Stop the Bleeding -- Vote No on J!

With this year's $13.5 Million deficit (expected to grow further next year) the City of Santa Clara is sinking from the ranks of fiscally sound, well-managed cities. It's saddening that we may lose yet another guaranteed $5 Million per year in rent from our fabled theme park, Great America.

Saddening, but not surprising. We already provide an annual give-away of $2.5 Million to the San Francisco 49ers' in the form of below-market rent on their training center.

Measure J extends that deal and expands the loss. The San Francisco 49ers would rent a brand new, state-of-the-art stadium for 25% of fair market value of the land it sits on!

Worse, they'd pay only 14% of the land's fair market value during the first 10 years of operation. Over the next two years, as our deficits sky-rocket, they'd pay nothing.

"Net Present Value" vs. "Actual Dollars"

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 are based on outdated economic assumptions" and that we should focus on "actual dollars" paid over 40 years!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.

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!
  

The cold, cruel truth

These words of wisdom are from Ray Ratto's recent article on the A's stadium — Time to call A's owner for crying wolf on stadium — but the analysis holds just as true for the current San Francisco 49ers' request for a massive public subsidy from the City of Santa Clara . . .

the cold, cruel truth, proven again and again by economists everywhere, is that stadiums have not paid off for anyone except for the team owners.

Starbucks on Mars

The article is almost a year old — A stadium in Santa Clara? You'll be dead before it happens — but every time I read this line . . .

There will be a Starbucks on Mars before there's a 49ers stadium in Santa Clara.

. . I have just a little hope that fiscal sanity will triumph over reckless spending in Santa Clara. [And if it doesn't, maybe the latte run will be just a bit more exciting.]

Thanks Scott Ostler!

A quick thought

If contributing $222,000,000 and 15 acres of land to a project AND assuming the risks of stadium operations were such a great deal, why can't the San Francisco 49ers find private investors willing to invest private money into this project?

The fact that they have turned instead to the City of Santa Clara to ask for a massive public handout for this project is perhaps the best evidence that this enormous gift of public money is a poor investment.

One of Silicon Valley's many claims to fame is its venture capital firms, and if the 49ers can't find private investors in this area (or anywhere else, for that matter) to partner with them, then they should not expect the City to provide the money for them.

The New England Patriots have proven that football stadiums can be built with little to no public assets. The 49ers should take a page from their play book.

Two teams, one stadium

Mercury News sportswriter Ann Killion raised an interesting idea in a recent column — maybe the 49ers and Raiders should build a stadium together, just as the New York Jets and New York Giants are doing.

As Killion writes in her article "A's, 49ers trailing on stadium scoreboard"

Football stadiums are a questionable investment for everyone except a football team. Because of their size, they can be used only for NFL games, the occasional big soccer game, random bowl game or rare mega rock concert. NFL football stadiums are guaranteed for only 10 dates a year. Factor in the handful of other events suitable for such a venue, and you're lucky to push that number to 15 events a year.

And that's worth almost a billion dollars?

If it could be built and operated with private funding, a joint stadium would certainly make much more economic sense. Whether such a stadium — even one funded privately — would fit in Santa Clara, however, is still an open question.

A cynical observer

A few weeks ago, Mercury News sportswriter Tim Kawakami had some interesting observations on the San Francisco 49ers' Santa Clara stadium proposal.

As he wrote in his post "The 49ers’ Ashley Lelie: A weird symbol of a confusing franchise",

The 49ers are asking for about $200M in public money (which I believe will probably be jacked up to $250M at some point), and yet they can just go ahead and say, well, why don’t we just purchase and operate a theme park while we’re at it?

This makes sense? To whom? Perhaps in the near future the Yorks can just ask Santa Clara for $2 billion and then decide to buy SeaWorld, too. Lots of syngery there, I’m sure.

I hope you'll follow the link above and read the post for yourself (the stadium issue is about halfway through the post.)

Infinity not as infinite as it used to be

The feasibility study is not done. No contract has been signed. But already the flip-flopping has begun. The issue is cost overruns, both during construction and operation of the stadium.

At a meeting with the community in May this year, SF 49ers Director of Strategic Planning Jed York tried

to convince skeptical Santa Clarans that they would not be exposed to financial risk, either during construction or once the stadium opens.

"The 49ers' risk is infinite," Jed York, son of 49ers owners John and Denise DeBartolo York, told church members and other city residents Wednesday night at a meeting at the Resurrection Lutheran Church. "In your doomsday scenarios, we are taking that risk."

