49ers Stadium: The Truth about the 'Lion's Share'...

Concerning the true costs of an NFL stadium in the City of Santa Clara: One preposterous claim ** printed in the San Jose Mercury News on November 17th, 2008, told us that "well over 70 percent of the bill will be borne by the 49ers and the NFL."

The City's own figures prove that to be utterly false:

$222.0M: Santa Clara Public Equity
$330.5M: Santa Clara Stadium Authority
$363.3M: 49ers and NFL
-------------------------------------------
$915.8M: TOTAL

Note that the team-and-league contribution is a mere 39.7% of the total - but that our RDA and a Stadium Authority - a joint-powers authority not yet formed - will be forced to cough up the remaining 60.3%.

Late news even reveals that the NFL is now pleading poverty, and will not contribute to any stadium here. That will put even more pressure on the public contribution being demanded by the 49ers.

Unfortunately, Tim Kawakami, sportswriter for the San Jose Mercury News, also repeats the same math-challenged assertion *** by referring to some "potential $600 million to $800 million share" down to the 49ers. This is also false.

Both of these distortions rely on a little sleight of hand: Lumping the Stadium Authority contribution in with the team's minority share.

Stadium Facts urges Santa Clarans to read the City's own reports - and to be very careful when evaluating claims by stadium fans. As 2009 goes forward, there will be a war of words waged by stadium subsidizers - and not all of their output is going to be truthful.

If the stadium is as good a deal as its supporters are claiming: It shouldn't be necessary to distort the truth about who's paying for most of it - should it?



Best regards,
Bill Bailey
Treasurer, Santa Clara Plays Fair
http://www.santaclaraplaysfair.org/

** Update on February 24th, 2009: The link to the original Letter-to-the-Editor is dead. However the original can probably be had from the Mercury News' archival service (for a fee). I stand by my citation of that letter as quoted above. The link to the Kawakami article is still active.

*** Update on April 26, 2009: It took a few months, but the link to Tim Kawakami's article finally aged and is no longer active. But his original opinion piece can still be had from the Mercury News' archives.

Environmental Impact Process

The long-awaited Environmental Impact process for the proposed SF 49ers stdium has begun. You have until Sept. 15th to voice specific concerns with the proposed stadium's impact to the environment and our quality of life.

The first step in the EIR is for the public and interested agencies to provide input on specific concerns they have with the physical aspects of the stadium. These concerns can include noise, traffic, parking, light pollution, visual concerns, impact to the environment.

There will be two public scoping meetings held on Sept. 2. These meetings are an opportunity for the public to provide verbal input on specific areas the EIR should cover. Written input can also be provided. All input is due by Sept. 15th, 2008.

This input, together with regulatory requirements and input from staff, will form the basis for the EIR. The EIR will assess the risks and impacts of the identified concerns, and propose ways to mitigate those concerns.

The outline for the EIR is posted at:

http://santaclaraca.gov/pdf/collateral/49ers-20080818-Stadium-Project.pdf

Now is your time to act.

Read the outline, write down all your concerns. In addition to the meetings on Sept. 2nd, comments or questions may be directed to the project manager, Jeffrey Schwilk, at 408-615-2450 or jschwilk@santaclaraca.gov or by postal mail at:

City of Santa Clara
Planning Department
c/o Jeffrey Schwilk, AICP
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050

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

Held Hostage by Ghosts of the Future

The SJMN reported Wednesday that the likelihood of seeing the SF 49ers Stadium proposal on the November ballot is increasingly remote.

"[Y]eah, it's looking like that may not happen in November," Councilman Will Kennedy said.

We've spent over a year of blood, sweat, tears (not to mention big bucks) on this project. Over $1 Million in consultants, unknown hours of City Staff time on analysis, and almost weekly Closed Session meetings chaired by Senior Staff -- all while other RDA projects are effectively put on hold.

Questions Santa Clara residents should now be asking themselves and their City Government are:

• How much more money & valuable (albeit unaccounted for) staff time can we afford to put into this project?

• What good is the SF 49ers' promise to cover construction cost-overruns only through 2013, when the multi-year project won't break ground until after 2010?

• How much longer can we NOT fund RDA projects vital to the city's well-being because $136 Million is being held hostage by the increasingly unlikely prospect of negotiating a n acceptable deal with the SF 49ers.

The City's dirty little secret is that while RDA money may be earmarked to partially fund a number of important projects, those projects will not go forward until they are fully funded.

To illustrate the point, look at just one highly visible RDA project: the long-awaited Northside Library.

The city has reserved $17.7 Million in the RDA budget for the Northside Branch Library. But an additional $3.365 Million is needed for LEED certification and the expanded Community Room. Despite the City's stated commitment to this project, they have made it clear that until all funds are identified, there will be no library in the Northside.

And what is competing for a library to enrich the education and lives of our Northside neighbors?

$136 Million reserved to subsidize the SF 49ers stadium.

I wish the SF 49ers good luck with their other prospects -- San Francisco, Brisbane, maybe even LA. Because Santa Clara voters are too smart to trade in our infrastructure and mortgage our hard-earned future for the profit of an out-of-state corporation.

It's the subsidy, stupid.

San Francisco voters will go to the poll tomorrow to decide whether the City of SF should "encourage the development of a site in Hunters Point Shipyard for a new stadium."

Note that the text of this Proposition G says nothing about SF residents having to pay for any part of the stadium.

San Jose Mercury News columnist Ann Killion essentially called Prop G a lose-lose proposition for the 49ers:

If Proposition G wins, ... [it] could compromise the team's appeal to Santa Clara voters: Why should the small pool of Santa Clara voters pony up $160 million for a stadium when San Francisco voters have approved a measure that would cost [SF] virtually nothing?

If Proposition G loses, ... it ... would weaken the team's leverage with Santa Clara: removing their most viable alternative, while creating an anti-stadium climate.

This is why concerned residents of Santa Clara have been opposed to the deal all along: it's the subsidy. Thank you Ann!

The fiancé keeps his options open

On Sunday, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the SF 49ers are talking to Brisbane city officials about a new stadium. They "are just looking to add some insurance in case" other options don't work out.

That engagement ring is looking more tarnished all the time.

StadiumFigures.com

Stadium Figures, a website published by another concerned resident, examines something that hasn't got a lot of coverage: the proposed stadium is directly on the flight path of airplanes in and out of San Jose Airport.

This raises a few issues:

• Noise. The predominant wind direction around here is out of the North. Airplanes take off into the wind. They will be at full power when they fly over the stadium. This stadium doesn't have a dome.
  
• Accidents. The stadium is within the "General Aviation Aircraft Accident Location Pattern"

And unlike all the big bad wolves who are huffing and puffing for NFL football, Stadium Figures are not blowing hot air. They've got references to back up all their facts and figures. Check it out.