Mayor Mahan & Councilmember Matthews have revolutionized the housing market with their discovery that "net present value figures ... are based on outdated economic assumptions" and that we should focus on "actual dollars" paid over 40 years!
Madam Mayor, I'll buy your home for $1 million -- a good $100,000 over the current market price. I'll pay you in 2050. Do we have a deal? Can you vacate by next Tuesday?
Fair Market Rent for the proposed stadium site is currently over $1.8 million per year. Even with the new Mahan-Matthews Math, that should be worth over $72 million in "actual dollars." Too bad the 49ers LLC only signed up for $40 million.
This is a bad deal -- with or without the lies the Mayor is spreading.
Showing posts with label Mayor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mayor. Show all posts
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Monday, May 12, 2008
The fiancé keeps his options open
On Sunday, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the SF 49ers are talking to Brisbane city officials about a new stadium. They "are just looking to add some insurance in case" other options don't work out.That engagement ring is looking more tarnished all the time.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Commonwealth Club discussion on "The Future of the 49ers"
Two weeks ago, I was invited to be a guest at a Commonwealth Club panel discussion entitled “After Further Review: The Future of the San Francisco 49ers.” The panelists were: Michael Cohen, Director of Base Reuse and Development, City and County of San Francisco; Ann Killion, Sportswriter, San Jose Mercury News; Patricia Mahan, Mayor, Santa Clara; and Carmen Policy, Former President and CEO, San Francisco 49ers and Cleveland Browns. The moderator was Dan Ashley of ABC7 News.
It was a fascinating discussion.
I was most surprised by two issues. First, the San Francisco stadium plan is quite serious and moving ahead quickly. Michael Cohen, who is in charge of the redevelopment efforts at Hunters Point, made it clear that while they were shocked at the Yorks' sudden withdrawal from negotiations last November, they quickly regrouped and developed an aggressive stadium development schedule. They met with the 49ers organization last December to present their new timetable, and to date they have met every one of the benchmarks on that new schedule.
The second surprise was the very strong sentiment expressed by three of the four panelists that the 49ers should stay in San Francisco. While I expected Michael Cohen to be in favor of the site, it was probably Carmen Policy who painted the most vivid picture of the possibilities of the Hunters Point location. Policy was clear in his belief that the 49ers’ first priority is a new stadium, but he was also clear that even if the San Francisco deal is not quite as good, the team should stay in San Francisco. In fact, Policy indicated that “if the NFL had its druthers, the 49ers would stay in San Francisco,” as Mercury News reporter Mike Swift noted in his article about the discussion – “49ers Decision a Year Away.”
Cohen answered many of the objections that I have heard about the site and outlined the plans for transportation improvements in the area.
Ann Killion also expressed strong support for the team staying in San Francisco, and she knocked down many of the myths promoted by stadium supporters in Santa Clara.
While Patricia Mahan talked about an “entertainment district” in Santa Clara, Killion replied that football stadiums are not like other types of professional sports facilities. She said that with a football stadium, 70,000 people come in 10 times a year to see the game, and then they turn around and leave. They don’t stick around and spend money.
She also noted that public subsidies for stadiums are a very hard sell in this area because we have the examples both of what can happen when public subsidy goes wrong (see Raiders, Oakland) and of how stadiums can be built without public subsidies (see Giants, San Francisco.)
Mayor Mahan started reading a list of cities smaller than Santa Clara that host NFL football teams, but the moderator interrupted to say that it wasn’t about the size of the city, it was about the money. [As we’ve discussed here before – "A tale of two cities."]
I would highly recommend tuning in for the broadcast of the discussion. It will be aired this Thursday, September 20, on 1590AM. Here are the full details:
Thursday, Sept. 20, 2007
KLIV-AM 1590 kHz
7:00 PM and 10:00 PM
If you miss the broadcast, you may be able to listen to it or purchase a recording of it at the Commonwealth Club website. It’s not yet available there, but I will update this post with a link as soon as it’s available.
