Our letter today comes from Bill B. of Santa Clara. He wrote to us about a leaflet entitled "The Real 49ers Stadium Story That the Citizens of Santa Clara Need to Hear" that was distributed at the last City Council meeting.
I haven't seen this leaflet, but Bill responded to a number of the issues identified in it. With his permission, I'm excerpting portions of his response here. The statements in bold italics are from the original leaflet.
"Are the 49ers going to take money from the cities [sic] General Fund?"
This is a diversionary tactic by pro-stadium pressure groups, and it's designed to fool people into thinking that 'no one is asking for public support for a football stadium.'
Make no mistake, that is exactly what the 49ers' front office is asking for.
To see why, let's play "The Devil's Advocate": If we were to pay for our $160,000,000.00 share in a stadium, how COULD we do it?
. . .
[One possibility is to issue bonds] That's a debt backed by the City of Santa Clara - so you better settle in for ten, fifteen or twenty years of principal and interest payments. The interest we'll owe on the bonds will be determined by a bond rating service. They'll look at how much we're borrowing, how much we owe - and how much we have. Compare the obligation - the $160 MILLION - with our yearly budget turnover - that's about $500M - and add the fact that we have NO reserves, NOTHING set aside for emergencies, NO slack at all. THAT will determine the likelihood, however small, that we'd default on our obligation - and it will determine the interest we will pay on $160,000,000.00.
Bill also examined a couple of other scenarios — including taking money from the utility reserve fund — but the San Francisco 49ers have already clearly stated that they will expect the Stadium Authority to issue bonds, and the city is likely to propose bonds for part of their funding too, so Bill's concerns about bonds are well founded.
Since there is no plan for financing yet, it is premature for anyone to say that funding for the stadium will have no impact on the general fund. Certainly, that was one of the guiding principles for the city, but unless some generous soul is planning on donating the cash the city would need for this project, any of the financing options mentioned to date COULD impact the city's general fund either directly or indirectly.
"Will the City of Santa Clara get a return on their investment?"
The claim of $440M in lease and expense payments is pure nonsense - the best we'd ever be able to do is probably is the numbers presented to the City Council by Larry MacNeil back on April 24th - $21M per year in revenues. Which we pray will match the $21M in expenses that first year.
If the author of the leaflet claims that the lease and expense payments would go to the city, then he or she needs to re-examine the 49ers' proposal. These payments, according to the proposal, are going to the Stadium Authority. While the Stadium Authority would be formed by the city, the lease and expense payments DO NOT go to the city's general fund. As far I can tell, the only way the city receives any direct cash under the current proposal is if the Stadium Authority NETS a profit of over $1 million a year.
"Will the residents have to fork over $1,400 to $4,300 for each family member?"
If stadium supporters don't believe these numbers, then they are obligated to come forward with how they'll get $160,000,000.00 - and how they'll pay it back.
Personally, I'm not quite as cynical as Bill. I think we'd see a citizen revolt if the City Council voted to request $1,400 to $4,300 in cash from every single resident.
But there's no such thing as free money. If the City Council decides to subsidize this project, the money will have to come from somewhere, and there will be a cost. If they are lucky, they'll be able to hide the real costs. If not, residents will pay in some way — whether directly via a special assessment or indirectly through higher fees and/or reduced services.
"The Naysayers are saying that the jobs that would be created would be minimum wage jobs, most without health benefits"
Absolutely, and this stadium opponent stands by that claim - there is no way that a stadium will create any kind of decent jobs, save for the trades that will be paid union-scale for the their labors.
. . . [W]hen the union labor has left the site - you'll be left with low-wage concessionaires selling five-dollar hot-dogs, three-dollar Dasanis, six-dollar plastic helmets. For eight game days per year. You just try and prove that those people will earn anything like a living wage, much less be assured of any kind of medical insurance. There's just no way.
On this point, I'm just as cynical as Bill. During the construction phase, the union jobs will certainly have good pay and benefits, but after that, there won't be many full-time jobs at all. Remember, the most optimistic projections include fewer than 30 event days a year. Worst case is just 10 games (or perhaps even none if the players were to go on strike.) The vast majority of the jobs during the operation phase will be part-time, low-wage, no benefit positions.
Bill concluded his letter by noting that the leaflet "had NO contact info, NO Website, NO telephone numbers."
In other words, no way to know who was presenting this information.
We do want to offer the best possible analysis of this proposal here, and we recognize that reasonable people can take different positions on this issue. In that spirit, we would welcome the author(s) of the leaflet Bill referenced to send us their analysis and evidence so that we could see for ourselves how they reached their conclusions. Our goal is to provide impartial analysis of this proposal.
Our only concerns are the financial health of Santa Clara, well-managed development within the city, and potential burdens on the residents.
No comments:
Post a Comment