Sunday Night at the Movies

There was a spirited crowd at Peterson Middle School on Wednesday night, eager to learn more about the most important City-wide initiative of the century -- Measure J, the Stadium Subsidy.

And, learn they did. Kolstad & Kennedy covered topics as varied as the technical minutia of redevelopment law, school financing, game-day public safety measures and the stadium's potential impact on our perilously overdrawn City budget.

They even discussed campaign finance reform:



While we were not able to capture every moment of the evening's proceedings, we have posted as much as we could on youtube, where you will find discussions on:

• Stadium jobs
• Traffic
• School funding
• Taxes
  
• Economy & economic stimulus
  
• Public safety
• Stadium financing
  

Sit back, grab a bag of popcorn & let the good times roll!

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 are based on outdated economic assumptions" and that we should focus on "actual dollars" paid over 40 years!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

Just barely above junk bonds

The 49ers would like Santa Clara taxpayers to believe that building, owning and operating this stadium will be a fabulous investment of our money. Better than buying Google stock at $100, or Sunpower at $25.

Some members of City Council are all but ready to put on Gold Rush outfits to repeat that chant.

But if it's such a screaming good deal, why haven't the 49ers themselves scooped it up yet? Or the city of San Francisco, which has been looking this over even longer than we have?

Well, one source for impartial opinions turns out to be the bankers, because to build a 68,000 seat stadium, the city will have to borrow a lot of money. The bankers are the ones who will have to take a hard look at the deal and decide how risky it is. The bankers have no personal attachments to this, only their money. And money itself is neutral.

At the November 20 City Council meeting, David Brodsly, the city's own bond consultant struggled to spit out the cold hard facts: the Stadium Authority bonds will be BBB-rated -- just one step above junk bonds!

Besides the bruised egos ("They think our pride and joy is junk!") there is also the practical matter of bond interests. Safe loans have lower interest rates. Risky loans have higher interest rates (think pay-day loan.) Higher interest rates drive up the total cost of borrowing of money. Ultimately this will make it harder for the stadium to break even.

Nobody on City Council batted an eyelash at this. Here we are, mortgaging our future for this white elephant, but nobody even registered a reaction when a disinterested bystander calls it a turkey.

Here's a video clip of the remarks, with a transcript:



Santa Clara resident Don Buchanan: "What kind of a rating do you think this bond will receive?"

David Brodsly, Managing Director, KNN Public Finance (the city's bond consultant): "The two bond issues that are ... umm ... being contemplated by the Stadium Authority ... they would be the [inaudible] ... the ... the admissions bond would probably be in the BBB level which is the bottom of the investment grade range, that's ... it's ... that ... it's the less certain area of the market, but that's ... that's a good guess standing here today."

White elephant

white elephant, n. 1. an Indian elephant of a pale color that is sometimes venerated in India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and [Burma]; 2a. a property requiring much care and expense and yielding little profit; 2b. an object no longer of value to its owner but of value to others; 2c. something of little or no value. Merriam-Webster Online.

White elephants are rare albinos that are highly prized by the kings of Thailand, Burma and other Asian countries. Thanks to their special status, they don't have to work as beasts of burden, like their normally pigmented cousins. However, just like regular elephants, they are large animals with large appetites. Therefore giving someone a white elephant is considered both a gift and a curse.

According to Mahidol University (Thailand,) because of ...

... the inordinate cost of maintaining a white elephant ... [such a] gift could easily induce bankruptcy if not also accompanied by a grant of land. So singular an honor as a white elephant could obviously not be refused, but without land it was subtly barbed -- an indirect criticism which apparently cooled the heels of excessively ambitious minions.

So instead of "Oh boy, we are going to own a billion-dollar stadium, and it will only cost us a couple of hundred millions," maybe we should be asking "Why do we have to pay $222,000,000 to scoop up elephant droppings?"

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.

Going turbothermic...

In 1911, Ambrose Bierce, a San Franciscan journalist, wrote the Devil's Dictionary, a satirical book that lampooned political double-talk. It is fitting that we pay homage to Bierce today, when San Francisco and double-talk are very much in the news.

An updated edition of Devil's Dictionary might have an entry like this:

turbo·thermic, adj. From turbo- (to blow) and -thermic (of or related to heat.)
1. Blowing hot air.
2. Characterized by huffing and puffing, e.g. subsidy supporters trying to blow down Santa Clarans' house of fiscal responsibility.

Have you ever wondered where subsidy opponents get our numbers? The short answer is, they all come directly from reports produced by the city's consultants, or by city staff.

For a slightly longer answer, let's look at the three myths listed in the "Myth Busters" flyer. This flyer was handed out at the Art & Wine Festival by the Santa Clara Plays Fair coalition, of which StadiumFacts is a member.

