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.

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!
  

Mary Emerson for City Council

"We must be the change we wish to see in the world."

-- Mahatma Gandhi

After watching city politics for the past few years, I have come to realize that our city and our communities are the direct result of what we put into them. I would like to serve the City by representing you on City Council.

My analytical skills and business experience complement the other skills on City Council. I will fight for fiscal accountability, ensure community involvement in decision making processes, work for transparency of City Government, and advocate for green initiatives.

Please check out my website at:

maryemerson.org

If you like what you see, please help spread the word by talking to your friends and neighbors, endorsing me, contributing or volunteering to work with me on the campaign.

I would be deeply honored to have your vote & your support!

Regards,

Mary

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.

Citizens speak out

We've pointed out before that the 49ers are pouring a lot of money into this campaign to win over the "hearts and minds" of Santa Clara. The Support "Our" Niners website is run by the 49er's PR firm. The glossy stadium campaign flyer is distributed as an ad insert in the Santa Clara Weekly -- its publisher, Miles Barber, just happens to be a "truthy" stadium proponent.

We at StadiumFacts.org don't have that kind of money. But we do have lots of people on our side. There are the 55% of Santa Clarans who told CBS5 that they oppose a stadium if it means giving the 49ers a subsidy. Then there are the citizens who have published serious arguments against the stadium.

We have added a new section to our front page to link to these articles and papers. Scroll down and look for "Citizens speak out" in the column on the right. The first link is to a paper from Erlinda Estrada. Ms. Estrada is the retired Interim Library Director at Mission College, and a lifelong Santa Claran. The second link is to a SJ Mercury News opinion column from Kate Grant, a community activist.

We will add more links to this section as the groundswell continues. If you are aware of other papers from residents, please let us know.

"Politicize the debate"

At the May 15 City Council meeting, NotWithMyMoney.org requested that the Council pledge to allow the citizens of Santa Clara to vote on any stadium proposal that would require spending public money. Besides putting off a "yes" or "no" answer, certain Councilmembers also denigrated the citizens who spoke in favor of a vote.

Councilmember Caserta said,

"I just think this is political theater."

Mayor Mahan said

she fears that an election could improperly politicize the debate over a stadium.

Hello? Ms. Pot? There is a Mr. Kettle here to see you. Shall I tell him you'll call him black?

Santa Clara residents received a 4-page color pamphlet from the 49ers a few weeks ago. It was distributed as an ad insert in the Santa Clara Weekly newspaper. This paper is delivered unsolicited. The pamphlet looks remarkably like an election flyer. There is a "candidate football player holding cute baby" picture. There is a "candidate football player helping out in the community" picture. There is just about every election pamphlet device except promises of a chicken in every pot.

Here is a sample of election pamphlets:

Look pretty similar, don't they?

So let's see, carpet bombing the city with slick campaign literature. Doing so in May, many many months before the election. An exercise for the reader would be to find out how much money does it take to accomplish this mission.

"Political theater" indeed.

FS: Councilmembers, like new, $___ each

The 49ers came to Santa Clara last night for a question-and-answer session with concerned residents.

OK, quick show of hands, how many people know what is the maximum contribution you can make to a City Council candidate?

John York and Larry MacNeil (the 49ers owner and CFO, respectively) both contributed to Mayor Mahan's 2006 campaign. Both men gave the maximum amount.

Legal? Yes. Ethical? You decide.

It gets better. Jed York claims to be unaware of the contributions from his father and the 49ers CFO. However, he just happens to know exactly what the maximum allowed amount is. What's more, Mr. York also said:

If a politician can be bought for only $500, I would hate to be represented by them.

FOR SALE: Councilmembers, like new, $500 each.

--

Campaign contributions are public records. You can look at them here. Search for "Mahan" or any other candidate, or browse by election. The contributions referenced above can be found in the filing from "Mahan for Mayor," dated 10/31/2006, which is an FPPC Form 460, covering the period from 10/22/2006 to 10/27/2006. Look at page 5 of 6. Click on the small copy below for a larger version:

.

Thou shall be allowed to vote

Last week, City Council was asked to make a promise. They were requested to promise the taxpayers of Santa Clara that IF there is a proposal to build a stadium that would require spending public money, then Santa Clara voters will get to vote on it.

Note the big, blinking, red IF.

This means

1. If the feasibility report from the City's consultants says that we've all been smoking crack, and that we all should just go take a cold shower and forget about the stadium, then there will be no vote.
   
2. If the 49ers decide that they would like to build and operate the stadium with their own money after all, then there will be no vote.
   
3. If the 49ers decide that it would be easier to thumb wrestle a better deal out of Gavin Newsom than to squeeze a $300 million subsidy out of peasants with pitchforks, then there will be no vote.

In fact, Brian from the local Libertarian Party addressed Council before they voted on this request, and explained it using an even simpler analogy:

The 8th Commandment says, "Thou shall not lie." It does not say, "Thou shall not lie, but really, thou don't have to promise that until the temptation to lie comes up." (Paraphrased.)

Seems simple enough...

So, did City Council pledge to tell the truth let the voters have their say?

Nope.

They voted to

[refer] TO THE CITY CLERK TO RETURN TO THE COUNCIL NO LATER THAN JULY 10, 2007 CITY COUNCIL MEETING REGARDING NOVEMBER 2007 AND FEBRUARY 2008 POTENTIAL BALLOT MEASURE CALENDARS AND HISTORY OF LAND USE BALLOT MEASURES. (Meeting minutes)

Or, in layman's terms:

The will of the people

The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.

Thomas Jefferson

Tonight at the Santa Clara City Council Meeting, two founders of the stadium opposition group Not With My Money will present their petition for the City Council to agree to take any stadium plan to the voters of Santa Clara for the voters' approval.

You don't have to agree with their position on the proposal to agree that the Council should seek the approval of the public before committing itself to an enormous public works project.

Depending on the financing options, the Council may be required to seek a public vote, but the standard should not be “what do we HAVE to do.” Instead, for a city that prides itself on its ethics program, the standard should be “what is the RIGHT thing to do?”

And the right thing is to ensure that any proposal of this size has the support of the residents.

Back in 1984 when the City Council was tackling the Great America deal, they made their approval of the deal conditional upon a vote of the people.

The current City Council should follow that precedent and agree to make the approval of any proposal subject to a vote of the people.

So, if you believe that the will of the people should be the foundation of Santa Clara’s government, attend the City Council Meeting at 7pm tonight and let the Council know.

Let 'em vote

The city is being asked to spend big money on a highly controversial investment. The least City Council can do is let the residents vote on the proposal.

If that's not reason enough, consider this: the money being eyeballed will come out of the utility reserve fund. Our own City Charter says that fund is for utility-related uses only. Period. Here are excerpts from the relevant section:

Article XIII. Fiscal Administration
Sec. 1320 Utilities fund.

Expenditures from such fund shall be made for the following purposes only ...
(a) For the payment of operating expenses ...
(b) For repairs and maintenance;
(c) For the payment of interest ...
(d) For the payment ... to the City ... for services rendered;
(e) For extensions and improvements;
(f) For ... the replacement of utilities property ...

No mention of a stadium.

In case this turns into one of those "Which part of NO do you not understand?" situations, a formal request has been made to City Council to place the final stadium proposal on the February 2008 ballot. Here is a copy of the letter:

This request is on the agenda for the City Council meeting scheduled for 7PM May 15, 2007. Concerned citizens are encouraged to attend and address our elected representatives. Speakers are allowed 3 minutes each.