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

"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"...

"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?

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?

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"...

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

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

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=-