Dismayed that the facts simply won't support their case, the 49ers' stadium boosters have resorted to scare tactics:
- "You'd better subsidize our stadium - or you'll lose your Redevelopment money to Sacramento."
When you vote NO on the stadium subsidy on June 8th, you will not lose a penny to Sacramento. Your "RDA money," or tax increment, stays exactly where it is.
I've heard the above scare tactic personally - once in the Citizens Advisory Meeting of February 22, and twice more on my own street - and I've fielded at least a half-dozen telephone calls from residents calling me to inquire about it.
It's quite clear that the true story simply isn't going to come out of the San Francisco 49ers. Please contact us anytime if you have questions about this or any other issue involving the massive stadium subsidy.
We'll be happy to refer you to the actual City Staff or Agenda reports with the REAL Facts.
Thanks for all of your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair
1(877)703-4300
-=0=-
5 comments:
Santa Clara schools will lose quite a bit of money from the redevelopment agency if the stadium does not go forward. Right now the district is scheduled to receive money guaranteed by law in 2019. If J goes through, the money will start being distributed in 2012. This is likely the main reason why the school district supports the Stadium (they will receive other money as well, but it is less significant than these redev dollars).
I got this same scare story from a Pro Stadium door knocker too.
The schools don't 'lose' anything that the RDA currently owes them. That claim is simply false.
Unfortunately, the SCUSD is supporting a massive raid on the City's General Fund which costs the City of Santa Clara $67,000,000 while giving the schools less than one-third of that amount.
The massive stadium subsidy is a terrible deal for the City of Santa Clara - and the schools don't even gain that much by supporting it.
The real way to get funding out to the schools: Don't waste our time making us subsidize a stadium for the San Francisco 49ers - instead, stand before our Redevelopment Agency and DEMAND that they retire the North of Bayshore RDA in the year 2016.
That tax increment will then flow to the County - AND TO THE SCHOOLS. And it will be a lot more than any gains that "Stadium Boosters" are claiming for any publicly-subsidized NFL stadium.
Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair
-=0=-
If that were the case, don't you think that is what SCUSD would be supporting that initiative right now instead of the stadium? They wouldn't support the stadium if it wasn't something they felt as necessary to the financial success of the school system. Based on what I heard from principals, Santa Clara schools are pretty much screwed. 60 teachers are getting fired this year, and probably even more then next. Starting to receive RDA funds in 2012 rather than 2019 WOULD have a substantial impact.
Why not demand that the RDA expire in 2016 as it should instead of extending it to 2026, as the "stadium booster" crowd is demanding?
It is completely unfair of the SCUSD to be shilling for a massive subsidy for an NFL that delivers virtually nothing to the City of Santa Clara, and in fact, which causes our General Fund to LOSE $67,000,000.
Sorry, but a subsidized NFL stadium in Santa Clara simply won't fix the schools.
The schools establishment won't get behind any attempts to reform Prop 13 because it would be political suicide for too many administrators.
So what's left? Highly defective schemes to bootstrap a subsidized stadium for the Yorks and the 49ers, to deliver nothing to Santa Clara - and to help the schools barely at all.
The stadium subsidy totalling $444M is not the solution. It's the problem.
Rgds,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair.
-=0=-
Post a Comment