In September, a flyer distributed by the 49ers at the Art & Wine festival says the offer is still good:

No, there are absolutely no hidden costs. The city and its residents will not be responsible for cost overruns or operational shortfalls.

Here is a picture of the flyer. Click on the image to see a close-up of the highlighted part:

Earlier this month, however, York took a giant step back from that claim. In an interview with Mark Purdy, a sportswriter for the Mercury News, York changed his mind about that willingness to assume all risks:

". . . if you're losing money, the 49ers are going to write a check to the city council at the end of the year to the city general fund to make up for any losses that occur at a football game.''

But since the 49ers only play at home 10 days a year, does that mean the city is on the hook for the other 355 days? What about maintenance costs? Will they be apportioned by the same ratio, i.e. the city is responsible for 97% of all maintenance cost overruns?

infinite, adj.

1. Having no boundaries or limits.
2. Immeasurably great or large; boundless.

One wild ride

Yesterday I wrote that the City Council should not spend any more money on studying the San Francisco 49ers' stadium subsidy request until the City had a signed agreement from Cedar Fair.

I didn't really expect the City Council to postpone this request for additional money, but today's press release from Cedar Fair — "Cedar Fair opposes proposed 49ers stadium" — is precisely the reason why the City of Santa Clara should have obtained a signed agreement with Cedar Fair before spending a dime of taxpayer money on studying the proposal.

Cedar Fair's opposition isn't a complete roadblock to the stadium proposal — in its press release, Cedar Fair states its willingness to "consider selling the remainder of its lease and all of its interest and assets to the City or 49ers for fair market value" — but its opposition completely changes the circumstances of the proposal. If the City Council still wants to move forward with this proposal, it needs to study the feasibility in light of these new conditions.

The San Francisco 49ers, however, were quick to provide an alternative plan — they'll just buy the theme park.

A couple of problems with this new proposal.

First, as Santa Clara's Deputy City Manager Carol McCarthy told the San Jose Mercury News "Any sale requires the city's approval and is contingent on having a class A theme-park operator . . . with proven financial ability to operate it."

So, to use a baseball metaphor, strike one.

Second, the San Francisco 49ers have asked the city for $222,000,000 in public assets plus 15 acres of land to build the stadium. If they don't have the money to build their own stadium, how can they afford a theme park? And if we the taxpayers are subsidizing their place of business, is our subsidy helping them to acquire more business assets? Should public money be used to help a wealthy team owner buy even more private assets?

Strike two.

Finally, in many of their presentations to city residents, the 49ers have tried to claim that they want the City to operate the stadium because they "are in the football business, not the stadium business." (My previous responses to that claim have been "our city isn't in the stadium business either" and "that's a little like Intel saying its not in the office building business." Intel certainly isn't in the office building business, but it didn't use that argument to try and convince the city to build an office for them.)

But if the 49ers don't want to be in the stadium business, why on earth are they considering a leap into the theme park business? Shouldn't they stick a little closer to their core competencies?

I'll call that strike three.

Is this latest theme park idea just a last-minute desperation strategy? Are the 49ers merely clinging to any shred of hope that this proposal is viable? Do the San Francisco 49ers need to keep up the image that the Santa Clara plan is viable in order to put pressure on San Francisco to complete its proposal? Once the San Francisco proposal is in place, will the 49ers still be talking about venturing into the theme park business?

Time will certainly tell, but until then, be sure your seat belt is fastened and keep your arms and legs inside the car at all times.

It looks like it's going to be a wild ride.


UPDATE:

According to Julie Patel's article in the Mercury News today — Niners eye new spot for possible stadium — there may be another option. The proposed stadium site would be moved to an overflow parking on the other side of San Tomas Creek. But if they used this site, the 49ers would need to resubmit all of their site plans and traffic analysis, and the City would have to develop a plan to replace the parking Cedar Fair would be losing.

So this is yet another reason the City Council should have received Great America's approval in writing before spending any money even studying this proposal. As Ms. Patel writes in her article: "Whatever happens, the shifting debate is bound to cost the city of Santa Clara more time and money, on top of the $500,000 approved to research a stadium."

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.

Three million Benjamins

Photographer Chris Jordan has a new series of works entitled "Running the Numbers: An American Self-Portrait."

He created this portrait of Benjamin Franklin using images of 125,000 $100 bills — $12,500,000 representing "the amount our government spends every hour on the war in Iraq."

