49ers' stadium subsidy.

This evening in Chambers, "stadium boosters" - on the City Council and off - become very uncomfortable addressing that broken promise, but it's still an inconvenient fact:

We can't subsidize the San Francisco 49ers with $21 million in bonds paid off with tax increment - unless we extend the time limit of the Redevelopment Agency.

That extension, or SB 211 amendment, utterly reduces the passthroughs payable to our City's General Fund. We lose a nominal $19.5 million over time.

There's not enough money to pay our city employees what we paid them a year ago, so they are foregoing this year's increase and taking 5.15% pay cuts. But at the same time, there's enough in that same General Fund to lose due to the 49ers' stadium subsidy?

Twice, I asked the city to demand that the 49ers make our General Fund whole, but twice, there was no direct response.

The passage of Measure J does not make any of this a "dead" issue, and it should not stop anyone from speaking out. Our city loses big time with the 49ers stadium subsidy - and Santa Clara Plays Fair urges residents to read up, learn, and tell their neighbors what this will truly cost us as a city.

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

-=0=-

49ers' Stadium Subsidy: Common Sense gets Sacked.

2011-02-25T16:28:00.000-08:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

On Wednesday, Tom Barnidge of the Contra Costa Times did an excellent job of covering the RDA extension which passed First Reading by our City Council on Tuesday evening:

Common sense takes a beating with redevelopment funding

"...So maybe this is not a simple yea-or-nay issue. Maybe cutbacks and reforms can reinvent redevelopment. But there's no way California should give $40 million to the 49ers."

Schools? Or stadium subsidies? As a city, we can't have lost that much perspective on this one issue.

Common sense got sacked like Alex Smith this last Tuesday evening - and so did a promise our Council made to us much earlier.

Best regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-

49ers Stadium Subsidy - and a Broken Promise.

2011-02-23T12:09:00.000-08:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

Last night, City Council voted to accept the First Reading of the RDA Extension. By doing that, they confirmed that they were breaking a promise that they made to all Santa Clarans four years ago.

Back in January of 2007, Council was very clear. They approved, unanimously, the Guiding Principles for the 49ers' stadium subsidy. The very first one was a pledge to us that the stadium subsidy was not going to impact our General Fund, directly or indirectly. See page 4/4, Guiding Principle "1."

Yet, last night, Council voted to bleed $20,000,000 out of our city's General Fund over the new RDA lifetime. Click the little icon here, and see page 15/15.

Note the "($19.5)" (MILLION) in the lower half of the table after "City of Santa Clara." That is what our General Fund loses, and those are real dollars.

But this isn't news to anyone, is it? We saw this same table on the evening of June 2, 2009, when the Term Sheet was presented - but only at that meeting, and after the news cameras were switched off. The General Fund ripoff was quietly buried.

Santa Clarans, we are not getting the whole story on the $444M 49ers' Stadium Subsidy, and certainly not on what it is really going to cost us as a city.

We may want to prepare ourselves for even more broken promises.

The Public Hearing on this SB 211 amendment, or RDA Extension, will be held on Tuesday evening, March 15th, in Chambers at 7:00 pm.

Can you make it?

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

-=0=-

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

2010-11-10T01:46:00.000-08:00

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=-

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

2010-10-28T17:13:00.000-07:00

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=-

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

2010-10-25T22:47:00.001-07:00

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=-

Candidates' Forum for Council and SCUSD Trustees this Saturday!

2010-10-15T02:28:00.000-07:00

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!

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

2010-09-27T22:14:00.000-07:00

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=-

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

2010-09-22T08:31:00.000-07:00

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 9^th, 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=-

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

2010-09-21T02:24:00.000-07:00

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=-

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

2010-09-19T23:21:00.000-07:00

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=-

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

2010-09-10T13:59:00.001-07:00

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=-

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

2010-09-08T23:31:00.000-07:00

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=-

The 49ers Stadium: Subsidizing a Bad Project

2010-09-05T14:29:00.000-07:00

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=-

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

2010-08-02T18:43:00.000-07:00

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=-

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

2010-07-01T20:11:00.000-07:00

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 4.3(a): The 49ers pay a miserable $180,000 in Fixed Ground Rent to our city in the first year, and only a million beginning in the year 2024. Our city gets only $8M in Fixed Rent during the stadium lease - a term over which the Great America theme park operator will pay us over $80 million.

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=-

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

2010-06-09T08:44:00.000-07:00

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

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

2010-06-08T07:38:00.000-07:00

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=-

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

2010-06-06T19:15:00.000-07:00

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!

2010-06-06T08:31:00.000-07:00

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=-

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

2010-06-04T23:28:00.000-07:00

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=-

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

2010-05-31T22:39:00.000-07:00

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=-

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

2010-05-30T15:13:00.000-07:00

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=-

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

2010-05-29T22:21:00.000-07:00

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=-

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

2010-05-27T17:55:00.000-07:00

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=-

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

2010-04-26T20:42:00.000-07:00

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=-

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

2010-04-24T12:20:00.000-07:00

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=-

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

2010-04-06T23:57:00.000-07:00

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=-

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

2010-03-31T00:24:00.000-07:00

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=-

The 49ers' Stadium Subsidy: Skin in the Game

2010-03-22T17:27:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2010-03-15T14:37:00.000-07:00

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=-

49ers PR Campaign Hides the True Stadium Costs

2010-02-07T23:28:00.001-08:00

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

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

2010-02-02T13:33:00.000-08:00

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/

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

2010-01-27T14:01:00.000-08:00

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.)

Aldyth Parle does NOT support 49ers initiative!

2010-01-12T20:39:00.000-08:00

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.

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

2010-01-07T18:37:00.000-08:00

"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=-

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

2010-01-06T14:47:00.000-08:00

"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=-

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

2010-01-05T14:07:00.000-08:00

"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=-

49ers Stadium: A Santa Claran speaks on the so-called "Citizens' Initiative"...

2009-12-31T12:40:00.000-08:00

"I had a strange experience while entering Lucky's (Saratoga and San Tomas Expwy) on Monday - a young guy standing outside was trying to get signatures on a petition relating to the Stadium. I naturally assumed it was the "Santa Clarans for Economic Progress" (aka the 49ers) so I talked to him a bit. He spouted what I thought was pure misinformation, namely: "the Santa Clara City Council has decided to rescind their support of a vote on the stadium and instead just wants to go ahead with the stadium. By signing this petition you will be restoring our right to vote on the stadium." This seemed to imply that if I was *against* the stadium (which I am), it would be a good idea to sign the petition. I did not sign the petition, because I believe it does an end-run around the EIR, but I did hear him state that the City Council, except one dissenting member, had decided they no longer wanted a citizens' vote. I went into Lucky's briefly and when I came out he was gone (or perhaps at the other entrance), which was too bad because I hadn't actually looked at the petition ... which would have allowed be to confirm which petition it was.

This guy was fairly young, and perhaps he was getting paid for each signature he collected, but he sure mangled the information he gave ... I could easily see some Lucky's shoppers saying "Yeah sure, whatever, kid ... can't hurt to sign it if it allows me to vote on the stadium."

That's from a Santa Claran who saw the 49ers' very own paid signature gatherers in action this last weekend.

The 49ers' claim that their so-called "citizens' initiative" somehow 'restores' our right to vote is simply an outright FALSEHOOD. We already had the right to vote with the City Council's own measure - and the 49ers along with their paid name-getters know this very well.

Sure, it's a free country: The 49ers can do this - even though we all know that its only purpose is to keep them from being held to account for their "Do-nothing-EIR".

After all, their "initiative" is identical to the Council's own measure (they promised), and also binding (they promised) - so there's no reason why we can't vote on the Council measure instead of on the 49ers initiative on June 8th.

Is there?

It also looks like the shoe is finally on the other foot: When, in 1997, a real citizens group tried to challenge the original San Francisco stadium measures from that year, the 49ers sued the Registrar of Voters in S.F. to halt that petition drive:

http://www.mediastudies.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=9733

Regardless of the merits of "49ers v. Nishioka": It might just behoove the San Francisco 49ers to adhere to the same standards here in our city to which they held San Franciscans twelve years ago.

With that, I would like to call upon Santa Clarans to please drop us a line:

Tell us of your own experiences with this so-called "citizens' initiative" petition, and of claims made by any of the 49ers' name-getters.

Those claims won't be hard to debunk.

The 49ers are welcome to do what they're doing - but after the Confidentiality Agreement, the hijacking of Senate Bill 43 and now this "49ers initiative", they've earned themselves a lot of scrutiny.

---------------------------------------

And now, a postscript:

"BTW - my wife just told me the exact same thing happened to her at Save Mart on El Camino last night. She actually signed the petition because she was told she was protecting her right to vote, although she is strongly against the stadium ! These folks are underhanded."