If you want to learn more about the stadium issue, this discussion provides an excellent analysis of the situation and the state of the current proposals.
It was a fascinating discussion.
I was most surprised by two issues. First, the San Francisco stadium plan is quite serious and moving ahead quickly. Michael Cohen, who is in charge of the redevelopment efforts at Hunters Point, made it clear that while they were shocked at the Yorks' sudden withdrawal from negotiations last November, they quickly regrouped and developed an aggressive stadium development schedule. They met with the 49ers organization last December to present their new timetable, and to date they have met every one of the benchmarks on that new schedule.
The second surprise was the very strong sentiment expressed by three of the four panelists that the 49ers should stay in San Francisco. While I expected Michael Cohen to be in favor of the site, it was probably Carmen Policy who painted the most vivid picture of the possibilities of the Hunters Point location. Policy was clear in his belief that the 49ers’ first priority is a new stadium, but he was also clear that even if the San Francisco deal is not quite as good, the team should stay in San Francisco. In fact, Policy indicated that “if the NFL had its druthers, the 49ers would stay in San Francisco,” as Mercury News reporter Mike Swift noted in his article about the discussion – “49ers Decision a Year Away.”
Cohen answered many of the objections that I have heard about the site and outlined the plans for transportation improvements in the area.
Ann Killion also expressed strong support for the team staying in San Francisco, and she knocked down many of the myths promoted by stadium supporters in Santa Clara.
While Patricia Mahan talked about an “entertainment district” in Santa Clara, Killion replied that football stadiums are not like other types of professional sports facilities. She said that with a football stadium, 70,000 people come in 10 times a year to see the game, and then they turn around and leave. They don’t stick around and spend money.
She also noted that public subsidies for stadiums are a very hard sell in this area because we have the examples both of what can happen when public subsidy goes wrong (see Raiders, Oakland) and of how stadiums can be built without public subsidies (see Giants, San Francisco.)
Mayor Mahan started reading a list of cities smaller than Santa Clara that host NFL football teams, but the moderator interrupted to say that it wasn’t about the size of the city, it was about the money. [As we’ve discussed here before – "A tale of two cities."]
I would highly recommend tuning in for the broadcast of the discussion. It will be aired this Thursday, September 20, on 1590AM. Here are the full details:
Thursday, Sept. 20, 2007
KLIV-AM 1590 kHz
7:00 PM and 10:00 PM
If you miss the broadcast, you may be able to listen to it or purchase a recording of it at the Commonwealth Club website. It’s not yet available there, but I will update this post with a link as soon as it’s available.
If you want to learn more about the stadium issue, this discussion provides an excellent analysis of the situation and the state of the current proposals.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
The 700 Pound Gorilla
Funny you should mention Great America, and their parent company Cedar Fair.
Back in January, the Santa Clara Mayor and City Council formally adopted a set of principles for evaluating the 49ers stadium proposal. These included a requirement that Cedar Fair agree in writing to not interfere with the stadium feasibility study, and that this agreement was required prior to pursuing discussions with the 49ers.
Here it is September, with no agreement in sight. The Mayor is saying that Cedar Fair's opposition is "the most substantive" problem delaying the feasibility study. However, "We haven't come up against one obstacle, or one factor, that violates our principles for going forward," Mahan said. (SJMN, Sept 4 2007)
Hmm... I think we have a touch of selective amnesia going on here.
Back in January, the Santa Clara Mayor and City Council formally adopted a set of principles for evaluating the 49ers stadium proposal. These included a requirement that Cedar Fair agree in writing to not interfere with the stadium feasibility study, and that this agreement was required prior to pursuing discussions with the 49ers.
Here it is September, with no agreement in sight. The Mayor is saying that Cedar Fair's opposition is "the most substantive" problem delaying the feasibility study. However, "We haven't come up against one obstacle, or one factor, that violates our principles for going forward," Mahan said. (SJMN, Sept 4 2007)
Hmm... I think we have a touch of selective amnesia going on here.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
From the inbox
It's been a few weeks since we've had the opportunity to open up our inbox and post an email from one of our readers, but I'm glad we have the chance to do so this week.