---

Myth: the stadium project would create thousands of jobs.

Fact: the number of jobs is just over 500. Note the fine print: "FTE = Full Time Equivalent. Per CS&L." Because of the highly seasonal nature of the jobs, many of them will be part-time. Their sum total is equivalent to 515 full time jobs.

Source: report from Keyser Marston Associates (KMA, consultants hired by the city) dated June 1, 2007, page 8.

(Click on this small image for a larger version.)

By the way, KMA is in agreement with CS&L on this. CS&L are the consultants hired by the 49ers themselves. CS&L's job is to make the deal look as good as possible. If all they can come up with is 515, then anybody who tells you "thousands of jobs" is just going turbothermic, i.e. blowing hot air.

---

Myth: the stadium project would make a lot of money for the city.

Fact: the stadium would generate $650,000 of general fund revenue per year, from a city contribution of $222,000,000.

Source: KMA report dated June 1, 2007, page 8, and Implementation Plan and Timeline for the "City of Santa Clara Principles and Priorities for 2007-09," dated July 12, 2007, page 15.

(Click on these small images for larger versions.)

---

Myth: the stadium project will generate a lot of economic activity.

Fact: an office building would generate over 4 times the economic activity, while requiring no subsidy. Besides, if the city is going to "invest" $222,000,000 (assuming a subsidy can ever be called an "investment,") then the return-on-investment is the only bottom line that matters to the city. Keep in mind that the $650,000 annual return to the city discussed above already includes taxes on the $85 million in economic activity. How much revenue other private businesses might gain, or how much salary are being paid to football players, are secondary factors.

Source: KMA report dated June 1, 2007, addendum.

(Click on this small image for a larger version.)

Furthermore, subsidy supporters who cite the $85M as a benefit are being disingenuous because

1. they neglect to mention the comparison to an office building,
2. only $41M of the $85M is actually new benefits; the rest comes from the existing 49ers training center -- the colloquial term for this is "double-dipping." Here is the KMA report again, page 2:

(Click on this small image for a larger version.)

---

Notes:

1. The KMA report can be downloaded from here.
2. The Implementation Plan and Timeline for the "City of Santa Clara Principles & Priorities for 2007-09" can be downloaded from here -- click on REPORT under item 5F.

---

Last week, prominent subsidy supporter and former Councilmember Lisa Gillmor used the term "fuzzy math" to attack KMA's (and CS&L's!) numbers.

This is a curious phrase to use in this context, considering its history.

In the first presidential debate of 2000, George W. Bush repeatedly used the phrase "fuzzy math" to attack statements made by Al Gore, and to defend his own tax cuts for the rich. According to a CNN poll taken immediately after the debate, most people thought Gore won the debate, 48% vs. 41%.

Why are subsidy supporters jumping on this losing bandwagon?

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.

Truthiness Illustrated

Mark Purdy posted the full transcript of his interview with Jed York yesterday. It makes for very interesting reading.

There is one point in particular that caught my eye. Near the end of the interview, Mr. York made the following comment:

"... with the city's investment of $160 million, not only are they seeing revenue that's occurring from a 49ers game, they're also seeing direct revenue from the ancillary events, the 14 to 20 major events that can happen here. So the city of Santa Clara can see anywhere from $2 million to $10 million a year in net income going to their general fund because of the stadium being here."

Assume for the moment that his figures are correct. Is this a "good investment"?

• $2 million per year over the 30 year life of the stadium would not even repay $160 million.
• $10 million per year is equivalent to the 49ers Corp. making payments on a 30 year mortgage at 4.75%.
  

The really sad news is that the city's consultants and the 49ers' own consultants have yet to show the public how the general fund could net anywhere near $2 million per year. The Keyser Marsten report shows $700,000 per year. (Referenced below.)

Moreover, the initial subsidy from the city is $222 million -- $160 million cash plus $62 million for a new garage and moving the power substation. (Referenced below.)

As an MBA with experience in the finance industry, Mr. York surely realizes what a bad investment this would be.



References:
See the last page of the Keyser Marsten report at the following location:
http://ci.santa-clara.ca.us/pdf/collateral/49ers-20070605-Agenda-Report-Eval-49ers-Economic-and-Fiscal-Benefits-Study.pdf

For reference, see page 15 of the report under agenda item 5F on the July 17th meeting summary at:
http://cityclerkdatabase.ci.santa-clara.ca.us/wx/pubhtml/pubhtml/3010.html#July-17-07Regular

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.

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?

"Ignorance is Strength"

When is an office development a winner, and when is it a loser?

If you're Councilmember Moore or Casserta, that depends on whether it's a project that competes with the stadium, or a project to make money for building the stadium. The San Jose Mercury News highlighted this Orwellian double-speak today. Here is a quote:

A few weeks ago, consultants said the city of Santa Clara could generate $3.3 million in annual rent if it built office buildings instead of a proposed San Francisco 49ers stadium.