Enough said.

Thanks again for your support!

Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

49ers Stadium: THAT ballot measure?

2009-12-11T20:15:00.000-08:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

The 49ers' "We're-writing-our-own" ballot measure arrived at the City Clerk's office earlier this morning. This is only the "intent-to-file" stage - but there's enough in it, we feel, to be of serious concern to Santa Clara's voters. By the numbers:

Section 2.A.1 Generate new revenues for Santa Clara?

The pathetic Fixed Ground Rent of $8M (TOTAL! Over 40 years!) comes nowhere close to covering the $67,000,000 General Fund LOSS that the stadium will cause. (Ref. 1)

It will certainly never make up for the upfront stadium subsidy of $114,000,000. (Ref 2)

Section 2.A.2. Create New Jobs?:

The last construction worker will walk off the job in the year 2014 - but we'll be paying interest and coupon for that poor job creation through the year 2053. For the money "in", the job creation "out" is miserable.

Section 2.A.3. Provide Taxpayer Protections?:

We really don't think so. How does squandering $114,000,000 in "corporate welfare" to the 49ers really 'protect taxpayers'? How does a $67,000,000 LOSS to the General Fund 'protect taxpayers'?

Section 2.A.4. Generate Community Funding?:

The Stadium Subsidizers are giving you only half of the "schools story". The TRUE story is: The City, the County and the Santa Clara Valley Water District LOSE $17.3 million in order to generate that "schools funding." (Ref. 3)

Bad stadium funding scheme = bad schools funding scheme. Unfortunately, that's the "New Math."

If some "plan" to subsidize a $1,000,000,000 NFL stadium requires your RDA to stop paying your General Fund what it owes, then that stadium DOES rip off your General Fund.

Registered voters in the City of Santa Clara: You'll be asked in the coming months for your signature on petitions barely originated by Santa Clarans - but surely paid for by the San Francisco 49ers themselves.

Santa Clara Plays Fair asks only this of our fellow Santa Clarans: Please consider who's really behind this "initiative" - and who's really paying for it. Urge your neighbors to be skeptical, too. Don't settle for hazy claims and glib promises - the four bullets above should make clear what this "49ers-own" ballot measure is really all about.

And please bear in mind that this measure has been thrust at us for one reason only: To prevent any legal challenges to the badly deficient Environmental Impact Report, or EIR, that came before the Planning Commission on November 18th and before the City Council on December 8th.

That EIR certainly isn't going to be in any better shape by the time we finally see some sort of "project" some eight or nine months from now.

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

-=0=-
============================
Ref. 1: CITY COUNCIL - City Staff's Term Sheet Presentation, 6/2/2009 (SLIDE #48)

Ref. 2: CITY COUNCIL - Term Sheet, Exhibit 7, 6/2/2009

Ref. 3: CITY COUNCIL - Agenda Report on Tax Benefits, 6/2/2009 (Page 5)
============================

49ers Stadium: Vote on June 8, 2010 - on WHOSE ballot measure?

2009-12-09T02:12:00.000-08:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

We'll be voting on something on June 8th, 2010.

But we're not quite sure what. Just when the City Council went forward to direct that a measure be placed on the June Primary ballot for next year - a "citizen's group" stands up to tell us that they're preparing an initiative also.

Why not let the City Council do their work for them?

Well, after spending four hours assuring us that the EIR process was clean and that CEQA was being obeyed - stadium proponents readily admit that the reason for their initiative is to exempt the entire project from any court challenges.

That is: Court challenges associated with the faults in the environmental review process they claim aren't really there.

In fact, the Stadium Subsidizers were even honest about one other thing: They freely admitted that the San Francisco 49ers will be paying for their petition signature gatherers.

This should be cause for great concern: A group of individuals - spending lots of 49ers money - paying lip service to the notions of a fair and transparent process, but all the while, seeking to undermine it by any means necessary. Who's really behind it?

And who's really paying for it?

I'd like to offer special thanks to Santa Clarans who stayed late tonight in Chambers, and spoke up. You challenged not only the certification of an EIR-that-ain't, but you also drew bold lines under what the 49ers are really doing to the process. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

49ers Stadium: "We don't have the money"...

2009-11-30T13:21:00.000-08:00

Dear Santa Clarans:

I'll put that title in its context right away: When Mayor Mahan spoke those words in the City Council Meeting of last Tuesday evening, November 24th, she was referring to a proposed $60,000-per-year athletic trainer for the Senior Center.

First, she's probably right: We really don't have the money.

Let's compare two outflows from our City's General Fund: The $60K-per-year salary for a trainer to help Santa Clara Seniors stay fit & healthy versus the ongoing cost of building & operating an NFL stadium merely to increase the San Francisco 49ers' own profitability *.

For the proposed stadium's $67,000,000 hit to the General Fund **, you could hire a few trainers, fully staff a Northside Library & extend the hours at the Mission Reading Room -- all while reducing the City's operating deficit.

Why are we being asked to pay an astronomical $114M subsidy simply for the opportunity to gut our city's key services? Not only is the city operating under a hiring freeze - our General Fund will be suffering deficits of $8M to $13M through 2015.

It's true: We really don't have the money.

Thanks for your all of your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-
========================
* When I used the same discount rate and terms shown in Exhibit 7 of the Term Sheet, the cost of the salary of that Senior Center trainer over the 40-year stadium lease came to about ONE SIXTIETH - yes, that's 1/60th - of what a subsidized 49ers stadium will cost our General Fund (Net Present Value in 2009 dollars.).

** See Slide #48 in the City Staff Term Sheet Presentation of June 2.

49ers Stadium: The Planning Commission Punts

2009-11-18T23:05:00.000-08:00

Santa Clarans,

The City Planning Commission voted 7-0 this evening to send the stadium's Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - as insufficient as it is - to the City Council.

However, they did so only after dismantling a Staff-written resolution in order to include their own concerns - namely, the near-total lack of mitigation of the stadium's negative impacts.

I'm a newcomer to the proceedings of the Planning Commission, and I was at first disappointed that an FEIR this bad ever went forward at all. But a long-time observer of the Commission suggested that I consider it "half a loaf." Now, at least, the lack of environmental mitigation is on the record.

The Commission's job wasn't an easy one. The timestamp on the FEIR I opened up early this morning read "November 13th", so this Commission - and we residents - had about five days to digest 368 more pages of revisions, comments and responses. At 4,400-some pages, I'm told that our EIR is way longer than the one San Francisco wrote for Hunters Point.

However, the Planning Commission correctly noted that they were dealing with an EIR - not with a project. The slick artist's rendition of a stadium on the display screen in Chambers this evening suggests that this distinction may have been lost on the platoon of 49ers representatives who were present - but in the end, the Commission put this on the right track.

Anyway: It's one thing to pass the EIR forward with a stripped-down resolution to Council. After that, as residents, however, we're really relying on the Planning Commission to take a hard look at how much damage this publicly-subidized stadium does to our community, especially north of U.S. 101 - and how little the 49ers are doing to fix that.

If this actually ends up as a project - let it receive more scrutiny than its EIR has.

The City Council, apparently, was determined to rush this defective proposal through the Commission so that they could take it up in regular session on Tuesday evening, December 8th. It looks like your Council got what it wanted - no matter how unfairly they treated the Planning Commission on this matter.

Santa Clara Plays Fair encourages all residents to contribute to the debate on December 8th - particularly those residents who would end up in the shadow of a publicly-subsidized stadium.

Thanks - especially - to concerned residents who spoke before the Planning Commission this evening.

In fact, I noted that Santa Clarans speaking in opposition to the subsidized stadium actually outnumbered Santa Clarans in favor - a very positive development.

Best regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-
Ref.: http://santaclaraca.gov/index.aspx?page=1197 (First link; 8.74MB)

49ers Stadium: Rushing the Planning Commission

2009-11-16T22:11:00.000-08:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

How is the work of the Planning Commission really advanced by a presentation on the Term Sheet of June 2nd? And by a showing of the 49ers stadium video last presented on July 14th? It's hard to describe this evening's Study Session in any other way.

Still, though, it was possible to correct some of the erroneous information still being disseminated by both the 49ers and stadium supporters in general - and to get some fine points from the Term Sheet out there for all to see.

For example:

1. Contrary to the claims of stadium supporters: The stadium DOES raid the City's General Fund of some $67 million over 40 years . (Slide #48). This occurs because of the SB 211 amendment to the RDA's authorization, as well as because of the abrogation of the Cooperation Agreement with the City. So much for the Guiding Principle of "integrity of City funds."