To depict the $222,000,000 subsidy that the San Francisco 49ers have requested from the City of Santa Clara to build a football stadium, we'd need about 18 of these expensive portraits. [And if you include the value of the land the City has been asked to donate — for a grand total of about $287,000,000 in subsidy— we'd need 23.]

Either way, that's a lot of Benjamins.

The Odd Couple, or Here We Go Again

It's more than two months old this time and it's getting stale. But in fact, it's just a reprise of the idea that first floated to the surface back in January: A marriage of convenience between Al Davis' Raiders and the York family's 49ers.

Now, the problem isn't the Raiders themselves, but the team's owner, Al Davis, who has been hauling multiple parties into court and suing them since before the Raiders split from Los Angeles. Millions of dollars in legal fees have been squandered by all sides - and that level of litigiousness certainly makes this Santa Claran wonder why the idea is even being proposed - again.

We thought this was properly dealt with back in January by Raiders Chief Executive Amy Trask, who simply said in essence that the Raiders would be concentrating on the current season in a stadium they're simply thrilled with, and that they are not actively seeking out the 49ers as business partners.

But like a zombie, this 'joint stadium' idea has come to life once again, walking the streets by night and claiming more victims, many of them credulous 49er Faithful. This time, on May 29, a columnist from the Sacramento Bee blew some more zombie powder in the creature's face.

True 49ers-Raiders synergy? Not a chance - and to their credit, neither author above really attempts to make such a limp case. Rather, the 'sticker shock' of what will likely be a one-billion-dollar stadium proposed for our City of Santa Clara has some 49ers business-office people looking for more ways to make others feel their pain.

But what the article fails to underscore is that any such partnership of the Yorks and Al Davis makes Davis a partner of the City of Santa Clara as well. Santa Clarans should be looking at any such agreement with deep suspicion, based on Davis' past dealings with the County of Alameda. Such a cooperative venture involving Mr. Davis may turn out to be anything but "cooperative".

In fact, Al Davis' latest lawsuit against the NFL was finally thrown out by the California Supreme Court only on July 2. If all we have to look forward to in any future dealings with Mr. Davis is more frivolous litigation, this Santa Claran strongly suggests that our guest be handed his hat and escorted to the door.

Note also that the Raiders' lease at McAfee Coliseum is over in 2010; they'll have to do some real tap-dancing to keep themselves there year-to-year until 2012. But Alameda County and the City of Oakland are still on the hook for the $200M worth of debt they used to fix up the Coliseum in 1996 - and that debt, on which Oakland and the County pay roughly $11M per year, will not be retired until the year 2025.

The likelihood of the NFL allowing another franchise into McAfee, with two teams just down the road? Just about nil. If Lew Wolff does finally get the green light to move the A's to Fremont, only the Warriors will be left in the smaller Oracle Arena. We note a similar situation from the 1990s, when both the Rams and the Raiders left Los Angeles.

All of this makes one wonder how long the 49ers will commit to staying in Santa Clara. Now, that will be at least until Santa Clara pays off its obligations in the years 2033 or 2038, right? Hello?

You could also ask Oaklanders about their likely reaction to Al Davis and his Raiders skipping out on yet another dinner check in any move to Santa Clara - but you'll probably want your kids out of earshot first.

Now, there is an idea in the latest article that that should get honorable mention: Having Al Davis and the Raiders be full contributing partners in any stadium - as long as that lets the City of Santa Clara completely off the hook.

That's mere speculation on the part of one sportswriter right now. So kindly permit this reader to take his suggestion one step further: If the two teams prove they're serious about this - that they'll (1) finance the entire stadium cost privately, (2) assume total ownership of the stadium, (3) mitigate its use of all City services such as police overtime and (4) waive any and all tax abatements - this stadium opponent might get on board.

But if Al Davis, whose team is in financially worse shape than most of the other NFL franchises, jets down from Oakland demanding the currently-proposed level of corporate welfare from the City of Santa Clara, we residents should be up in arms: If the millionaire owners of the 49ers are not entitled to a public dole of over two hundred million dollars, the Raiders - after the litany of abuses by their owner in Oakland - certainly are not entitled to benefit from that giveaway either.

Al Davis could end up costing the City of Santa Clara a lot more than he's worth. Just ask the Alameda County Board of Supervisors.

Remembering Bill Walsh

First, I’d like to express my condolences to Bill Walsh’s family, the San Francisco 49ers and their fans on the death of this great man.