Councilman Dominic Caserta challenged how legitimate the idea was, given the empty office buildings in other parts of the city.

And Councilman Kevin Moore, one of the first to approach the 49ers, joked that a sign advertising a strip of real estate across from the stadium site has been up so long that it's faded.

Last week, the same city consultants researched the idea of developing that very slab across the street and found it could generate as much as $2 million a year to help support the stadium or other city projects.

So why didn't Moore and Caserta have questions this time about how viable the option is?

You can read the full article here.

Note also that Councilmember Moore finally admitted that the stadium will sit empty and unused 300 days a year. Is that really what we want to spend $287 million to subsidize?

Sources for Stadium Subsidy

It was quite a shock to read in yesterday's Mercury News (Theme-park owner willing to consider 49ers stadium ) that:

Mahan said she's encouraged by how city officials and consultants have identified almost two-thirds of the $160 million that the city would need to contribute to help the team build the $854 million stadium.

"This is becoming more and more doable the more we get into it," she said.

We at StadiumFacts.org have been following this issue pretty closely. Without City Staff's capable services, we can not be completely on top of everything. Perhaps we missed a detail or two.

I kind of doubt we missed $100 million.¹

To date, only two sources for this cash have been identified:

1. Issuing redevelopment bonds. This would raise $13.1 million. If the city were to reduce the amount of money invested in affordable housing, they could raise $45.3 million by issuing redevelopment bonds.
2. Leasing out city-owned land. The 7.6 acres under consideration are worth about $20 million. By tying up most of the remaining city-owned land in a 99 year lease, the city could get $2 million per year. But the city needs the money now (stadium builders won't wait 30 years to be paid), so the city would have to get the renter to pre-pay the rent. Unfortunately, that would only get us something like the current value of the land -- $20 million.

This comes to a grand total of $33.1 million ($65.3 million if we decrease affordable housing) cash identified. This is far less than two-thirds of the $180 million cash subsidy demanded by the 49ers. [Despite the claim from the Mayor and the 49ers, the city would need $180,000,000 in cash for this proposal -- $160,000,000 for the stadium itself PLUS $20,000,000 for site improvements (moving the substation.)]

What's so doable about that?

¹ -- We have a query in to City Staff to confirm all the details of the proposed funding sources, and will update you once we get a response.

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.

A fun-filled summer evening

Tonight's City Council meeting might not be quite as much fun as a trip to an amusement park, but it's likely to be a whole other kind of wild ride.

This evening, the City Council will consider two reports related to the proposal to provide nearly $300,000,000 in public assets to help build a stadium for the San Francisco 49ers.

What are the items on tonight's agenda?:

1. In April, the City Council authorized spending $200,000 on consultants to provide analysis of the proposal. At the meeting tonight, City staff will recommended that the City Council authorize spending an additional $115,000 for consulting services.

2. The City Council will review KMA's report on developing an additional 11 acres to the east and west of Centennial Boulevard along Stars and Stripes Drive for the potential purpose of raising money to pay for the stadium.

The agenda is available here:

http://cityclerkdatabase.ci.santa-clara.ca.us/wx/pubhtml/pubhtml/3009.html

You can open the specific reports on these two items from the online agenda.

What can you do?:

1. Attend the City Council meeting on TONIGHT at 7pm and speak out! Speakers will probably be limited to 2 minutes each.

2. Call the Santa Clara City Council at

(408) 615-2250

3. Write a Letter to:

Patricia M. Mahan, Mayor
City Hall
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050

4. Send an email to:

MayorandCouncil@ci.santa-clara.ca.us

5. Spread the word! Tell your neighbors and friends and encourage them to get involved!

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.

Doing City Council's homework

Since City Council is not doing much comparison shopping, everyone should help them out by examining other alternatives.

On June 1, Stadium Facts highlighted a successful development that was built entirely with private financing, Santana Row.

On June 5, the KMA report pointed out that a hypothetical Class A office project can generate up to 5 times the fiscal benefits, with zero public subsidy.

Here's another possibility.

Have you ever wondered where all the 1's and 0's of the Internet hang out? Those YouTube videos, the latest movie trailers, the satellite maps at Google Earth, your vacation pictures on Flickr -- they all add up to a lot more 1's and 0's than simple emails. All this data is driving up the need for more and more data centers to store the bits and bytes, and to handle the traffic when grandma wants to see the one that got away in Idaho.

According to the SJ Mercury News, data centers are

... a lucrative place to be. While prime office space in downtown San Jose costs about $2 a square foot per month, David Dunn, senior vice president of Los Angeles-based CRG West, said space in a data center rents from $15 to $30 a square foot per month. Even at that price, it took just nine months last year for CRG to fully lease its newly opened 16th-floor data center at Market Post Tower in downtown San Jose.