2. Thanks to one Planning Commissioner for reminding everyone of this: Neither the City, nor the RDA, nor the Stadium Authority itself, has any power to demand a second NFL team in Santa Clara - the right of sublease to any second NFL team is reserved by the Term Sheet STRICTLY to the 49ers alone. (Page 24, Section 16.1). It's one more area in which we've lost control over a stadium we were told would be "ours" - even though that second team would improve the financial impact of the stadium on our city from 'lousy' to just 'bad.'

3. My favorite: Like a bad rash, the highly dubious claim of 26% mass transit utilization for a Santa Clara stadium (Page 175, Section 4.8.4.3) is still being spread around - even though the 49ers themselves told the Hunters Point developers and planners that they'd never achieve that figure in San Francisco, and even though Candlestick Park has an actual mass transit usage rate of less than 18.5%.

But our appreciation goes also to the Planning Commissioner who questioned whether the entire EIR could be fully read and understood in time to make a decision on Wednesday evening.

He's entitled to have some misgivings. The EIR runs to about 4,050 pages and takes up 120 MB on disk. And that's not even counting the public comments and additional data that have been received since this process began.

Which begs the question: This EIR has been out there for everyone's inspection since July 30th. Did the City make any effort to get this review process started by Commissioners at that time?

Or was the real purpose of this evening's presentations simply to rush the Planning Commission into rubber-stamping a highly-defective stadium project which contributes neither financially nor environmentally to the future of this City?

Santa Clara Plays Fair urges Planning Commissioners - as City Commissioners and as Santa Clarans - to ask hard questions, both about the $114 MILLION subsidy as well as the total lack of environmental mitigation (Section 4.8.5, Page 204, top) being offered by the Environmental Impact Report which will come before them on Wednesday evening.

We're not in that big a hurry.

The City Council shouldn't be, either.

Thanks to everyone who attended and spoke at the study session this evening, and best regards,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

49ers Stadium and SB 43: The Anatomy of a Hijacking - 2

2009-10-28T01:23:00.000-07:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

Unfortunately, your City Council decided last night by a vote of 5-2 that voting on changes to your City's Charter is not for you.

Instead, a "Santa Clara Stadium Authority" - identically this City Council, and acting by itself - will exempt the San Francisco 49ers from the competitive bidding requirements of our City's Charter.

What the 49ers apparently learned during some of their "push-polling" of Santa Clara residents is that two ballot measures - one for the $114 million subsidy and one to exempt the 49ers from obeying the Charter - are somehow....um....well....too "confusing" for us to handle.

Whereupon, one public speaker and one Councilman informed us, in the same breath, that it was OK to deny us voters a Charter vote - but that the voters were still intelligent enough to make the call on the stadium.

So, which is it? If we're smart enough to decide on a massive subsidy for an NFL stadium - and we are - we can certainly decide whether or not the 49ers are required to obey our City's Charter as any other applicant would.

As you can imagine, the rationalizations were flying thick and fast in Tuesday's City Council meeting.

However, there's that inconvenient truth that the Stadium Spenders cannot evade: If the 49ers would build their own stadium with their own money, the City's Charter would never have applied - and none of the subterfuge we've witnessed since June 23rd would ever have been necessary.

I'd like to thank the members of Santa Clara Plays Fair who contacted us this last week, and of course, those who stood up in Chambers on Tuesday to speak against our City Council invoking SB 43. Your support of one another and of the group was sincerely appreciated.

Best regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

49ers Stadium and SB 43: The Anatomy of a Hijacking - 1

2009-10-12T12:02:00.000-07:00

Hello to all Santa Clarans,

A Staffer in the office of Gov. Schwarzenegger informed me early this morning that SB 43 has been signed into law, unfortunately.

I don't know about you, but I don't give my votes to a Mayor or to Councilmembers with the expectation that they're going to drive to Sacramento and ask State Lawmakers to deny voters the right to vote on our own City Charter.

But that's exactly what happened on July 8th and September 9th.

The upshot of all of this: The 49ers are demanding a $114 million dollar subsidy for their stadium - and with this rather compliant City Council relying on SB 43, the 49ers will almost certainly have the power to spend that public money in violation of our City's Charter.

If there is to be an exception to the Charter of the City of Santa Clara - benefiting ONE millionaire NFL team owner and giving him his OWN one-billion-dollar football stadium - then we Santa Clarans are entitled to vote on whether or not he's entitled to that exception.

But it looks like that vote will in all likelihood be denied us.

The recommendation of the Charter Review Committee concerning SB 43 will be an Agenda Item at the City Council Meeting to be held on October 27. As residents, ratepayers and taxpayers, we're entitled to attend and to make our views known to the City Council. I encourage all Santa Clarans to be there, and that they urge this City Council NOT to invoke SB 43. This law clearly benefits only the San Francisco 49ers - not us.

Instead, the City Council should be putting the "49ers City Charter Carve-out" on the ballot right alongside of the "49ers $114M Stadium Subsidy" itself.

Santa Clarans are entitled to BOTH votes. The 49ers and the City Council know that.

A special thanks to all of you for expressing your views to Sacramento on SB 43.

Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

49ers Stadium: Draft EIR, Pt. 4 - Mass Transit and Sandbagging the Numbers...

2009-08-17T18:02:00.000-07:00

UPDATE, September 12th: Good news! -- The deadline for public comment on the Draft EIR has been extended from Monday, September 14th to Monday, September 28th:

http://santaclaraca.gov/pdf/collateral/49ers-20090911-Notice-time-extension-for-DEIR-comment-period.pdf

If you possibly can, please comment on the DEIR per the instructions in the link above. To get started, check the four posts below, "Draft EIR" - and contact any of us if you have any questions.

--Bill Bailey
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Recall that San Franciscans voted on June 3, 2008, to give full permission for the Hunters Point development to go forward. That development makes a new stadium for the San Francisco 49ers the centerpiece development on a site of 638 acres - in San Francisco - and it gives the 49ers everything they asked for - except for the hundred-million-dollar public cash subsidy they're still demanding from Santa Clarans...

Last week, I spoke with someone familiar with the negotiations over the Hunters Point development in San Francisco.

The mass transit utilization figures for the 49ers stadium at Hunters Point came up in discussions with the MTA - and the 49ers told the MTA people that they didn't believe that MTA could achieve a 20-25% utilization of mass transit at Hunters Point!

Not only that: A survey of transit modes for Candlestick Park over the interval 2002 through 2007 showed a mass-transit utilization of only 18.5%.

O.K., time out:

The 49ers are happy to see us assume a 26% mass transit usage figure here in Santa Clara - but when San Francisco's MTA proposes nearly the very same number for Hunters Point, the team's representatives feign skepticism?

This kind of inconsistency should be setting off a lot of alarm bells, and it should make Santa Clarans deeply suspicious of exactly what went into our own Draft EIR. Sandbagging the mass transit estimates for Hunters Point and inflating those numbers for Santa Clara merely allows stadium supporters to ignore a potential traffic nightmare - affecting homeowners as well as businesses - until it's too late to do anything about it.

We shouldn't be doing business like that.

Santa Clarans, you have until Monday, September 14th, to comment on the Draft EIR, and Santa Clara Plays Fair would like to urge you to speak up:

http://santaclaraca.gov/ftp/csc/pdf/49er-Stadium-DEIR/49er-Stadium-DEIR-NOA.pdf

If you have any questions about the DEIR, or if you need background information for any comments you'd like to submit, please contact us any time.

We'll help in any way we can.

Thanks for all of your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

49ers Stadium: Draft EIR, Pt. 3 - Mass Transit

2009-08-11T11:25:00.000-07:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

The Draft EIR presumes a 26% usage of mass transit for 49ers game day traffic (See pp. 175-6, Section "4.8.2.3 Existing Transit Service").

Quick. By a show of hands: Do you believe that number?

One of the ways to rationalize the figure you like is to work backward - not only from the total number of seats in the stadium you want - but also with an eye on the stadium with which your own will be compared.

That's Candlestick Park, of course. As you can imagine, any mass transit utilization significantly lower than San Francisco's on 49ers game days pushes your number of auto trips up.

You can't afford that perception.

This concern isn't new - it was raised as a significant objection by several speakers at the original EIR scoping sessions moderated by City Planning Department Staff back on September 2, 2008. This writer was one of them. Very few people believed the "one-quarter-will-ride-the-bus" claim even then.

That's why it's a little disconcerting to find it yet unchallenged by the consultants who produced this section of the Draft EIR almost eleven months later.

See "Table 15" on page 176, and note that the occupancy is estimated at 2.7 persons per vehicle.

If we were truly to see that in practice, fine - but the price of being wrong will be yet another unsustainable increase in the vehicular 49ers traffic described in the previous blog post. If the seventeen Northside intersections serving those vehibles are already completely degraded to Level E and Level F already, then for any miscalculation in the mass transit figure, we'll have to invent a whole new Level of Service (LOS) for those intersections: Level G, for "Gummed up".

