Do NOT sign the 49ers petition!

Click here for more videos.

Don't Sign the Petition!

In Santa Clara, it takes something like 6,000 signatures to get a measure on the ballot. The SF 49ers have stated they will pay to get the signatures (generally those nice signature-gatherers in front of the Safeway, etc., are paid per signature.) This is stated in a letter from the SF 49ers for Tuesday's agenda.

The letter also includes a copy of their petition & proposal.

It all looks pretty innocuous. The verbiage of the proposed change to law is likely to be almost (if not completely) identical to what the City Council will put forward.

The pernicious aspect of this move is that with the SF 49ers' backed initiative, they can bypass CEQA.

The California Environmental Quality Act safeguards only apply to projects which are put forward by the City Council. So, the City Council could not put this on the ballot until everyone is satisfied with the Environmental Impact Report, proposed mitigations, as well as the City Council's acceptance of certain things that won't be mitigated (e.g., "Yeah, it will be loud & disruptive -- deal with it.")

This Tuesday's City Council (15 Dec 2009) has one agenda item (6B-1) which is basically a proposal for the City Council to step away from performing the due diligence for our city.

From the agenda report:

The Council can consider various options in how they review the stadium related materials on this evening's agenda:

Option 1: Take under review the staff's report dealing with the EIR's required Mitigation, Monitoring or Reporting Program and related ballot measure funding; or

Option 2: Have the 49ers present the initiative petition filed with the City Clerk and briefly address the substance of the initiative. If Council is satisfied with the community initiated petition process then it would not be necessary for Council to take action on the MMRP and related findings. Additionally, if Council determines that the Ordinance portions of the community initiative petition and the Council initiated ballot measure are sufficiently similar, then Council could continue discussion of their ballot measure language and the EIR's MMRP and related findings to a later date in January/February 2010 to allow the initiative petition process to proceed to qualification for the June 2010 ballot.

In other words, Tuesday night, the Council can vote to abdicate their responsibilities.

What can you do?

• Come out & speak against this end run around our rights!
• Send email to let the Mayor & City Council know you are outraged by their actions!
• Send letters to the editor!
  
• Spread the word!
  

49ers Stadium: The REAL costs of a $937M NFL stadium...

Dear Santa Clarans:


Here are...

A member of Santa Clara Plays Fair helped me put together the above pie chart.

Now, you've already seen the team's own sleight-of-hand : Lump the contribution of a "Santa Clara Stadium Authority" in with the team's own contribution - and then try to tell Santa Clarans that we're only paying some 'fraction' of the stadium's cost.

Sorry, but it's not true. Not one penny of the 49ers' own money will go into the $330,400,000 contribution being made by any "Stadium Authority".

That joint-powers authority will be issuing some handsome pieces of high-risk, high-coupon paper - yes, that's more bonds - in order to raise a good deal of that money.

After that, they'll be squeezing concessionaires for deposits and selling fans some very expensive Personal Seat Licenses to raise the rest.

This is still very much a publicly-subsidized NFL stadium - and a "stadium authority" contribution to that is anything but 'funny money'.

Thanks for all of your support - as well as for contributions like this one,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-
Ref.: City Council - Term Sheet of June 2, 2009 - Exhibit 14

Ref.: "The $800 MILLION MYTH"

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

SB 43: Putting a Spin on the Hijacking...

Santa Clarans,


No sooner had the ink on SB 43 dried last night than the Stadium Spenders were out in force, claiming that SB 43 somehow gives us 'options'.

It does no such thing.

The Stadium Crowd is perpetuating the myth that SB 43 somehow 'preserves' Santa Clarans' right to vote on a "Sweetheart Charter Exemption" being demanded by the San Francisco 49ers. The phrasing is always expressed in this way: 'Well, we're not taking away anyone's rights - the City of Santa Clara, in the end will decide.'...

...Which, on its face, is real nice happy-talk. But the truth is that SB 43 allows a compliant City Council to DENY Santa Clarans a vote on exactly that Charter exemption. - The very language of SB 43 itself proves that:

"This bill would authorize the Santa Clara
Stadium Authority to let a design-build
contract without utilizing a competitive
bid process for the stadium construction
project..."

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_43_bill_20090915_enrolled.html

If the intention of our City Council were truly to protect Santa Clarans' right to vote on any exemptions to their own City Charter...

...then there would have been no need for SB 43 to begin with, would there?

Sorry, but SB 43 is designed to preserve "flexibility" only for the 49ers - not for Santa Clara. If this 49er-Friendly City Council is truly interested in getting Santa Clarans to support their squandering of a $114 million subsidy** for an NFL stadium, then they should have no problem putting both the "Massive Stadium Subsidy" AND the "Sweetheart Charter Exemption" on next June's ballot.

