If you visited the main webpage, you know it's official as of this morning: The Registrar of Voters has given us a letter for the 49ers' Stadium Subsidy Measure which will appear on our ballots on June 8th.
That giveaway is Measure "J," but we promise you, it's "No Joke!"
It's deadly serious, in fact. Tucked away in its bland, feel-good, "not-a-single-dollar-sign" language is a scheme to:
- Hand the San Francisco 49ers $114,000,000 upfront,
- Raise $330,000,000 more for them, and
- Lose $67,000,000 out of our City's General Fund.
SAY NO TO THE 49ERS SUBSIDY!
If you have any questions about the real numbers behind Measure J - the numbers that the San Francisco 49ers are terrified you'll find - please contact us anytime, and we'll prove them with the City's OWN data and reports.
VOTE NO ON "J"une the 8th - Protect our City and its General Fund!
Thank you for all of your support,
William F. "Bill" Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair
-=0=-
8 comments:
I noticed in the term sheet that we are actually not negotiating directly with 49ers team, instead it is Forty Niners Stadium, LLC. I am wondering if this is to limit the 49ers liability in the event of construction and operating cost overrun. The 49ers Stadium, LLC can be disolved anytime, but I suppose Santa Clara is stuck with the stadium. We can't just abandon it. Is this accurate or am I missing something? Thanks.
Anonymous is quite right.
Forty Niners Stadium, LLC, will have no assets they can be sued for.
In any lawsuit, the San Francisco 49ers, LP will be able to use this "shell" as a way to prevent any disclosure of their finances.
And yes: The Santa Clara Stadium Authority, as owner of the stadium, is indeed stuck with it.
Seattle has about this same situation; please visit fieldofschemes.com and search on
"Promises, Promises"
This technique is used routinely by NFL teams to conceal how much they're really scooping out of the stadiums they use.
Best regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair
-=0=-
I was looking at one of the blog sites. I realized that the stadium is located on the landing or take off path of SJC. I am curious to know if the FAA has anything to say with having a blimp and a few news helicopters around the stadium. I suppose it's fine not to have blimp on regular games, but it is likely to be a big deal for superbowl (if any). Any thought?
"...the stadium is located on the landing or take off path of SJC.."
It is indeed. But the EIR, bought-and-paid-for by the 49ers themselves, shows the Airport Land Use Commission, or ALUC, punting, and the FAA essentially just giving its assent, virtually with no questions asked. See the EIR on our City's website:
http://santaclaraca.gov/index.aspx?page=1546
...Appendix A, "No Hazard"
But there's a gentleman who's analyzed this in much greater detail than we have. Please visit:
http://stadiumfigures.blogspot.com/
Thanks for writing, and please vote NO on J on June 8th.
Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair.org
-=0=-
Visit our blog, too:
http://www.santaclaraplaysfair.blogspot.com/
1) The $67m hit to the general fund is from a decrease in RDA payments, correct? Is that figure based on zero improvments by the RDA, or by assuming the building and leasing of a new office building or other improvments? Or in other words, is the hit to the General fund from redirecting current cash flows, or from develping new ones - other than the stadium?
2) In the 24 March Santa Clara Weeky, the school district is claiming $53m from 2012 to 2020 as a direct result of the stadium, in addition to the $26.2 million from 2020 to 2026 as a result of SB211 passthroughs. A 2 Jun 09 letter from the Assistant City Manager only cites the $26.2 million in RDA passthroughs. Who is correct.
3) Would the $17m parking garage get built no matter what? Seems like there is plenty of parking across the street.
4) In many cases the substation would have to moved to allow the land to be developed. Would the substation have to be moved due strictly to obsolence. If so, wouldn't that be Ok to use enterprise funds and exclude the $20m figure from the $114m gift to the Yorks?
1) That's right - our General Fund loses the $67M due to two causes: Reduced passthroughs due to the SB211 amendment, and allowing the RDA to ignore its Cooperation Agreement with the city. The RDA can't service stadium bonds and still pay back the city what it owes the city. And we're entitled to that money - for police/fire/paramedic/city services.
2) I don't know where the $53M came from, as that editor never documents his sources. It belongs with the totally cooked "$141M" figure from last May 29th. The $26.2 is a nominal sum of payments which ignores inflation. The $21.7M is - IMO - the only correct one, because it is a Net Present Value. It's also an apples-to-apples comparison with the $67M General Fund loss - same interest rate, same time interval (2026).
3) The garage would have been build anyway - but three years ago, a city engineer stood up and stated that only about 180 stalls in that 1,700-stall garage were needed for the Mission City Ballroom expansion at the Conv. Ctr. You could argue that the parking garage could be deferred again - because it will hold LESS THAN A TENTH of the cars that will be jam-packing it into our city on NFL games days. Nearly all of those 20,000 vehicles will have to be shunted off to a parking district formed of business-park parking lots - all because Stadium Boosters want to "plop" a 14-acre stadium on a 17-acre site.
4) The Tasman Electric Substation does not need to be moved for any reason other than for the siting of an NFL stadium - and the "stadium mob" has known this since 5/29/07, when the utility told the City Council exactly that. On December 8th, the Electric Utility Director stated that Tasman will be moved using "de-allocated project" money - but Si Valley Power should not be paying a penny to move Tasman. The 49ers - alone - should be paying for that.
Thanks for asking, and if you're not already a member, please join us.
Best regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair
-=0=-
So that is what SB211 is about... I was at the SCUSD meeting and trying to figure out what SB211 was while the finance guy was yacking away about SB211. Thanks for the info.
Any thought or info about this lawsuit. Where can I find out about the filing?
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2010/03/22/daily23.html?surround=lfn
Anonymous,
There's at least a summary of the lawsuit on the Superior Court website...
http://www.sccaseinfo.org/civil.htm
Remove the hyphens from this case number...
1-10-CV-166465
...and enter the result "110CV166465" into the search window.
Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair.org
-=0=-
Post a Comment