And it will take only an incremental increase in private vehicles to cause that kind of bedlam.

Considering that the Draft EIR's explicit "mitigation" of that jammed traffic is in fact NO mitigation at all, we're running a real risk if we uncritically accept numbers such as the ones in the report.

To their credit, the authors were quite honest about the fact that no firm commitments for game-day service were made by any transit agencies. With the extremely difficult fiscal state both of our County government as well of of our VTA, this should not be in the least surprising.

Forty-Niners transit service may yet be implemented in the fashion dreamed of in the Draft EIR - but we may be assured that it will be subsidized by County residents far less than we Santa Clarans are expected to subsidize the stadium. If riders find themselves using such a service, they will probably be covering as much of its cost as the VTA feels that they can bear.

To close, I'd like to offer a rather stark thought exercise. It should make us challenge any overly-optimistic figures for bus, light-rail, (and even chartered-coach) usage figures - and it goes like this:

Are the people who can afford $3,000.00 to $6,000.00 for a Personal Seat License in a one-billion-dollar NFL stadium really the ones you're going to see on the 57 bus?

Thank you for your continued support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

49ers Stadium: Why are we Subsidizing the Training Center?

2009-08-06T03:20:00.000-07:00

Dear Santa Clarans:

The real truth about Santa Clara's "sweetheart deal" and longstanding subsidy of the 49ers Training Center on Centennial Way has been out there for all to see. But it was sharply underscored in Council comments before the Term Sheet vote in Chambers on June 2nd.

Here's the deal: If you had a chance to secure a 99-year lease on 11 acres of prime Silicon Valley real estate and still pay only $25,000 a year for those 11 acres even after some twenty years, you'd be foolish not to take advantage of any city government foolish enough to offer it. That's what the San Francisco 49ers took from our city over twenty years ago.

The Hyatt Hotel, just up the street, pays $1,465,982 a year for only 1.8 acres:

http://santaclaraca.gov/pdf/collateral/49ers-20090602-List-of-Maj-Ground-Leases.pdf

The fact that the Hyatt pays 350 times what the 49ers are paying per acre per year is disgraceful, especially in view of the profits earned by the 49ers.

What would be almost comical if it weren't so costly to the city: Stadium proponents are actually selling the stadium as some kind of boost to hotel and tourism in Santa Clara - even though the consultants' presentations of June 23 themselves showed those returns to be mere peanuts:

http://santaclaraca.gov/pdf/collateral/49ers-CSL-Synergy.pdf

But there was a more insulting aspect to this total giveaway of the lands under the 49ers Training Center - and I'll simply let the speaker say it in his own words:

"If for some reason we are not able to move forward with our plan in Santa Clara, then there is no guarantee that the training facility will remain at this location."

That's Jed York himself quoted in yesterday's Mercury News - and we heard similar threats over a year ago when the 49ers didn't find our City Council to be deferential enough to the team's completely unreasonable demands.

Frankly, this resident, ratepayer and taxpayer would be pleased if the city would again take rightful control over those 11 acres of land. We could then negotiate a new lease with a new tenant paying Santa Clara far more than what the 49ers are paying us today.

The embarrassing terms of the current Training Center lease are only a subtext to the issue of the stadium subsidy itself - and it reveals what the short-sightedness on these issues will ultimately cost every Santa Claran.

Both subsidies should be halted at once. Please let the Mayor and the City Council know how you feel on this issue:

http://santaclaraca.gov/about_us/email-us.aspx?MayorandCouncil

Thank you for your support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

49ers Stadium: Draft EIR, Pt. 2 - Street Closures

2009-08-01T22:09:00.001-07:00

To Santa Clarans, and to Santa Clarans who work along Tasman Drive:

It sure took us quite a few years to finally get Tasman Drive to fully connect Sunnyvale and Milpitas. Linking technology businesses north of U.S. 101 with their suppliers, employees and customers is a major achievement - and in fact, that one boulevard could be considered a major contributor to the productivity of the people that work along it.

But after all that it took to get that major artery done: We just learned from the 49ers' architect in the July 14th City Council Meeting that, as a result of 49ers game-day traffic congestion, Tasman Drive is going to be CLOSED to traffic from Centennial Way westward to the hotel, Convention Center and Great America entrances.

I guess that's what we call "mitigation".

Sure enough, this closure was finally revealed fully in the Draft EIR (main memo), . If you want to see this graphically, please turn to page 186 in the report and examine, "Planned Road Closures and Intersection Control" / "Figure 61".

It's not convenient for stadium supporters to acknowledge it: But this is a productivity hit for the very technology businesses that often rely on the ability of their employees to reach their workplaces well outside the usual nine-to-five window. It's part of the way we work here in the Valley - and it's the way we produce. It doesn't matter that it's on 49ers game days - it shouldn't be happening at all.

It's the last kind of economic activity that should be in any way hindered by a football game, of all things.

As if that weren't enough: The Draft EIR (main memo), same map, also made clear the real impact of 49ers traffic on the residents of the Agnew neighborhood. If you live in Zip Code 95054, note that as a result of 49ers game-day traffic congestion, Agnew Road will be CLOSED to through traffic from Lafayette Street to Mission College Boulevard.

Also, seven checkpoints along Lafayette Street will control access to residential areas eastward of the Agnew area.

Be prepared to show your Driver's License to enter or leave your own streets on 49ers game days and major-event days.

In sum: It's simply disingenuous of the "stadium spenders" to tell us that the infrastructure we have is just "ready-made" for an NFL stadium - and in the next breath, to tell us that we're going to pay $114 million in subsidies so that a major thoroughfare serving far more productive and beneficial businesses will be completely blocked anytime the 49ers are playing.

Thanks for your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

49ers Stadium: Draft EIR, Pt. 1 - Traffic

2009-08-01T10:51:00.000-07:00

Dear Santa Clarans,

The Draft EIR for a publicly-subsidized 49ers stadium was released on Thursday morning, and of course, it runs to many hundreds of pages. But it's certainly worth opening up the exhibits to see in detail the environmental degradation caused by an NFL stadium - especially a stadium our leaders intend to subsidize with hundreds of millions of dollars in public cash and in sums guaranteed by Santa Clara agencies:

http://santaclaraca.gov/index.aspx?page=1546

The traffic problems alone should give anyone, especially Santa Clarans living - and working - north of U.S. 101, reason for great concern. The main memo is a rather plump 373 pages, but it's worth it:

http://santaclaraca.gov/ftp/csc/pdf/49er-stadium-DEIR/49er-Stadium-DEIR-Text.pdf

I urge all of those interested to load it up anyway! Stop by the kitchen for a cup of joe, and then examine the charts, tables and conclusions you'll find in the document above. From here on, I'll reference page numbers at the bottom of each page plus the titles, which will make the city's own data easier to find:

Page 203, "4.8.4.6: Summary of Significant Traffic and Transportation Impacts" - An NFL stadium will cause significant adverse impacts at SEVENTEEN traffic intersections near the stadium.

Traffic control for this massive flood of cars will be provided by a multi-city police force of some 160 officers. "Adverse impact" is measured by intersection Level of Service, or LOS, which is measured in seconds of delay per vehicle. Those delay times will increase anywhere from two to five times as a direct result of 49ers traffic, with Level A being the fastest travel and Level F the slowest and most congested.

The 49ers traffic degrades all seventeen intersections to Levels E or F - and that's real traffic congestion.

Also, the authors try mightily to sever the impacts of Sunday NFL games from the impacts of weekday games - but 20,364 vehicular trips are 20,364, no matter what day of the week they're on. See Table 15 on page 176 for a very good summary.

As a result, I'm simply not buying the claim that NFL events will cause impacts that severe on a mere four days a year. It should be pretty clear that those days of congestion will be the rule for all NFL events and for all of the other major events which attempt to "fill" a stadium.

There's a word you're going to hear misused frequently when stadium supporters try to rationalize some of the real environmental problems caused by an NFL stadium, and that word is "mitigation". But note from report page 203, near the top, "The project does not, therefore, propose to implement any of the physical improvements described below."

Apparently, that means that we're going to "mitigate" the worst kind of traffic jams on Northside intersections by simply putting police officers in the middle of them - paid for by a Santa Clara Stadium Authority, yet to be formed.

In sum: From the standpoint of the traffic congestion alone, Santa Clarans are entitled to ask why we're settling for such degradation in the quality of life in our city's northern neighborhoods - and why we're paying $114 million in public funds for the privilege.

Thanks for all of your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

49ers Stadium: Santa Clarans Testify AGAINST SB 43 in Sacramento!