Bill Walsh was a man I admired. He brought intelligence and creativity to football. Each game was like a carefully planned chess match, but with a difference. He taught his players to adapt quickly to changing situations and to take advantage of opponents’ mistakes. He motivated them to strive to be better than they ever imagined they could be.

In the early 80’s the 49ers under Walsh’s tutelage were truly golden. I know; I was a fan. I saw “The Catch” and couldn’t believe my eyes. My then ten-year-old son and I bonded by planning and hosting a party for Superbowl XVI. I was a single mom and scored major “cool” points with my son and his friends for doing this.

However, we never attended any games; we couldn’t afford to. My salary barely paid the rent and other bills; we lived month-to-month. But we cheered for the team when we watched them on TV.

Now my son has a family of his own. He works in a blue-collar job in the Pacific Northwest. They can’t afford to go to football games either. Ticket prices are too high. Concessions are too expensive. Parking fees prevent them from parking anywhere near the stadium. And the kids get too tired walking long distances to and from the game.

Instead, they attend their local baseball teams’ games. The team offers “family packages” at an affordable price that include four tickets, hot dogs, and drinks. There’s a playground at the stadium for the kids. Parking is free. Players are accessible. There are even fireworks after every game.

So you see I’m not against sports, the 49ers, or football stadiums in general. I just don’t want my city to be burdened by even further debt when by 2012 (according to the city’s own budget projections-see note below) Santa Clara’s general fund will once again show a deficit.

And I want a stadium that is accessible to all, not just a few.

Using the new Arizona Cardinals stadium as an example I did a search for tickets in the “nosebleed” seats for the Cardinals vs. 49ers game in Arizona on Nov. 25, 2007. Single tickets cost $67.00 each. In addition, they add a $10.10 “convenience charge” and a $4.50 “building facility fee” for each ticket. That adds up to $326.40 for four people for one game not counting food or parking.

I understand, of course, that perhaps a ticket for a child may not cost as much, but the Cardinals’ web site doesn’t indicate that. And season ticket holders would pay a bit less per ticket. Still, that’s one heck of a lot of money for one day’s amusement. That would be far beyond the reach of many, many people in our community.

Surely in our pursuit of projects for our “entertainment district” north of Bayshore the city could be smart and creative like Bill Walsh. Let’s be flexible and wise and perhaps we, too, can be better than we could ever have imagined ourselves to be.

Erlinda Anne Estrada

Note: From the table “Twelve Year Resource and Expenditure Trend, General Operating Funds” in City of Santa Clara's Proposed Capital Improvement Project Budget 2007-08

The Primary Fuse - On the OpEd by Mike Swift, SJMN, Aug. 2

Mike Swift's informative piece in this morning's Mercury News is a reminder that any decision on a stadium in Santa Clara for the 49ers won't be made in a vacuum. The politics of primary voter turnout will have an big influence on that question - and on all of us who live in Santa Clara.

I have not a clue of how Santa Clarans would vote on a stadium in February 2008 or next June. But I would urge all City residents: If you live in Santa Clara and you are not registered to vote, please do so with the County Registrar immediately. If you don't vote, others will be making the stadium decision on your behalf - and on behalf of future generations of Santa Clarans.

I appeal to residents North of U.S. 101 in particular. I note that no one from the North Side is seated on our City Council. One way to assure that your neighborhoods are not treated as mere extensions of an overblown entertainment district is massive, all-out participation in any election that is held.

Finally, as to any question of an 'advisory' vote - which would simply permit our City Council to do anything it pleases after merely tolerating the noise and haste of citizen input - please write, email, telephone the City Council, and make abundantly clear that any 'advisory' vote is completely unacceptable:

MayorandCouncil@ci.santa-clara.ca.us

For the sheer size of the commitment on the part of us as Santa Clarans, and due to the several generations of Santa Clarans who will end up paying for our folly today, we have earned nothing less than a BINDING resolution on any billion-dollar public project - a project which includes a $222M sudsidy to a private, profit-making corporation owned by a millionaires. It doesn't matter whether the City Council raids the Utility Reserve Fund or it makes Silicon Valley Power move the Tasman electric substation out of the utility's own pocket - we're absolutely entitled to a binding vote on any expenditure for a stadium.

We can only repeat what we have long held, and what the pro-stadium forces refuse to address: The Yorks should be buying their stadium themselves, and not demanding welfare from the City of Santa Clara merely in order to squeeze more out of the NFL. And if stadium ownership were the generator of jobs and income that they claim, they would have no problems owning and running such a facility themselves. But this they will not do - and Santa Clarans are asking them just why they will not.