And the forecast is for more of the same:

"Do we think this is a gamble? Absolutely not. The forecast for the next 24 months shows demand is rising," [CRG vice president Jameson] Agraz said. "Every TV show you watch will be stored on hard drives so you can have video on demand."

Of course, your mileage may vary. But the point is, there is more than one way to invest $297 million. We would be fools if we didn't check out at least some of them.

Comparison shopping

Smart consumers look around before they buy things. The bigger the purchase, the more research. For a 10-year-old Toyota to get Junior back and forth to school, you might spend an hour reading Edmunds or Kelly Blue Book, and maybe run a Carfax report. For something more substantial like a house, you might spend a few days on Multiple Listings and Google maps to get the lay of the land, then make your realtor search for comparable sales.

So guess how much comparison shopping was done by Santa Clara City Council for an $854 million football stadium?

Here's a hint... The City's own consultants threw in an oh-by-the-way at the end of their report. They pointed out that a hypothetical office building would generate 5 times the fiscal benefits, while requiring no subsidy from the taxpayers. Immediately all guns came out a-blazin' as if Wyatt Earp himself just popped in at the O.K. Corral!

"Look at all the empty buildings sitting around," the stadium supporters say. "Riding the elevator up and down doesn't count (as entertainment)," they say.

Hey, calm down, gents! Nobody said for sure we're going to build the next Sun campus. Folks are just trying to point out that a big bunch of buckeroonies is about to be spent on another Candlestick, and we as a city have not really looked around to see if there might be better options.

The Vietnamese have a saying, "Có tật, giật mình."

"The guilty are jumpy."

The Beijing Olympics can't come around soon enough. Some sport fans from around here might really clean up on the high jump.

The Vultures Are Circling... ... or is that your no-good cousin-in-law, twice removed?

Smelling the sweet deals that the city is tripping over itself to serve the Yorks of Ohio, their neighbor is banging on the doors for a piece of the Corporate Subsidy Pie. That neighbor is Ohio-based Cedar Fair, the owner/operator of the Great America Theme Park, which voiced opposition to the proposed 49ers stadium on Friday.

Trouble is, these big boys want a big pie, and City Council intends to max out our credit cards to bake that pie.

"City officials are increasingly optimistic" and feel that a $160M hand-out is "do-able" by "leveraging city-owned lands for private development and issuing redevelopment bonds." They seem to have forgotten that "issuing bonds" is just a fancy way to say "borrowing money" and that Santa Clara taxpayers will end up holding the bag.

How big a bag? Well, there's the $160M subsidy for the stadium, $47M for the parking garage, another $20M or so to move the power station. Then there's whatever reimbursement Cedar Fair extorts -- ahem -- receives for construction traffic, dust, pain and suffering... So, once all diners are served, we'll be making payments on a mortgage far north of $225M.

A loan that big requires monthly payments of over $1,000,000 ¹ per month! That means we'll need to find another $12 million a year of new money to serve up that Subsidy Pie to our rich friends in Ohio.

What's next? A subsidy for the Greater Ohio Casino District?

--

¹ Payments for a $225M loan at 5% over 30 year are more than $1.2M per month. Even for $160M, we'll be out $859,000 per month.

Jobs, jobs, jobs

The 49er's proposal claims that 830 jobs will be created by the stadium.

Upon closer scrutiny, KMA, the City's consultants, found that 40% of these jobs already exist today. They are jobs at the 49ers' Training Center on Tasman Drive. That means we're really only gaining 498 jobs. Oops.

KMA then went on to note that, on average, Santa Clara residents hold only 13% of the jobs located in the City. This means we're creating only 65 jobs for our city. The rest of the jobs will benefit our neighbors in San Jose, Sunnyvale, etc. Nothing wrong with that, except Santa Clara is footing the whole bill, and Santa Clara's neighbors will be getting the majority of the jobs. Ooops number 2.

Then there's the pay scale. The 49ers claim the 830 jobs will pay a total of $38 million. But wait! KMA pointed out that $21 million of this go to the 332 people already employed at the training center. The remaining $17 million will go to the 498 new jobs. This works out to an average of $34,137/year for these new jobs. Compare this to the median household income of $69,466 ⁽¹⁾, and median home prices ranging up to $752,000 ⁽²⁾. Oooops number 3.

So we're going to give the 49ers a subsidy of $297M to create 65 jobs. That's nearly $5 million to create each job! And these jobs pay far less than what it costs to live here. The mother of all "Ooopses?" You decide.

--

⁽¹⁾ 8-year old census data; the 2007 median income is higher.

⁽²⁾ San Jose Mercury News, Saturday, June 9, 2007, Real Estate section, page 5.