2009-07-09T13:05:00.000-07:00

Santa Clarans,

I can't do better than this eyewitness account of yesterday's hearing of the State Assembly's Committee on Local Government.

Please hear what Erlinda Estrada and her husband, John Hogle, SCPF Members, learned when they drove to Sacramento and spoke before that Committee AGAINST SB 43:

"John & I had a grand old time today. The Assembly Committee on Local Government voted 5-2 to allow SB43 to go forward, pending amendments, to the Assembly floor. Some members of the Committee wanted a number of changes before the bill proceeds further.

"Committee Chair Caballero said that she wanted the language revised to ensure that a process is in place to ensure the citizens of Santa Clara can weigh in on whether this "design/build" process is appropriate for the city. Two voted against it moving forward, Duval and Knight. Among their reservations were 1) it was a local issue and should be decided locally 2) they felt voters should have their voices heard in a charter change and 3) Knight even wondered why, if it's such a good deal, the 49ers didn't just build it without city help

"Senator Elaine Alquist, author of the bill, also had thrown in some other amendments at the last possible moment, including something about highways. That seemed to rub several committee members the wrong way and they wanted her to basically "clean up" the bill.

"Those who spoke in favor of the bill: Mayor Patricia Mahan and Councilmember Kevin Moore (both supposedly speaking for themselves, not in their official capacity); Lyle Hannigan (sp? 49ers); Danny Curtin representing carpenters; someone from the Building and Trades Council. Engineer Mark Smith noted that his group (ACEC) had reservations about the bill's variance from the state's current design/build requirements.

"Those opposing the bill: a very eloquent Jamie McLeod; Ciaran O'Donnell; John Hogle; and I.

"We all spoke about how this seemed to be an attempt to circumvent the Charter review process and amend the Charter without a vote of Santa Clarans. Both John and I pointed out how we were blind-sided by this bill and how it was a "stealth" move on the part of Alquist (I noted how the only thing about this bill posted on Alquist's web site was posted at 5:30 pm Tuesday, July 7th). The Committee did seem receptive to us and seemed impressed that citizens showed up at all.

"I think this whole affair shows the residents of Santa Clara how little the Council trusts us or even thinks of us in their pursuit of this stadium."

I can only agree with that last paragraph.

Santa Clarans, thanks to all for your continued support.

Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

49ers Stadium: Looks Like They Don't Trust Us, After All...

2009-07-07T00:13:00.000-07:00

Santa Clarans, it was good to meet as many of you as we did in Central Park on Saturday before the fireworks display.

But it looks like it might just be time for a different kind of fireworks: We just learned that a hijacked State Senate Bill, with its original language completely deleted, now allows Sacramento to determine that a stadium subsidy of $114 MILLION is what's "right" for Santa Clara - and that a stadium can be constructed with a sole-source contract in violation of City ordinances.

The bill is SB 43, and it was originally written by Sen. Elaine Alquist, SD-13, to make changes to the Business and Professions Code.

But only days ago, the bill was routed into the State Assembly, and the name of a new author was appended: The Assembly Majority Leader, Assy. Alberto Torrico, AD-20. The original language on "health professionals" was completely scrapped. In place of that, we now see language which tells ONLY Santa Clarans that a stadium subsidy is in their best interests, and that ONLY the San Francisco 49ers will be allowed to build that stadium with a sole-source construction contract - while spending $114 MILLION of our money.

So, a hijacked Senate Bill now hijacks the rights of Santa Clarans to enforce their own City Charter? Because Sacramento has decided that a subsidized NFL stadium is "good" for us?

And this breathtaking usurpation of our City's own ordinances? It comes from a State Legislature which has proven itself utterly unable to work with the Governor to fix a completely out-of-control fiscal disaster at State Level.

This State Legislature is competent to tell Santa Clarans that they need to waste $114 MILLION in subsidies on an NFL stadium which benefits only the San Francisco 49ers?

Santa Clara Plays Fair urges all Santa Clarans to tell this City Council - and the San Francisco 49ers - that they are completely out of line if they support SB 43 in any way. Please visit this link, and register your objections:

http://santaclaraca.gov/about_us/email-us.aspx?MayorandCouncil

We take pains to note: It was this very City Council - and this very management of the 49ers - that promised us that our voices would be heard and that the process for a stadium would be a public and open one.

If so, then why was it necessary to work out a back-room deal for a State measure which violates the lawful ordinances of a Chartered City?

Don't the San Francisco 49ers trust us to do what's right?

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

-=0=-

The actual language of SB 43 is here:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_43_bill_20090630_amended_asm_v96.html

49ers Stadium: Joint Session, June 2nd

2009-06-03T03:09:00.000-07:00

We'd like to thank our neighbors, our members, and every concerned Santa Claran who took time on Tuesday evening, June 2, to comment publicly on the Stadium Term Sheet.

Regrettably, the "proceed" option was approved, and by a vote of 5-2. But we encourage Santa Clarans to keep speaking out on this issue - loudly and repeatedly.

At the meeting, this writer heard Jed York tell an interviewer that the only way a stadium deal works is by a public-private partnership.

I could not disagree more. The financing for an NFL stadium in Santa Clara still includes a demand for a handout. And if our technology companies in our city do well without a handout, so can the San Francisco 49ers.

The handout, in this case, is for a stadium which will gives us only 500 jobs paying less than $35,000 a year.

The next step in the process: Preparing the Disposition and Development Agreement and finishing the EIR.

The final step (maybe) is the vote of Santa Clarans, probably in March of 2010.

We're certainly aware that the details of the stadium financing in Santa Clara are complex - which may just be the way "stadium subsidizers" like it.

But if there are any questions that residents have, any of us at Santa Clara Plays Fair will be happy to share what we learned while we spent a weekend and most of a Monday reading and re-reading the many pages of supporting material for the Term Sheet.

Please post comments, email us at the addresses on the home site, or telephone us at 1(877)703-4300.

Thanks for all of your encouragement and support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-

49ers Stadium: Can it be? A Term Sheet?

2009-05-20T04:24:00.000-07:00

At last. Maybe.

After two years of secrecy, SIXTY-EIGHT closed-session meetings and $1.1 MILLION of RDA money spent on consultants' fees: Your City Council has set a date for a public session so that we can finally see the 49ers' stadium "term sheet".

This public session will be held on Tuesday evening, June 2, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers.

Santa Clara Plays Fair urges as many residents as can possibly attend to be there - and that they make themselves heard.

Now, actual dollar figures will be scarce until the Agenda for this meeting appears on the City Clerk's Agenda webpage, probably on Friday evening, May 29th. However, there is a dollar figure that SCPF urges Santa Clarans to insist upon:

$0.00.

That means, "NO SUBSIDY". But last evening, it became abundantly clear even from the limited information that City Council was willing to share that they still insist upon spending public money, probably close to ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS, to subsidize an NFL stadium costing a cool BILLION.

That is just plain wrong - especially considering the economic turmoil in which we now find ourselves and our City. We highly recommend that all Santa Clarans speak out, and that they reject this subsidy out of hand - loudly, often and in Chambers on June the 2nd.

Is it unrealistic to insist upon the "zero dollar" figure above? Not at all. One need examine only the funding of the Meadowlands Stadium for two other NFL teams, the New York Jets and Giants. The two teams secured 100% private financing, with the NFL chipping in. Total cost? $1.6 Billion - 60% MORE than the subsidized stadium being forced upon Santa Clara.

And the Meadowlands' public subsidy?:

$0.00.

There is absolutely no reason why that cannot be done here - and both our City Council and the San Francisco 49ers know that.

Thanks for all of your support,

Bill Bailey
Treasurer

49ers Stadium: Al Davis - The Devil You DO Know...

2009-02-08T13:08:00.000-08:00

Last week, the commercial press gushed all over the millionaire Yorks coupling with the millionaire Al Davis on a joint 49ers-Raiders stadium. The budget disaster in Sacramento finally pushed it off the front page. But it's still worth looking at - hard:

First: How does a joint stadium eliminate the massive subsidy being demanded by the 49ers? Sorry, but if two multi-millionaire NFL team owners can build a joint venue, then all public subsidies should definitely be off the table. These two team owners - and not our RDA - should be covering the construction and the annual operating costs of any stadium. The silence of the press on this issue poorly serves Santa Clara and Santa Clarans.

Second: Why did Al Davis spend close to 27 years suing nearly all of his major partners? In 1980, Al Davis sued his own League to get out of Oakland. In 1995, he sued them and Oakland/Alameda County over his return there. In July of 2007, the last such legal action - again blaming the NFL for the fiasco in Oakland twelve years earlier - was finally tossed out of court. John Ryan of the Mercury News wondered: When do the costs of Mr. Davis' lawsuits exceed the total price of an NFL stadium?