Today's letter comes from Santa Clara resident Susan H., who lives in a neighborhood very close to the location of the proposed stadium. She sent us a copy of the letter she sent to the Mayor and City Council, and we are posting it here with her permission:
It's no surprise that all of us at Stadium Facts share Susan's concerns about the impact a stadium would have on Santa Clara, and Susan summarizes these concerns well. For those residents who live in the immediate vicinity of the proposed stadium, those impacts are even more significant. The years of construction would be just the start. Once the stadium is opened, anyone who lives anywhere near the stadium will have to contend with street closures and restrictions, increased noise and traffic, and increased crime.
NFL football stadiums are not an asset to a neighborhood, and if property values in these neighborhoods fall, the city will collect less in property taxes. In fact, at least one study suggests that simply announcing plans to build a publicly-subsidized stadium can cause property values in the entire city to decrease.
In their study The Impact of Stadium Announcements on Residential Property Values: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Dallas-Fort Worth, economists Carolyn A. Dehring, Craig A. Depken, II, Michael R. Ward found that
Every property owner in Santa Clara, especially those who live closest to the proposed stadium, should be concerned about this evidence.
We also support Susan's call for a public vote on any proposal that would require any public financing for or operation of a stadium. The City Council should WANT the support of the residents for any project of this size.
Thanks for writing Susan! I hope you'll continue to contribute to the discussion.
Today's letter comes from Santa Clara resident Susan H., who lives in a neighborhood very close to the location of the proposed stadium. She sent us a copy of the letter she sent to the Mayor and City Council, and we are posting it here with her permission:
Dear Mayor Mahan and Council Members,
We have been living in the area near the proposed stadium site for the past 30 years. We’ve seen changes such as new housing developments in place of where the stable used to be, and erection of the power stations, the Niners training camp and soccer field, as well as improvements to this area, especially the addition of Rivermark Plaza. All was fine and added value to a quality of life to the area residents.
However, I cannot see the benefit of having a stadium near our residential area because facts have always shown that property value will decrease in areas near any stadium, not to mention the noise pollution, environmental pollution, and excess wear and tear on our local roads, not to mention the decrease in the quality of life in our neighborhood. We certainly do not welcome the sound of construction going on for the next few years as well.
Since the City is planning to subsidize this project with public money, then it should be put up for a public vote. You need to allow the public to decide, not just amongst the Council. I urge you to place this up for a public vote for the sake of the residents in Santa Clara, as well as your integrity. This is a republic country and we should have a say so in how our tax dollars are spent. If you do not allow us to vote, then it would be no different from a dictatorship. I urge you to give this much reconsideration and thoughts. I am sure that you would want to leave a positive legacy, not a negative one. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Susan H.
It's no surprise that all of us at Stadium Facts share Susan's concerns about the impact a stadium would have on Santa Clara, and Susan summarizes these concerns well. For those residents who live in the immediate vicinity of the proposed stadium, those impacts are even more significant. The years of construction would be just the start. Once the stadium is opened, anyone who lives anywhere near the stadium will have to contend with street closures and restrictions, increased noise and traffic, and increased crime.
NFL football stadiums are not an asset to a neighborhood, and if property values in these neighborhoods fall, the city will collect less in property taxes. In fact, at least one study suggests that simply announcing plans to build a publicly-subsidized stadium can cause property values in the entire city to decrease.
In their study The Impact of Stadium Announcements on Residential Property Values: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Dallas-Fort Worth, economists Carolyn A. Dehring, Craig A. Depken, II, Michael R. Ward found that
. . . a series of announcements regarding a new publicly-subsidized stadium in nearby Arlington, Texas, had a deleterious effect on residential property values in Arlington. In aggregate, average property values declined approximately 1.5% relative to the surrounding area before stadium construction commenced.
