The 49ers are losing 2-8 this year, so far. They were 7-9, 4-12, and 2-14 in the last 3 seasons. And yet they want Santa Clara to subsidize their stadium to the tune of $287,000,000, by our estimates.HURRY UP SANTA CLARANS! Denise D-Y demands your fealty! You will watch her 2-8 football team and you will LOVE IT. AND HER! AND YOU WILL PAY HER! NOW!!!!
Compare and contrast...
The New England Patriots are 10-0 this year, so far. They were 12-4, 10-6, and 14-2 in the last 3 seasons. They built their stadium entirely with private financing. And Patriot fans did not need to buy personal seat licenses, either.
Support our Niners! Make them pay for their own darn stadium!!!
7 comments:
I believe that stadium opponents should refrain from comments about how awful the team is this year and stick to the main issues. If the situation was reversed, I'm sure that opponents wouldn't view a Super Bowl contending team as justification for a subsidy.
For the record, I'm opposed to any stadium plan--even if privately funded 100%. I strongly believe that 70,000 people pouring into the city would be detrimental to my quality of life.
I think your comment is a fair one, anonymous, but I think the comparison to the Patriots is an important point.
The subsidy proponents seem to assume that a subsidy is required, and the example of the Patriots shows that this assumption is false. Not only did they manage to pay for their own stadium, but they've also been quite successful on the field.
Is that just good karma? Or could it reveal a connection between solid business operations and successful football operations?
The Patriots are the exception, both in how they built their stadium and now with their perfect record. Is this the only example you have found where the stadium was built with only private funds? If so, what about the other 31 teams' stadiums?
With the 49ers, there seems to be a majority of people in Santa Clara who will welcome the team with an investment from rda funds as long as there are no new taxes and there is no negative impact on our general fund.
Until there is a concrete proposal that shows how general funds are protected, and there is a binding ballot measure, it is a bit premature to say how most Santa Clara residents would vote.
Actually, in talking to residents, I've found that the vast majority are indifferent about the stadium itself but absolutely opposed to any city assets being used to pay for the construction or operation.
And RDA money IS public money -- it comes from property taxes. The RDA isn't required to take on any new projects, but if it did, the money could be used for projects that would serve community needs.
I just read tonight that our Mayor Mahan and councilmember Kolstadt are both spending December in Bali, attending a "climate change conference", paid for by the taxpayers of the City of Santa Clara ($5700 each-- doesn't sound like flying coach to me).
This was unanimously approved by our City Council, so no wonder they think nothing of milking us for the big bucks for this stadium boondoggle. They are using us as patsies for their political ambitions, and getting a winter tan to boot!
Actually, Councilmember Kolstad's travel will be covered by a different agency — not a city agency.
But I agree, for the Mayor to spend $5,700 for Silicon Valley Power money to travel to the conference in Bali doesn't seem like the best use of City resources (that's sort of a continuing theme on this blog!)
With the new rate hike in January, how many households does that $5,700 represent in terms of their rate hike.
And they sure did very little to advertise this expenditure -- you had to check out the full report.
If they felt the City needed to be represented by two individuals, I would have recommended sending someone from Silicon Valley Power, since they could be directly and significantly impacted by changes to clean air rules.
The other problem with this junket is the timing. Just last week, the City Council approved scheduling three of the most important meetings on the stadium issue in December [including an extra meeting one week before Christmas — I guess that's a big "Bah Humbug" to all the residents who might want to attend but have other obligations.]
So two members of the City Council voted for this schedule knowing that they would be away?
If they support the subsidy, they should at least be willing to sit in chambers and listen to the residents in person.
It will be interesting to see how the Mayor's absence at the meeting will be received by both residents and the media.
It was certainly her decision on whether or not to go despite the meetings, but even if I supported the proposed subsidy, I would have urged her to do everything in her power to be present in person for all of these meetings.
Just my thoughts.
Post a Comment