Not funny.

This "shotgun stadium" is the second time NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has interceded in the badly-flawed stadium gamble - while managing barely to mention our city by name. (See below.)

This time, Commissioner Goodell isn't simply demanding that the San Francisco 49ers make Al Davis a partner. Without coming right out and saying it: He's really demanding that WE Santa Clarans make Al Davis a partner.

Talk about the Devil we do know: Imagine Al Davis ever agreeing (1) to share equal responsibility for a billion-dollar stadium, (2) to pay our General Fund a rightful Ground Lease - or even (3) to sign a lease lasting as long as the massive indebtedness that both teams are demanding of our RDA. That's until the year 2026.

Preposterous.

Conclusion: Stadium supporters should stop wasting our time with distractions such as this one. It's time that they told Santa Clarans - honestly - what they're really demanding: Public subsidies amounting to scores of millions of dollars.

Thanks for your support,

Bill Bailey
Treasurer

(Click here for more than you really wanted to know about our new "stadium partners".)

49ers Stadium: Other People's Money

2009-01-20T13:53:00.000-08:00

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell's recent visit to Oakland was reported by the San Francisco Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/15/SPDL14O310.DTL

When asked about concerns that either the 49ers or the Raiders would move to Los Angeles, Commissioner Goodell dodged the question - but he also inadvertently gave a pretty clear idea about the agenda of millionaire sports team owners in general:

"We're worried about the California market in general. If you look at our stadium situations - San Diego is trying to address (its) stadium situation, San Francisco, the Oakland Raiders ... I think collectively we have to try to address these matters on a statewide level as well as in the local communities," Goodell said.

What's "statewide" got to do with it? Don't outrageously-priced stadiums "serve" localities rather than State residents?

Californians, and not just Santa Clarans, may want to prepare themselves. As more and more communities challenge that old orthodoxy about high-priced athletic stadiums being "good for business", athletic leagues and not just the NFL are lobbying State legislators, and not City Councils, to get their heaping of public money.

My guess: Commissioner Goodell may well have taken a page from Seattle Seahawks owner Paul Allen, Microsoft billionaire. When Seattlites made it clear that they would probably never go for local bond issues sucking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the public purse and blowing them into sports stadiums - Mr. Allen simply went to Olympia, Washington, to get what he wanted:

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2005/03/promises_promis_2.html

Although quite a few Washingtonians may never have realized it: $300 million dollars in public monies were provided by all of them for the very Qwest stadium in which few of them will ever set foot.

Seattle City Councilmember Nick Licata even testified before the U.S. House Domestic Policy Subcommittee on Taxpayers Financed Stadiums, Conventions Centers, and Hotels on exactly this issue. The text of his testimony, a mere two pages worth, is very well thought-out and worth a read by all of us here in Santa Clara:

http://domesticpolicy.oversight.house.gov/documents/20070329144725-38118.pdf

If Commissioner Goodell is truly advocating an end run around local funding decisions controlled by local taxpayers, taxpayers should be deeply concerned. Expressed in starkest terms: If you don't give millionaire NFL owners like Dr. John York what they want, they'll go lobby in Sacramento and they'll take it from you anyway.

Now, it remains to be seen how even Commissioner Goodell and the NFL owners would even dare to ask for money at State level, especially with the State budget deficit now pushing some $42 billion.

But from what we've read and seen out of the stadium supporters - it sure wouldn't stop them from trying.

With best regards,
Bill Bailey
Treasurer

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

2008-12-25T23:04:00.000-08:00

We at Santa Clara Plays Fair would like to wish all of you a very fine Christmas, and every success in 2009!

Decision '08: Follow-up

2008-11-12T13:19:00.000-08:00

Santa Clara Plays Fair would like to thank all of you who contacted us and who volunteered for the candidates' campaigns in the November 4th election!

Although we did not get all of the changes we still firmly support: We're quite glad to see Councilwoman Jamie McLeod returned to her seat on the City Council. We believe that Councilwoman McLeod will be the one to carefully scrutinize any "deals" with the San Francisco 49ers requiring multi-million dollar subsidies from Santa Clarans.

During the precinct walks we did, many Santa Clarans asked us why the stadium subsidy issue wasn't even on their ballots.

That's a good question for our leaders - and for the San Francisco 49ers.

It's pretty clear that, with conditions in Santa Clara as well as across the nation, those attempting to make us help pay for a millionaire's NFL football stadium could not afford to have Santa Clarans expressing their will on this issue too soon:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10968380

While we note that Councilwoman McLeod and challengers Emerson, Hardy, Lowery and Bouza were the most forthright on the issue, the rest of the incumbents only spoke of the stadium subsidy issue when they were specifically asked - or they completely ignored the stadium subsidy in their campaign literature. Surely this was no accidental omission.

Unfortunately, this will be the rule for the somewhat new City Council. It will be true for the next six months or so at least, due to the confidentiality agreement demanded by the 49ers after CFO Larry MacNeil's presentation to City Council of last April 24th.

It will be important for us as City residents to keep the issue alive while our City Council continues with the "Closed Session" meetings that it has been conducting since May of 2007 - some 41 such secret meetings as of September 30th of this year.

If you have any questions about this process or about the stance of Santa Clara Plays Fair on this issue, please contact us any time.

Best regards,
Bill Bailey
Treasurer

Decision '08: Meet Our City Council Candidates!

2008-10-09T17:09:00.000-07:00

Friends of Santa Clara Plays Fair, the Candidate's Forum is to be held this evening at Santa Clara City Hall, 1500 Warburton Drive, at 7:00 pm in City Council Chambers.

Also, please take a few moments to meet our candidates for the Santa Clara City Council through their websites:

Seat 3:Mary EMERSON
http://maryemerson.org/wordpress/

Seat 4: (WRITE IN:) Karen HARDY
http://writeinhardyseat4.blogspot.com/

Seat 6: Brian LOWERY
http://www.lowery4citycouncil.com/

Seat 7: Councilwoman Jamie McLEOD
http://jamiemcleod.org/blog/

Thank you for all of your support - and for your support of these four fine individuals on November 4th!

Best regards,
Bill Bailey
Treasurer

Decision '08: Santa Clara Plays Fair recommends....

2008-10-06T01:12:00.000-07:00

We were very pleased to meet as many of you as we did at the Art and Wine Festival.

But if you didn't get our endorsement cards for City Council Seats 3, 4, 6 and 7, Santa Clara Plays Fair endorses and recommends your vote for:

Seat 3: Mary EMERSON
Seat 4: (WRITE IN:) Karen HARDY
Seat 6: Brian LOWERY
Seat 7: Councilwoman Jamie McLEOD

Councilwoman McLeod, of course, is the incumbent who's been willing to analyze the stadium "deal" in great detail. She's done a fine job for us in Seat 7, and she should be returned to the Council so that she can continue working for all Santa Clarans.

The main issue we see is the massive subsidy of a millionaire's NFL football stadium with scores of millions of dollars of YOUR money. That's cash and RDA bonds which would be far better used for the benefit of Santa Clarans rather than for one NFL team owner.

We believe that the incumbent and three challengers above will go the distance to protect the wallets of Santa Clarans. We ask that all city residents take this opportunity to bring real change to our City Council on November 4th.

If there are any questions we can answer, about who we are and why we support these candidates, please use the comment or contact links. A volunteer will respond as soon as possible.

Thanks for visiting us!

- Bill Bailey, Treasurer

Lucas Oil Stadium operating costs mount - Indianapolis, IN

2008-09-22T13:13:00.000-07:00

First: Santa Clara Plays Fair would like to thank everyone who volunteered, who donated, who joined us and who stopped by to speak with us at the Santa Clara Art & Wine Festival.

To be able to reach as many of you as we did in the run-up to the November 4th City Council election was very gratifying - and we learned much from all of you.

And now, a little story of yet another subsidy for an NFL stadium gone wrong:

Lucas Oil Stadium, new home to the Indianapolis Colts, opened amid "gee-whiz" tours and grandiose claims in late August, and with what should have been a final sticker cost of $700 million.

But just as the ticker-tape is being swept into the trash bins are we finally hearing that Lucas Oil Stadium has serious problems with meeting its operating costs. A very illuminating article in the Indianapolis Star of September 18 makes clear how serious this is:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080917/LOCAL18/809170383/1195/LOCAL18

This first came to our attention with a message from the Field of Schemes website:

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2008/09/the_stadium_tha_1.html

In a nutshell: Indy's Capital Improvement Board [CIB] has found that the $10 million estimate for operating Lucas each year is far too low: "Officials at the Capital Improvement Board, which operates the city's stadiums and convention center, plan to draw $25 million from reserves this year and in 2009, $20 million of which will go to higher stadium operating costs." [Indy Star article]

The Indy Star article reveals that a former CIB head urged that operating costs be rolled into the original construction costs - as was done for two earlier stadiums in Indianapolis. As this was not done, the City of Indianapolis, population 781,000, is now on the hook to cover the increased expenses of running Lucas Oil Stadium - abbreviated, appropriately enough, "LOS".