Every property owner in Santa Clara, especially those who live closest to the proposed stadium, should be concerned about this evidence.
We also support Susan's call for a public vote on any proposal that would require any public financing for or operation of a stadium. The City Council should WANT the support of the residents for any project of this size.
Thanks for writing Susan! I hope you'll continue to contribute to the discussion.
Monday, July 23, 2007
"A sense of compassion for the community"
When Santa Clara Mayor Patricia Mahan was interviewed for Santa Clara Magazine (published by Santa Clara University) in 2005, Mahan, who received a law degree from SCU in 1980, had this to say about her alma mater:
Mahan's actions in recent City Council meetings, however, speak far louder than her words.
On several occasions in City Council meetings over the last few months, Mahan has used her position as Mayor to attempt to silence, demean, and disrespect Santa Clara residents who have taken the initiative to come forward and speak publicly about their concerns regarding the proposal to spend $287,000,000 in public assets on a football stadium for the San Francisco 49ers.
Usually, her biases are quite evident to everyone in attendance.
At the City Council meeting on July 17, however, the Mayor made an additional comment that was not heard in the Council chambers, but was quite audible to those watching from home.
"You're wasting your time."
The comment was directed at a resident who had wanted to speak to a report, but the Mayor rushed through the call for public comment without a pause. Instead of acknowledging that she had missed the resident's request, the Mayor blamed the resident.
You can see the full clip here:
Not only is such a reaction from the Mayor disrespectful, it's also a clear violation of Santa Clara's Code of Ethics & Values, which requires "all elected and appointed officials, City employees, volunteers, and others who participate in the city's government" to agree, in part, that:
The real test of the City's commitment to ethics will be how they respond to the Mayor's actions, which certainly do not demonstrate "a sense of compassion for the community."
“They just imbue you with such a sense of compassion for the community ... the higher values and the better values of why you’re doing what you’re being trained to do. It’s not to make a million dollars a year. It’s to be of service.”
Mahan's actions in recent City Council meetings, however, speak far louder than her words.
On several occasions in City Council meetings over the last few months, Mahan has used her position as Mayor to attempt to silence, demean, and disrespect Santa Clara residents who have taken the initiative to come forward and speak publicly about their concerns regarding the proposal to spend $287,000,000 in public assets on a football stadium for the San Francisco 49ers.
Usually, her biases are quite evident to everyone in attendance.
At the City Council meeting on July 17, however, the Mayor made an additional comment that was not heard in the Council chambers, but was quite audible to those watching from home.
"You're wasting your time."
The comment was directed at a resident who had wanted to speak to a report, but the Mayor rushed through the call for public comment without a pause. Instead of acknowledging that she had missed the resident's request, the Mayor blamed the resident.
You can see the full clip here:
Not only is such a reaction from the Mayor disrespectful, it's also a clear violation of Santa Clara's Code of Ethics & Values, which requires "all elected and appointed officials, City employees, volunteers, and others who participate in the city's government" to agree, in part, that:
3. As a Representative of the City of Santa Clara, I will be service-oriented. . . . :
a. I provide friendly, receptive, courteous service to everyone.
b . I am attuned to, and care about, the needs and issues of citizens, public officials, and city workers.
c. In my interactions with constituents, I am interested, engaged, and responsive.
6. As a Representative of the City of Santa Clara, I will be communicative. . . . :
a. I convey the City's care for and commitment to its citizens.
b. I communicate in various ways that I am approachable, open-minded and willing to participate in dialog.
c. I engage in effective two-way communication, by listening carefully, asking questions, and determining an appropriate response which adds value to conversations.
7. As a Representative of the City of Santa Clara, I will be collaborative.
In practice, this value looks like:
a. I act in a cooperative manner with groups and other individuals, working together in a spirit of tolerance and understanding. . . .
The real test of the City's commitment to ethics will be how they respond to the Mayor's actions, which certainly do not demonstrate "a sense of compassion for the community."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
