In the event that the council or the voters (if decided by the residents) approve the stadium development, then additional serious questions emerge.
An extensive analysis needs to be made to determine the potential use of the stadium by more than just one user (only the 49ers football team has emerged in this case) for just 10 days a year, and since that isn't economically sensible, then who might want to use the stadium? Maybe additional football teams or other types of sporting events like soccer, band or musical contests, or any number of public spectator extravagances? Professional, amateur, or private recreational or building shows? On & on, there are many uses for the stadium that would make it economically feasible, if controlled properly.
But control and use of the of the stadium by the city rather than by any one user (like the Yorks) seems to be imperative or otherwise all gate receipts for whatever program would be taxed unfairly (in favor of the Yorks in this example) for which they aren't entitled. If the number of activities that the stadium books out falls into large numbers, because of its recreational center location, then it would pay for the city to float a bond (rather than scrounge from other assets) and run the whole operation just as they do the convention center.
Obviously, long term contracting for major users would be mandatory, but from all appearances it seems to be the choice spot according to the city council and the 49ers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
But there's no guarantee that it will be used regularly enough to provide real, positive cash flow. The number of events that would require such space is very limited, and we've seen no evidence that there is such a demand for this type of facility.
Also, as Au pointed out, if by some chance the facility COULD bu used more regularly, the traffic and other impacts that are now seen as minimal would become a more regular problem.
I'm actually not opposed to building the stadium, I just think that any public investment bu the City should be extremely limited because the returns to the city itself will also be quite small, even under the best projections.
Now Santa Clara County might stand to gain much more, but I've heard they don't have the budget to conribute to this project.
The current train of thought is to determine how to go about making the stadium possible --- but that doesn't make it a smart idea or the reason to even pursue the idea.
Obviously, with just 10 days of projected annual use, that is EXACTLY why the city must carefully analyze the potential use. If Santa Clara wants to get involved and whether or not the colossus is ever built hinges on its'use.
Wishful desires and boastful claims don't make an investment!
So far it seems a bit much to build such a fancy dog park for the other 355 days, when it's not in use.
I see what you mean now--and I agree. The city needs to carefully determine how much this stadium would be used (not relying just on the SF 49ers estimates), and then really think about how this level of use fits in with its other plans for this area.
Post a Comment