There was another scary item in that same article: The notion that Indy's CIB would use their Convention Center proceeds to cover the Lucas Oil Stadium shortfall.

If one could imagine the same scenario in Santa Clara, simply note that our own Convention Center already operates at a loss and that it requires its own subsidy. If the yet-to-be-formed Santa Clara Stadium Authority finds itself with an operating shortfall in an NFL stadium in Santa Clara, there will not be too many other sources to bleed for cash.

Finally, in closing, here's what a citizen's group had to say about the entire affair:

"Pat Andrews, vice president of the Marion County [IN] Alliance of Neighborhood Associations, said the public isn't interested in finger-pointing. She said state and city officials shouldn't have built a new stadium without a solid plan for how to maintain it.

"They're all to blame," Andrews said. "They went and paid for toys instead of food and rent. The operating costs problem is just the icing on the cake. This stadium will be an albatross across our necks for years." [Indy Star article]

There is a lesson in this for us here in Santa Clara - with our own population about a seventh of Indy's and while we contemplate a public subsidy for an NFL stadium which is likely to cost up to 40% more than Lucas Oil Stadium.

The election on November 4th may be a fine opportunity to apply that lesson.

Thanks for all of your support!

-Bill Bailey, Treasurer

49ers Stadium Poker

2008-06-05T17:58:00.000-07:00

In that high-stakes poker game we call "No-limit Stadium Sold 'em", the City of Santa Clara just 'checked'.

In a rather illuminating article in the San Jose Mercury News, we Santa Clarans learned for the first time that we may not even see the "advisory" measure on a Santa Clara stadium subsidy on our November 4th ballot:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9486415

At Santa Clara Plays Fair - and over a quite a few kitchen tables in our city, we imagine - this is disconcerting news.

The postponement of the "advisory" from a General Election in an even-numbered year to a Special Election in an odd-numbered one has the effect of manipulating turnout to suit the whims of the pro-subsidy crowd and the San Francisco 49ers. It permits certain narrow political and financial interests, having everything but the well-being of our city in mind, to hijack this debate.

We've been told that the "advisory" would reflect "the will of the people" - and at least one City Councilman has promised us that it will be obeyed.

But if the City Council is insistent that a ballot measure be deferred: Then the way to truly poll the wishes and hopes of many more Santa Clara households is to insist not only that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be complete, but also that any ballot measure be binding. For the additional election costs of $600,000, Santa Clarans are entitled to as much.

Now, it should be noted that the Mercury News dispatch wasn't really designed to inform us Santa Clarans - it was really a report on Measures G and F in San Francisco's own precincts on Tuesday.

With their votes on June 3rd, San Franciscans made quite clear in their affirmation of G (62% voted YES) and their rejection of F (63% voted NO) that they are placing no additional roadblocks in the path of the development of Hunters Point. A new Hunters Point will include the San Francisco 49ers as a prime tenant and give them just about everything they want...

...except for a cash subsidy.

Apparently, however, the York family and the 49ers front office still believe that Santa Clara can be squeezed for a massive payment of corporate welfare in the amount of $160 million - which San Francisco itself has refused to pay. That is the real reason why the team's accountants and financial advisors continue to put our City at the top of its list.

While any subsidy is under consideration, that 'list' is a hit list. Because of that, we at Santa Clara Plays Fair feel that Santa Clarans should beware of the results of Tuesday's election - good news that failed to affect the stated plans of the San Francisco 49ers.

Why is that, we wonder?

-Bill Bailey

Feasibility Study indicates $111 million impact to the General Fund

2008-01-13T21:22:00.000-08:00

The numbers are in, and the proposed stadium subsidy adds up to be a big fat loser for the city of Santa Clara. The city's General Fund would lose $111 million in cash, lost revenues and opportunity costs. To see where all that money goes, check out this presentation.

You will see that NFL events will provide no financial benefits to the city. In fact, in this proposal, the City would have to subsidize NFL events with revenue from non-NFL events. Rather than enriching a for-profit enterprise, let's focus on the needs of real Santa Clarans.

We can do better than this. We must do better than this.

If you lived here, you would be home by now

2007-12-18T08:23:00.000-08:00

You know those real estate for sale signs that are on a busy commute route? The ones that say, "If you lived here, you would be home by now."

In October, we compared the 49ers' subsidy request to a much more modest request from Nanosolar, a solar energy company ($222,000,000 vs. $1,500,000.)

Today, the San Jose Mercury News reported that Nanosolar has shipped its first product.

The construction crews that built the factory have already been paid. Those full-time manufacturing jobs at Nanosolar are already on the books. The tax revenues are already rolling in.

Meanwhile, we've spent 1/3 of what Nanosolar wanted, just to study the 49ers' subsidy request.

We at Santa Clara Plays Fair do not favor public subsidies for any kind of private enterprise, but we would like to point out, for those who believe in such things, that there are better ways to go about it.

"If you subsidized green energy, you would be making money by now."

A tale of two subsidies

2007-10-10T07:07:00.000-07:00

(These remarks were addressed to City Council at their meeting last night.)

--

My name is Au Nguyen. I am a Santa Clara resident.

This is a tale of two subsidies.

In June 2006, Nanosolar of Palo Alto went looking for a location to build their factory. This new factory would be huge. Nanosolar estimated that it “would nearly triple the nation's solar manufacturing capacity.” The Mercury News reported that San Francisco, San Jose, and Santa Clara were considered.

Nanosolar eventually chose San Jose.

Five months later, just after Election Day, the 49ers said they want to build a stadium in Santa Clara. The city hired consultants to study the proposal.

On Sunday, the Mercury News reported that San Jose gave Nanosolar a subsidy of $1.5 million.

The 49ers want a $222M subsidy. This is 150 times more than the amount that Nanosolar got from San Jose.

Nanosolar said their factory will employ “several hundred people.” (SJMN, June 21, 2006)

The 49ers say the stadium will employ “316 people.” (KMA report, June 1, 2007, page 12.)

Also on Sunday, Julie Patel of the Mercury News reported that the total cost of our feasibility study may be as much as half a million dollars.

With what we’re spending just to examine the 49ers’ subsidy request, we could have been a third of the way to subsidizing a solar energy company. The two subsidies would have created about the same number of jobs.

Why are we so willing to spend money on professional football but not solar energy?

--

Epilogue

I am not in favor of any public subsidy for private enterprise, whether the for-profit corporation makes solar panels or puts on football games. I just want to highlight this comparison because of the similar number of jobs that would be created and the vastly dissimilar amounts of the subsidies.

In fact, the City of Santa Clara has a website to promote our city as a great place to do business. It lists the "top 5 reasons to move to Santa Clara:

Lower energy rates
Lowest combined utility rates
Speed-to-market
Easy access and transportation
Highly educated workforce

A subsidy is not listed.

Last night, City Manager Jennifer Sparacino said it best when she remarked (in discussion of an unrelated subject) that we "just want all to be treated fairly and equally, without special favors."

Back to School

2007-10-09T12:54:00.001-07:00

It's been almost three months since the City Council last had any public agenda item related to the San Francisco 49ers' request for the City of Santa Clara to contribute $222,000,000 in public funds for a football stadium (although it seems that they have been having plenty of closed-door meetings.)

Tonight, however, the proposal will be back in public session.

At this evening's meeting, the City Council will consider the request to spend an additional $185,000 in public money to continue to study this proposal.

In case you've lost track of the total to date, this new request will bring the total to an even $500,000. And of course that figure doesn't include all of the staff time that has also been spent on this proposal.

I'm certainly in favor of studying and research, but before continuing to spend any more money, the City Council needs to get back to the Guiding Principles it established for itself back in January.

One of those principles was a requirement that Cedar Fair agree that they will not assert business interference or negative effects from the feasibility studies and that this agreement needed to be in place "prior to pursuing discussions with the 49ers."

The City does not yet have that agreement.

So, the problem with spending money NOW on a feasibility study is that conditions may change by the time Cedar Fair is willing to agree to moving forward with a stadium without any reduction in their payments to the City or any City agency.

Therefore, we shouldn't be spending money on a study now. We should wait until Cedar Fair has agreed in writing to not assert their own business interests. When Cedar Fair does sign such an agreement -- then we can take up the question of whether additional public funds should be spent studying it.

And there's one more issue.