They don't need SB 43 in order to give us Santa Clarans the TWO ballot measures we're entitled to have.



Santa Clarans, thanks again for your support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-
======================================
**$114 million subsidy: This is shown clearly in Exhibit 14 to the Term Sheet as approved on June 2 by our own City Council. See this one, single page...

http://santaclaraca.gov/pdf/collateral/49ers-20090601-Exhibit-14.pdf

The $114M is simply the sum of $42M + $35M + $37M. ALL of that is public money - including advances from the 49ers which will have to be paid back with public money, plus interest. ---WFB
======================================

The 49ers Stadium WILL raid the General Fund!

Santa Clarans,


During our visit to Sacramento on September 9th to voice our opposition to Senate Bill 43, we happened to expose yet another "Stadium Subsidy Myth".

Stadium Spenders have apparently given up on that throwaway line, "No New Taxes" - but they've unfortunately put a falsehood in its place: Before the Senate Committee on Local Government, one stadium supporter actually stated - falsely - that the stadium won't affect Santa Clara's General Fund.

Nothing could be further from the truth - a 49ers stadium in Santa Clara WILL raid Santa Clara's General Fund, and it will do so in two ways:

1. The RDA has previously bought land from the City, and it is paying the General Fund back for it. That payback agreement is referred to as the "Cooperation Agreement". However, if the Redevelopment Agency issues construction bonds for a stadium, RDA proceeds will have to be diverted away from paying back our General Fund and toward paying off those stadium bonds. The result is less proceeds to our General Fund, compared to what we would see if we never built an NFL stadium.

2. In order to issue those stadium bonds, the Redevelopment Agency - which is our current City Council - must pass an SB 211 amendment which will divert even more RDA passthroughs away from the General Fund. The cost to the City, the County and the Valley Water District was estimated at over $17M over the term of the bonds:

http://santaclaraca.gov/pdf/collateral/49ers-20090602-Report-on-Tax-Benefit.pdf
(See page 5 of 5.)

To see the true impact of a subsidized stadium on our General Fund, please see:

http://santaclaraca.gov/pdf/collateral/49ers-Term-Sheet-Presentation.pdf

...and page down to slide 48-of-55.

• Over the long term, the Net Present Value of building NO STADIUM AT ALL is a $98 million increase to our General Fund.

• Actually building a stadium REDUCES this to $31 million.

And settling for $67,000,000 less in our General Fund than we're entitled to?

Unfortunately, on June 2nd, our City Council approved exactly that when they voted 5-2 to accept the Term Sheet "as-is".

Santa Clarans, the City's General Fund was running a deficit of at least $5 million for the fiscal year just ended, and this deficit is only expected to grow in years to come. Subsidizing a one-billion-dollar stadium for the San Francisco 49ers doesn't help that situation. It makes it worse.

So, when someone falsely claims that a stadium won't affect our City's General Fund - the fund through which we pay our police officers, firefighters and librarians - you will always be able to point to the truth above...

...and it's in the City's own Agenda Reports.



Thanks for all of your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-

49ers Stadium: The $800 MILLION MYTH

Santa Clarans,

We're sure grateful to have met more of you in Central Park last Saturday before the fireworks display.

And we appreciate also the kind of City leadership that enabled our own city's fireworks to proceed while so many municipalities around us were forced to cancel their own. So, welcome to the visitors who took a place on the lawn and celebrated right along with us!

It's time. May I bust up another "Stadium Myth"?

This one cropped up several times in our outreach on the Fourth of July, and it bears some resemblance to the falsehoods previously published in the local press.

Looks like it's time to put a fork in it - again - to show that it's completely overdone:

Stadium boosters persist in the false claim that Santa Clara is getting a good deal 'because the 49ers are paying $800 million and we're only paying $100 million'.

That's completely untrue. The 49ers are not paying $800 million for any stadium, least of all for any stadium in Santa Clara.

Debunking this myth is a snap - we need only go to the actual exhibits from the Term Sheet vote by the City Council on July 2nd, 2009:

http://santaclaraca.gov/pdf/collateral/49ers-20090601-Exhibit-14.pdf

The true contributions to the construction costs of the stadium are:

$330 million: Santa Clara Stadium Authority
$114 million: City/RDA (Sum of $42M + $35M + $37M)
$493 million: Team/NFL

You can see the sleight-of-hand at work with this card trick: Stadium proponents still believe they're entitled to tack the Stadium Authority's contribution onto the Team/NFL contribution.

That's deceptive and it's untrue.

Let's be clear: The Santa Clara Stadium Authority will need to issue bonds in order to raise that $330 million - and not one penny of that money will ever come from the San Francisco 49ers or from the York family.