Please. Get involved. Register. Join Stadium Facts and our sister organization, Not With My Money. Make your voices - and your votes - heard.

Many thanks.

Cities and the stadium business

At his blog Field of Schemes, Neil deMause, co-author of the book Field of Schemes, recently summarized an excellent special report from the Baltimore Sun of the pitfalls of stadium ownership for cities. As he writes in his post Aberdeen: How not to build a stadium deal,

It's an outstanding reminder that when it comes to stadium finance, it's increasingly less about who pays the initial bills than about who reaps the revenues down the road.

The experience of Aberdeen is a cautionary tale for any city considering the possibility of operating a professional sports stadium. As Aberdeen's current mayor said in 2005,

Municipalities, especially this one, shouldn't be in this type of business.

The San Francisco 49ers have requested not just $287,000,000 in public assets for the construction of the stadium. They have also requested that the City of Santa Clara create a Sports Authority, which would both assume an additional $330,464,000 in bond debt and operate the stadium.

And taking on debt and operating the stadium are two additional risks, as the experience of Aberdeen demonstrates.

I hope you'll read the full article at the Baltimore Sun website, but here are a few interesting highlights:

Every game has been a sellout since the 6,000-seat stadium opened in 2002. Companies such as Bank of America have paid to be sponsors. . . .

But even on days like this, when the city-owned stadium is packed, Aberdeen loses money.

This is an important cautionary note — a full stadium does not equal profit for the city.

The Harford County community owes $6.7 million in stadium-related debt, and millions in interest, on a payment schedule stretching to 2022. The city's stadium fund has posted operating losses that total more than $1 million since 2001, forcing Aberdeen to dip into its treasury.

And these debts and operating losses are for a small, minor league stadium. The debt and potential for operating losses will be much bigger for an NFL stadium.

In closed-door negotiations, Aberdeen signed over to the Ripken businesses most of the money to be made from the baseball games. City officials had intended to cover the bills in other ways, including fees, taxes and a deal with Nottingham Properties to develop adjacent land. But the city's contract with Nottingham contained no penalty for delay. The land remains mostly acres of dirt.

Under the current proposal from the San Francisco 49ers, the breakdown of revenue streams is the same, with the notable exception of stadium naming rights, personal seat licenses, concessionaire rights, etc. But these revenue streams are NOT profit for the Stadium Authority — the 49ers' proposal calls for the Stadium Authority to borrow against this expected revenue in order to build the stadium. Like the Aberdeen IronBirds, the San Francisco 49ers will make most of the money from the actual football games.

The city, with a general fund budget at the time of just $7.6 million, pledged $4 million.

Most minor-league stadiums are owned by larger jurisdictions that can spread the costs over bigger budgets - the situation in Prince George's County, where the minor-league stadium is overseen by a multi-jurisdictional authority.

What's particularly interesting to me about these numbers is that even in the case of a minor league baseball team, cities look to spread the cost over a larger region. And Aberdeen pledged a little over half of its annual general fund budget to the project. The current San Francisco 49ers' proposal calls for Santa Clara to take on FOUR AND A HALF TIMES its annual general fund budget for a stadium. The scale of the subsidy request is simply shocking.

The city was counting on a ticket tax and the potential for parking fees, advertising on a billboard and non-baseball events. The tax raised about $140,000 the first season, but the city had little success attracting concerts, banquets or similar functions. In 2002, those events brought in only $2,000.

The trickle-down profit scenario outlined in the 49ers' proposal depends on not simply attracting other events, but making a profit from these events. If there is no profit from outside events, no money will be set aside for capital improvements, and I'm sure we can all guess who will be on the hook for those expenses.

"The Ripken family has put Aberdeen on the map," said [Former Mayor Douglas S.] Wilson, after rattling off the names of major leaguers such as Orioles right fielder Nick Markakis who have passed through Aberdeen. "To create that in a small government, to be able to have a minor-league baseball team, I mean, it's pretty phenomenal."

We've seen the same sort of thinking here in Santa Clara. Instead of addressing the very real financial costs and potential risks, stadium supporters draw on such far-fetched comparisons as the Wright brothers and the moon landing.

Instead of such wishful thinking, we need to focus on the very real financial risks involved in the stadium business.

After all, if there was money to be made in operating a stadium, don't you think the 49ers would want to do that themselves?