The cost estimates in the San Francisco 49ers' proposal were based on the City Council approving the project in July 2007.

So once we have Cedar Fair's approval, the City Council needs to ask the San Francisco 49ers to submit a revised construction budget.

Once those two pieces are in place, then and only then should we even consider spending more money studying this proposal. Financial conditions can change, and there's no point determining whether or not the July 2007 estimate is feasible, since we are already well past that approval date.

What can you do?:

1. Attend the City Council meeting on TONIGHT at 7pm and speak out! Speakers will probably be limited to 2 minutes each.

2. Call the Santa Clara City Council at

(408) 615-2250

3. Write a Letter to:

Patricia M. Mahan, Mayor
City Hall
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050

4. Send an email to:

mailto:MayorandCouncil@ci.santa-clara.ca.us?subject=Concerns%20about%20stadium%20proposal

5. Spread the word! Tell your neighbors and friends and encourage them to get involved!

Who really profits?

2007-09-17T17:41:00.000-07:00

I initially posted this article "Who really profits?" on the Stadium Facts website back in July, and I think it worth re-publishing here while the City is considering the feasibility of contributing $222,000,000 and 15 acres of land to build a professional footbal stadium for the San Francisco 49ers.

The 49ers have been more than willing to talk about the potential economic benefits a stadium might have for Santa Clara and the surrounding region.

They haven't been quite so open about how they will benefit economically from that same new stadium.

Why not?

Well, it's probably because the value of their team will increase substantially if they get a new stadium — an immediate increase in value of somewhere between $250,000,000 and $700,000,000.

That's a much bigger increase than your average bathroom remodel.

How does the team's value increase?

Each year, Forbes magazine assesses the value of all 32 NFL teams. In their most recent list, the San Francisco 49ers are valued at $734 million — near the bottom of the pack (29th place.)

As Forbes states, this valuation is a reflection of the fact that "the 49ers have some of the lowest revenues in the league thanks to an antiquated stadium that features no club seating, and an onerous lease that forces the team to share concession, luxury-suite, naming-rights and signage revenue with the city."

A new stadium with a better revenue stream would increase the team's value. Could the new value go as high as $1.423 BILLION — Forbes' valuation of the Washington Redskins (and the team currently at the top of the list)? Maybe not. But it is certain that a new stadium with more favorable revenue stream would markedly increase the team's value.

Mike Swift at the San Jose Mercury News analyzed this very issue back in November 2006, shortly after the Santa Clara proposal was announced.

As he wrote in his article "Deluxe Stadium May Enrich 49ers"

. . . in many markets, a new stadium has produced a windfall for owners.

Patriots owner Robert Kraft paid $172 million for the team in 1994. Today, with the Patriots playing in a new suburban Boston stadium partly financed by the NFL, in a market with wealthy demographics like the Bay Area's, the franchise is valued by Forbes magazine at $1.2 billion. That is the second-highest among the four major sports (football, basketball, baseball and hockey), more valuable than even the storied New York Yankees.

By the way, it's worth noting that the new Patriots stadium (in Foxboro, MA, a town of about 16,000) was paid for ENTIRELY by the team's owner, Robert Kraft. [State taxpayers did finance about $75 million in infrastructure improvements, but the team is responsible for paying back that debt.]

As reporter David Copeland noted in his article "Patriots teach lesson about stadium financing",

By conventional "wisdom" for financing sports stadiums, Kraft should be crying poor. That conventional wisdom says that teams -- no matter what the sport -- can't possibly pay for a new stadium on their own and remain competitive.

The Patriots finished the regular season with an NFL-best 14-2 record. On top of that, Forbes magazine valued the team at $756 million [in 2003] -- in large part because of the new stadium -- up considerably from the $158 million Kraft paid for the Patriots in 1994.

We need to remember that professional sports are a big business, just like any other business, and the example of the New England Patriots is clear evidence that teams don't need public money to succeed.

We're at the Santa Clara Art & Wine Festival

2007-09-14T20:39:00.000-07:00

Santa Clara Plays Fair will be in the Free Speech section of the Santa Clara Art & Wine Festival on September 15 and 16. Stop by and talk with us between 10:am and 5:pm.

Some notes on the Sep 05 Commonwealth Club panel

2007-09-12T13:22:00.000-07:00

Mayor Mahan was outnumbered 3-to-1 by the panel on the 49ers at the Commonwealth Club. Former 49ers General Manager Carmen Policy was clear about his preference for San Francisco, and he said that the NFL would prefer the 49ers to remain in San Francisco. Foreshadowing? Insider knowledge?

The SF Redevelopment Agency's Michael Cohen, who is in charge of the Hunters Point development project, made a strong case for that area. He mentioned contacts between Newsome and John York and said that the hazardous clean-up was mostly a "red herring" because the place selected for a stadium is one of the cleanest areas of the old Navy facility.

Ann Killion deflated some of Mayor Mahan's arguments for Santa Clara as a site but admitted that she believed that the 49ers should always be a "San Francisco" team.

On the face of it, Mayor Mayan did make a good case for the Santa Clara location, but she provided some data (such as the number of "available" parking spaces in the area) and assertions (a dozen highway exits within one mile of the stadium site) that are easily disputed.

No current 49er principals were on the panel, but there were one or more in the audience. Listening to the audience and talking to a few afterwards, I believe the majority of people there supported retaining the 49ers in San Francisco.

Welcome!

2007-08-31T17:10:00.000-07:00

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

49ers' Stadium Subsidies: "Let's go on a spree with the city's credit cards!"

49ers' Stadium Subsidies: The 49ers get Cafeteria-style financing from Santa Clara

Subsidizing the 49ers: That $10 million We Don't Have is just the Tip of the Iceberg

49ers' Stadium Subsidies: Sorry, they're not for you, Mark.

49ers' Stadium Subsidies: A Cult of Secrecy

49ers' Stadium Subsidies: Selling out Great America does not help Santa Clara

Traffic, More Traffic and the Cooked Numbers behind the 49ers' EIR

49ers' Stadium Subsidies: Our RDA is now the 49ers' ATM

49er's Stadium Subsidies: Property Taxes now Payable Directly to Sacramento

3. Subsidizing the San Francisco 49ers, One Year Later: "Sign here! We'll tell you what it costs next year..."

2. Subsidizing the San Francisco 49ers, One Year Later: How to Lose a "Municipal Stadium"

1. Subsidizing the San Francisco 49ers - One Year Later

The 49ers' Subsidies: "They're a bad idea, so let's do 'em anyway!"

The 49ers' Subsidies and Truth-in-Borrowing

The 49ers' Stadium Subsidies: There are Naming Rights, then there are Naming Rights

49ers Stadium Subsidy: Fireworks of a different sort

49ers Stadium Subsidy: "Parking" $4.5M of RDA Funds

49ers Stadium Subsidy: "Let's just give it to 'em right now!"

49ers' Stadium Subsidy: A promise is a promise

49ers' Stadium Subsidy: Common Sense gets Sacked.

49ers Stadium Subsidy - and a Broken Promise.

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

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

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

Candidates' Forum for Council and SCUSD Trustees this Saturday!

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 49ers Stadium: Subsidizing a Bad Project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 49ers' Stadium Subsidy: Skin in the Game

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

49ers PR Campaign Hides the True Stadium Costs

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

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

Aldyth Parle does NOT support 49ers initiative!

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

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

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

49ers Stadium: A Santa Claran speaks on the so-called "Citizens' Initiative"...

49ers Stadium: THAT ballot measure?

49ers Stadium: Vote on June 8, 2010 - on WHOSE ballot measure?

49ers Stadium: "We don't have the money"...

49ers Stadium: The Planning Commission Punts

49ers Stadium: Rushing the Planning Commission

49ers Stadium and SB 43: The Anatomy of a Hijacking - 2

49ers Stadium and SB 43: The Anatomy of a Hijacking - 1

49ers Stadium: Draft EIR, Pt. 4 - Mass Transit and Sandbagging the Numbers...

49ers Stadium: Draft EIR, Pt. 3 - Mass Transit

49ers Stadium: Why are we Subsidizing the Training Center?

49ers Stadium: Draft EIR, Pt. 2 - Street Closures

49ers Stadium: Draft EIR, Pt. 1 - Traffic

49ers Stadium: Santa Clarans Testify AGAINST SB 43 in Sacramento!

49ers Stadium: Looks Like They Don't Trust Us, After All...

49ers Stadium: Joint Session, June 2nd

49ers Stadium: Can it be? A Term Sheet?

49ers Stadium: Al Davis - The Devil You DO Know...

49ers Stadium: Other People's Money

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Decision '08: Follow-up

Decision '08: Meet Our City Council Candidates!

Decision '08: Santa Clara Plays Fair recommends....

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