Let's be even clearer: Note that the Stadium Authority's bonds will almost surely have a much lower rating than the RDA's own bonds, meaning that the Stadium Authority will be under tremendous pressure to milk every possible revenue source to pay off their higher coupon, or interest: Naming rights, Personal Seat Licenses, an "Admissions Tax", concessionaire equity...

I have to ask - yet again: If a stadium has all the benefits claimed by its proponents, why do the 49ers and their stadium supporters feel the need to deceive us about the true costs of the stadium - and about who's really paying?


Thanks, Santa Clarans, for your support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer of Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-
For your convenience, here's a link to City Council Minutes and Exhibits, especially those from June 2 (Term Sheet vote) and June 23, 2009 (Convention Center Space Vote):

http://santaclaraca.gov/index.aspx?page=1359
(Page down to "June 2, 2009")

(December 4, 2009: Repaired link to new city website...)

49ers Stadium: A Yardstick for the "Term Sheet"

Some Stadium Facts: It took over two years of secrecy with SIXTY-EIGHT closed-session meetings, not to mention spending $1.1 million of RDA money on consultants' fees.

But your City Council has finally set a date for a public session so that we can see the 49ers' stadium "term sheet".

At last.

This public session will be held on Tuesday evening, June 2, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers. Santa Clara Plays Fair urges as many residents as can possibly attend to be there - and that they make themselves heard.

Even if real numbers are going to be hard to come by until that City Council Meeting is held, there is a yardstick by which all Santa Clarans can "measure" the term sheet. That yardstick is the statement of "Guiding Principles", passed by City Council unanimously on January 9, 2007:

http://santaclaraca.gov/pdf/collateral/January_9_Agenda_Report_re_Proposed_49ers_Stadium.pdf

See page 4 and note the very first Guiding Principle: "No use or obligation of General Fund monies of the City of Santa Clara."

That means: There must be NO loss to the General Fund of any kind. Not only must a stadium deal not cause direct debits to the General Fund - but the stadium must not stop payments to the General Fund that we're entitled to.

That's another way of saying: Don't just look at the General Fund; look at the payments it is lawfully entitled to from the Redevelopment Agency, as well as any payments from a Stadium Authority we might choose to create. The General Fund should show only net gains.

Santa Clara Plays Fair urges all Santa Clarans to hold our City Council to the same standards that they agreed to over two years ago, and that they evaluate any "deal" with the San Francisco 49ers against these Guiding Principles.

Owing especially to the serious fiscal challenges that our City - and we ourselves - are facing - we shouldn't be settling for anything less than that.




Thanks for your support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair

49ers Stadium: The Truth about the 'Lion's Share'...

Concerning the true costs of an NFL stadium in the City of Santa Clara: One preposterous claim ** printed in the San Jose Mercury News on November 17th, 2008, told us that "well over 70 percent of the bill will be borne by the 49ers and the NFL."

The City's own figures prove that to be utterly false:

$222.0M: Santa Clara Public Equity
$330.5M: Santa Clara Stadium Authority
$363.3M: 49ers and NFL
-------------------------------------------
$915.8M: TOTAL

Note that the team-and-league contribution is a mere 39.7% of the total - but that our RDA and a Stadium Authority - a joint-powers authority not yet formed - will be forced to cough up the remaining 60.3%.

Late news even reveals that the NFL is now pleading poverty, and will not contribute to any stadium here. That will put even more pressure on the public contribution being demanded by the 49ers.

Unfortunately, Tim Kawakami, sportswriter for the San Jose Mercury News, also repeats the same math-challenged assertion *** by referring to some "potential $600 million to $800 million share" down to the 49ers. This is also false.

Both of these distortions rely on a little sleight of hand: Lumping the Stadium Authority contribution in with the team's minority share.

Stadium Facts urges Santa Clarans to read the City's own reports - and to be very careful when evaluating claims by stadium fans. As 2009 goes forward, there will be a war of words waged by stadium subsidizers - and not all of their output is going to be truthful.

If the stadium is as good a deal as its supporters are claiming: It shouldn't be necessary to distort the truth about who's paying for most of it - should it?



Best regards,
Bill Bailey
Treasurer, Santa Clara Plays Fair
http://www.santaclaraplaysfair.org/

** Update on February 24th, 2009: The link to the original Letter-to-the-Editor is dead. However the original can probably be had from the Mercury News' archival service (for a fee). I stand by my citation of that letter as quoted above. The link to the Kawakami article is still active.

*** Update on April 26, 2009: It took a few months, but the link to Tim Kawakami's article finally aged and is no longer active. But his original opinion piece can still be had from the Mercury News' archives.