When an NFL team asks government officials to help build a stadium, public debate frequently focuses on the construction costs. But sometimes, the bills are only beginning when the gates swing open.
Of particular interest to the residents of Santa Clara is the fact that while the 49ers have stated that they will pay for construction cost overruns, they have not agreed to pay operating expense deficits.
As we pointed out last week, their answer was simply that the Stadium Authority could “push back the cost on the tenants," which might seem reasonable until you consider that the stadium’s main (and perhaps only) tenant will be the San Francisco 49ers, who are asking, of course, for a long-term fixed-rate lease. Moreover, under the current plan, the team won’t even be covering its own game day costs.
The San Francisco 49ers also pull a neat slight-of-hand trick in this article. In their presentation to the Santa Clara City Council, they counted all of the construction money raised by the proposed city-operated Stadium Authority alongside the team's contribution in order to make it look like the city was only contributing 18.7% of the construction costs. [It's on page 12 of their presentation.]
But in yesterday's article, the 49ers CFO refers to the Stadium Authority contributions from the sale of naming rights as "the public side" of the funding. Funny how that classification changes depending upon what they need it to be.
Mike also presented some interesting comparisons among different recent football stadium projects. While at first glance it may look like Santa Clara is getting a better deal than is typical, the chart accompanying the article left out one important calculation — the PER RESIDENT cost.
Using the numbers in the chart, which don't include the value of additional property or other contributions, here is the breakdown of these deals in terms of the construction cost cash subsidy PER RESIDENT:
- Phoenix - $310 million - $210 per resident
- Seattle - $300 million - $518 per resident (city) or $92 (metro area)
- Dallas - $325 million - $260 per resident (city) or $54 (metro area)
- Santa Clara - $180 million - $1,651 per resident
I think these numbers provide an important perspective on the size of the subsidy relative to the size of the community. (And I have to say that the Santa Clara number makes me nauseous, but that's just me.)
So if the City Council asked you how they should invest $1,651 on your behalf, what would you tell them?
3 comments:
It's interesting that they did not mention anything about the Oakland Raiders deal, which "continues to cost [Alameda County] taxpayers more than $20 million a year." Factor in the size of Alameda County (pop. 1,457,426) vs. the city of Santa Clara (pop. 102,095). A $20 million deficit would cost each Alameda County resident about $14 a year. The same size deficit would cost each Santa Claran $196 a year. Ooof!
$1651 per resident?! We just hit the jackpot! We have five at home, making our haul $8255.
Now what to do with it? Traffic calming on our cut-through street? Bring it on. More library funding for better hours? Love it.
There was some talk of taking the money from the SVP's reserves. How about we leave it there and start funding more solar energy systems for public buildings, like our libraries and schools? That's the gift the keeps on giving, in terms of cleaner air, more reliable power and decreased operating costs.
Let's see...
10 games per year * 30 years = 300 games for 180million.
What's that? Santa Clara will subsidize the Niners to the tune of $600,000 a game for the next 30 years?!
OK, the above is not really fair. I really should add in the cost of land, the cost of maintainence, the cost of knocking down a useless stadium in 30 years, etc. etc. etc.
Post a Comment