What does Cedar Fair want?

Mark Purdy, one of our more thoughtful South Bay sports commentators, wrote a neat essay in the San Jose Mercury early Friday morning on the current rumble between Cedar Fair and the San Francisco 49ers. However, only in his last couple of paragraphs does he touch on the concerns that we Santa Clarans have about subsidizing a billion-dollar stadium with $222 million of public money. We certainly have no such "money" lying around. It will be nearly all public debt which we'll be paying off for many years - all to subsidize a millionaire football team owner.

Getting back to the article itself, Mr. Purdy notes: "Well, what about the opportunity for a theme park corporation to partner with the NFL and one of its most high-visibility franchises?"

I seriously question what kind of partnership that would be, as you'll have a different breed of customers for each venue. The expense of a stadium is so great, it is difficult to imagine that season and individual ticket sales alone will close the gap. Some form of "Personal Seat License" could well be imposed - and Great America visitors won't see the inside of any new stadium unless they shell out for a seat license like everyone else.

Before PSLs for the Oakland Raiders were finally eliminated in late 2005, they ran from $250 to $4000. When 10-game season tickets first took the place of PSLs in Oakland, they ranged from $470 to $910. A current seat map of McAfee Coliseum shows those same ten-game tickets now running from $260 to $1510. How any new "Stadium Builder's Licenses" will be priced for a new stadium in Santa Clara - not to mention the season ticket prices - is the stuff of pure speculation. Simply start with Oakland's example and work your way up from there. In the end, boosters of any stadium in Santa Clara may be in for a rude shock when season ticket - and possibly SBL - prices are finally posted.

Now, Mr. Purdy is right to question Cedar Fair's flip-floppy statements on the stadium proposal. But he appears to be saying that the current agreement on parking spaces for Great America gives Cedar Fair unfair veto power over the stadium. It does not. If Cedar Fair has plans for the future of Great America that would bump up its attendance figures - and fill up a parking area they're contractually entitled to - then they're well within their rights to insist that their needs be honored. Changing that agreement could force the City to accept less in revenue from (or agree to some cash compensation to) Cedar Fair. Either has an immediate negative impact to the City's General Fund - at the same time that compensating revenues from any football stadium are far from guaranteed. In short: A deal's a deal, guys.

Maybe Cedar Fair is as shrewd as Mr. Purdy seems to suspect. With that, here's pure speculation from this writer: Could Cedar Fair also be holding out for televised promotion of Cedar Fair theme parks around the country during 49ers games? It's amusing to contemplate our "roller coaster company" trying to make sense of the NFL's television blackout rules - rules designed to compel local ticket sellouts. In short, sell out your stadium 72 hours in advance of a game - or no game goes on the air for 75 miles. I'm oversimplifying this, I know. But it would sure be a kick if Cedar Fair were to find itself unable to promote Great America on TV in its own city due to poor ticket sales at the football stadium next door.

We could speculate on these corporate intrigues all day.

As a Santa Claran, however, I still oppose the stadium in general - and any corporate welfare for the millionaire Yorks in particular.

Our city - we taxpayers - will incur a debt of approximately $222,000,000.00 in order to hand that tribute over to the 49ers. Our debt service per year on any such amount will certainly wipe out the paltry $5M in rent the 49ers are offering to the Santa Clara Stadium Authority. That, plus those parking tax revenues dangled before our eyes, all accrue to the Stadium Authority - and not to the City's General Fund.

It gets worse: Depleted G-3 Fund or not, the Yorks are squeezing us for money so that they can then squeeze the NFL for more money. They want to use Santa Clara's money to improve their own cash flow and also to make their own private asset - the team - more valuble on the open market. Other NFL owners likely see such a rising tide lifting all boats, and you can be sure that they are delighted at such a prospect. That's still no reason to build a one-billon-dollar stadium in our city, and it's certainly no reason to hand millions in public monies over to a millionaire team owner who should be funding any stadium on his own or with the NFL.

But the worst problem with giving corporate welfare to the San Francisco 49ers is that it sets a dangerous precedent: Once we issue debt - or steal from the City's Utility Reserve - and hand those proceeds over to a private, for-profit sports franchise, we'll never be able to stop future "needy" millionaire welfare clients from doing the same thing. Their rationalization will be that, since we subsidized the York family from the public purse in 2008, we will have to do it again. And again.

We should be as concerned about that precedent as we are about Cedar Fair's parking spaces.

