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

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

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

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

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

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

(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:

1. Lower energy rates
2. Lowest combined utility rates
3. Speed-to-market
4. Easy access and transportation
5. 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

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!