I do urge fellow Santa Clarans to beware - this is not the deal we think it is.

A fool's investment

Dave Zirin, a sportswriter who writes for the Nation, SLAM magazine, and the Los Angeles Times, among many other publications, has just written a new book — Welcome to the Terrordome: The Pain, Politics and Promise of Sports — in which he explores the intersections of professional sports and social justice in the world today.

He will be speaking at 7pm tonight [Wednesday, July 11] at Cody's Books in Berkeley. (Check the end of this post for more details about the reading. )



















Not surprisingly, one of subjects he analyzes in this book is public funding for professional sports stadiums. He wrote about the same issue in an article for last Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle.

The entire article — Are stadiums worth the high price? — is worth reading, but here are a few highlights:

Stadiums are sporting shrines to the dogma of trickle-down economics. In the past 10 years, more than $16 billion of the public's money has been spent for stadium construction and upkeep from coast to coast. Though some cities are beginning to resist paying the full tab, any kind of subsidy is a fool's investment, ending up being little more than monuments to corporate greed: $500 million welfare hotels for America's billionaires built with funds that could have been spent more wisely on just about anything else.

. . .

As Neil DeMause, co-author of the book "Field of Schemes" said to me, "The history of the stadium game is the story of how, by slowly refining their blackmail skills, sports owners learned how to turn their industry from one based on selling tickets to one based on extracting public subsidies. It's been a bit like watching a 4-year-old learn how to manipulate his parents into buying him the new toy that he saw on TV; the question now is how long it takes our elected officials to learn to say 'no.' " [emphasis mine]

We've already seen evidence of those refined blackmail skills in Santa Clara. The headline alone — Santa Clara risks losing more than a 49ers stadium: 49ers HQ in play if deal collapses — neatly summarizes the start of a campaign to blackmail the city of Santa Clara into approving this enormous public subsidy for billionaires.

Of course, the fact that the San Francisco 49ers pay the City just $24,000 PER YEAR to lease the 11-acre property should be evidence that the City already provides a significant subsidy to this team. Judging by the numbers presented at Tuesday's City Council meeting, the City should be getting closer to $2,500,000 - $3,100,000 PER YEAR for that land — that's over 100 times more than we're currently getting.

Later in the article, Zirin includes part of a conversation he had with Jim Bouton, a former Major League Baseball All-Star and the author of the memoir Ball Four. Bouton's assessment is even more damning.

It's such a misapplication of the public's money. . . .

It's going to be seen historically as an awful folly, and it's starting to be seen that way now, but historically that will go down as one of the real crimes of American government, national and local, to allow the funneling of people's money directly into the pockets of a handful of very wealthy individuals who could build these stadiums on their own if it made financial sense. If they don't make financial sense, then they shouldn't be building them.

If I was a team owner today, asking for public money, I'd be ashamed of myself. Ashamed of myself. But we've gone beyond shame. There's no such thing as shame anymore. People aren't embarrassed to take -- to do these awful things.

Of course, we certainly haven't seen any evidence of shame among the San Francisco 49ers and their supporters.

I've asked Dave Zirin if he could add a Santa Clara stop on his current book tour, and he's hoping to schedule a visit later this fall. But if you'd like to hear him sooner, the trip to Berkeley will be well worth it.

The talk starts at 7pm at:

Cody's Books
1730 Fourth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
(510) 559-9500

Click here for the event page.

Who really profits?

The San Francisco 49ers have been more than willing to talk about the potential economic benefits a stadium might have for Santa Clara and the surrounding region.

They haven't been quite so open about how they will benefit economically from that same new stadium.

Why not?

Well, it's probably because the value of their team will increase substantially if they get a new stadium — an immediate increase in value of somewhere between $250,000,000 and $700,000,000.

That's a much bigger increase than your average bathroom remodel.

How does the team's value increase?

Each year, Forbes magazine assesses the value of all 32 NFL teams. In their most recent list, the San Francisco 49ers are valued at $734 million — near the bottom of the pack (29th place.)

As Forbes states, this valuation is a reflection of the fact that "the 49ers have some of the lowest revenues in the league thanks to an antiquated stadium that features no club seating, and an onerous lease that forces the team to share concession, luxury-suite, naming-rights and signage revenue with the city."

A new stadium with a better revenue stream would increase the team's value. Could the new value go as high as $1.423 BILLION — Forbes' valuation of the Washington Redskins (and the team currently at the top of the list)? Maybe not. But it is certain that a new stadium with more favorable revenue stream would markedly increase the team's value.

Mike Swift at the San Jose Mercury News analyzed this very issue back in November 2006, shortly after the Santa Clara proposal was announced.

As he wrote in his article "Deluxe Stadium May Enrich 49ers"

. . . in many markets, a new stadium has produced a windfall for owners.

Patriots owner Robert Kraft paid $172 million for the team in 1994. Today, with the Patriots playing in a new suburban Boston stadium partly financed by the NFL, in a market with wealthy demographics like the Bay Area's, the franchise is valued by Forbes magazine at $1.2 billion. That is the second-highest among the four major sports (football, basketball, baseball and hockey), more valuable than even the storied New York Yankees.

By the way, it's worth noting that the new Patriots stadium (in Foxboro, MA, a town of about 16,000) was paid for ENTIRELY by the team's owner, Robert Kraft. [State taxpayers did finance about $75 million in infrastructure improvements, but the team is responsible for paying back that debt.]

As reporter David Copeland noted in his article "Patriots teach lesson about stadium financing",

By conventional "wisdom" for financing sports stadiums, Kraft should be crying poor. That conventional wisdom says that teams -- no matter what the sport -- can't possibly pay for a new stadium on their own and remain competitive.

The Patriots finished the regular season with an NFL-best 14-2 record. On top of that, Forbes magazine valued the team at $756 million [in 2003] -- in large part because of the new stadium -- up considerably from the $158 million Kraft paid for the Patriots in 1994.

We need to remember that professional sports are a big business, just like any other business, and the example of the New England Patriots is clear evidence that teams don't need public money to succeed.

A tale of two cities

A few weeks ago, I analyzed the numbers from a Mercury News article Running 49ers stadium a costly pitfall. In my post A Costly Pitfall, I provided one crucial number that was missing from the initial article — the PER CAPITA cost of the subsidy.

Using just the numbers provided by the Mercury News, Santa Clara's subsidy of $180 million (the Mercury News did not include land value or the parking garage in their total), the PER RESIDENT subsidy of $1,651 was more than THREE TIMES that of the next closest project.

But the story doesn't end there.

Because I relied on the numbers in the Mercury News article, I calculated that the per resident cost of the new stadium for the Arizona Cardinals was $210 per resident.

That number is not exactly right for a few reasons.

First, the stadium is actually located in a suburb of Phoenix — Glendale, Arizona. The population of Glendale is approximately 258,677.

Second, the Mercury News article indicated that the public subsidy for this $455.7 million project was $310 million, but they didn't really break down either of these numbers.

The $455.7 million includes ALL costs related to the construction — including both land acquisition and site improvements. If these costs were added to the current San Francisco 49ers proposal, the total would be just shy of $1 BILLION [about $981 million to be more exact.]

Moreover, the city of Glendale's share of the $310 million subsidy was $9.9 million.

Yes, you read that right. Glendale spent $9.9 million on the project, for a per resident subsidy of about $38.

So where did they get the remaining $300.4 million of public money?

The rest of the subsidy came from the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority [ASTA], a municipal organization created by the Arizona State Legislature to promote sports and tourism in Maricopa County, the county in which Phoenix and its suburbs are located. The funds for ASTA contribution came from a voter-approved county-wide tax on hotels and rental cars.

[To be clear, I'm not in favor of new taxes, especially to subsidize facilities for privately-held corporations, but the current claim that Santa Clara can provide $180 million in cash with no new taxes and no impact to the general fund or utility ratepayers is wrong. The money has to come from somewhere, and it WILL have an impact either directly or indirectly.]

Sadly, however, the unfavorable comparisons don't end with $38 vs $2,600.

You see, the stadium in Glendale was built with a special field that rolls out so that the stadium can be used for multiple purposes. It also has a retractable roof, again making it suitable for a variety of uses.

And it is.

From August 4, 2006 through January 8, 2007, it hosted events on 110 of the 157 days — about 70% utilization as compared to less than 10% using the most optimistic numbers in the current San Francisco 49ers proposal.

Maybe these numbers will help Santa Clara realize that it's time to do a bit of comparison shopping — and if we still decide to buy, maybe we can get a few friends, like Santa Clara County, to chip in on this purchase.

After all, if the claimed benefits are regional, then the costs should be shared by the region. Glendale didn't shoulder the cost for all of Maricopa County, and the City of Santa Clara cannot and should not assume the entire public expense and risk for this stadium.