49ers' Stadium Subsidy Ticker: 99 Secret Meetings - and the $6 MILLION we DON'T have.

Dear Santa Clarans,

In late April of 2007, the San Francisco 49ers demanded that our City Council sign a "Confidentiality Agreement" - and that our elected leaders take virtually all dealings involving the stadium site and parcels into Closed Session, out of the view of Santa Clara residents. The Closed Sessions are indicated - with no details - in the "Action Summaries" here.

Also, Santa Clara Agencies have paid cash to consultants on everything from the Feasibility Study to the Term Sheet - and now for the Disposition and Development Agreement, or DDA. A summary of those payments and to whom they have been made is here.

Finally, Santa Clara Agencies will be borrowing what they do not have in order to finance not only the make-ready work and the stadium's construction costs, but very possibly the costs of operating the stadium for the 49ers, too.  Those dollar amounts will be reported here periodically.

As of this date:

99: The number of secret Closed Sessions that our City Council or Agencies have held with the San Francisco 49ers or with JMA Ventures, LLC, concerning the stadium site and parcels since May 1st, 2007. 

$3,200,000: The total of Santa Clara Agency cash paid to 49ers consultants since April 3rd, 2007.

$6,000,000:  The total that the Santa Clara Stadium Authority does not have for the stadium's "make-ready" work - which they must now borrow from the 49ers themselves and pay back with interest.

The count of Closed Sessions above is in fact quite conservative and it's more than fair to the 49ers' Stadium Boosters on our City Council:

• Only meetings actually held between the city and the 49ers or with JMA Ventures, LLC, for the purpose of discussing the "five parcels" are counted here.
• Secret Council and Agency meetings held one right after the other are counted as only one Closed Session.
• The "Sweetheart Hotel" negotiations with Montana/DeBartolo are not counted.
• Scheduled Closed Sessions "Not Held" - and, of course, city employee CBU negotiating sessions - are not counted.

We're very serious about the secret Closed Sessions - and we're happy to clear the air about how we've been accurately tallying them.


Best regards,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair.org

-=0=-

Why we keep count.

A Stadium Fact: There is NO cap on the 49ers' Stadium Subsidies

Dear Santa Clarans,


There have been several claims in the media these last few weeks that Santa Clara's subsidy of the San Francisco 49ers is somehow "capped" at $42 million.  Unfortunately, this claim is completely false.


Pull out a Sample Ballot or other any other materials you wish covering Measure Jed from last June - and note that the total debt down to the Santa Clara Stadium Authority is not limited in any way.   The oversimplification being used by the 49ers' Stadium Boosters (this time) is that the Redevelopment Agency is only down for $42 million, and 'gosh, that's all.'


It's not.


Remember that the 49ers demanded our votes on Measure Jed by "estimating" that they'd be covering $493 million of a $937 million stadium.  On June 7th, however, City Staff informed us that the team only wants to pay "15% to 25%" of the costs of a $987 million stadium.


This is the way the game is played:  Euchre voters into signing a blank check, with meaningless (or broken) promises that debt is capped (or that the General Fund won't be touched, even though the Stadium Subsidy does cost it a bundle.).  About a year later, trumpet the passage of the bill, Measure Jed, then tell city residents that the public debt down to another city Agency is no longer the $330,000,000 claimed a year ago, but in fact may nearly double.


Imagine a situation where a destitute brother-in-law swears he only needs to put $330 on one of your credit cards - then imagine the uproar when you get the bill from the bank at the end of the month, and when you find that he charged $626 to that card.


The same game is being played here in Santa Clara - the debt that the San Francisco 49ers won't cover is going to be shoved onto the Stadium Authority - and there's apparently very little that the five "49ers' Stadium Boosters" on our City Council are willing to do to stop it.


The 49ers also made a promise that they'd be covering all construction cost overruns.  But who can tell what's an "overrun" if it's suddenly deemed not to be a 49ers Development Cost?  When that happens, it's a virtual certainty that the Santa Clara Stadium Authority will be stuck with it.


In essence:  Stadium Boosters continue to claim that the Stadium Authority is going to magically pay for all of this with just naming rights and Personal Seat License collections - and that it will then have enough dough to run a stadium for the 49ers for about $30,000,000 every year.


That claim sounds sillier all the time.






Thanks for all of your support,


William F. "Bill" Bailey, Treasurer,

SantaClaraPlaysFair.org

-=0=-

Stadium Facts: Measure Jed does NOT Guarantee a Second Team

Dear Santa Clarans,

Stadium Boosters, even on our City Council, do sometimes manage to stretch the truth to the breaking point.  A prime example is the issue of any second team at a subsidized NFL stadium in Santa Clara, as this quote by Councilwoman Lisa Gillmor in today's paper shows:

" Santa Clara City Councilwoman Lisa Gillmor, however, was much more eager about having Oakland's Black Hole partner up in the South Bay.

" ' I would like to think that this improves the odds of the Raiders making a change to Santa Clara," Gillmor said. "Our citizens voted to have a second team...' "

Well, not exactly.  Here's what the Term Sheet appended to Measure Jed actually stated in black and white:

"49ers Stadium Company [and NO Santa Clara Agency] will have the right to enter into a sublease with a second NFL team (“Second Team”), on terms and conditions consistent with and subject to the Stadium Lease..."   (Section 16.1)

...and also:

"Although the terms of any sublease to a Second Team are not subject to approval of the Stadium Authority,..."   (Section 16.3)

Now, any Stadium Booster is welcome to misrepresent who holds the power of the second team lease.  However, any Santa Claran can read the Term Sheet itself, and know the truth.

The real truth is that we did not vote for a second team.  Instead, we gave Jed York the exclusive right to decide for us.

Thanks for all of your support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer,

Santa Clara Plays Fair.org

-=0=-

49ers' Stadium Subsidies: Pure Lucre for the NFL in TV Royalties

Santa Clarans,


One of the biggest delusions engaged in by the 49ers' Stadium Boosters is about the money.

The problem is, they won't admit to you that the money goes into the 49ers' very own cash box, and not into the accounts of our city's agencies.

The Real Stadium Facts:  The Ground Lease payable to our city's General Fund is a pathetic $180,000 the first year.  The rent payable to our Santa Clara Stadium Authority at this writing is a paltry $5 million against what will be a Stadium Authority operating tab of at least $20 million and possibly $30 million - every year. 

Remember:  NO operating overruns will ever be reimbursed by the San Francisco 49ers. 

So:  Where is all the money really going?

The bulk of the money to be made in fielding an NFL team - and not in a losing stadium operation - are what are known as NFL Revenues.  The Term Sheet attached to Measure Jed from last June spells this out, and it draws a sharp, black line between those Revenues and the pittance that will go to us or to our Agencies.

A big part of those NFL Revenues, untouchable by us, are television royalties.  To stay abreast of the dollar amounts, one can use a search engine to yield the usual pile of information - but in general, you may count on $4B to $6B per year, divided equally among the NFL owners.

Conservatively, that's over $100,000,000 to Jed York every year - for the broadcast rights alone.  Consider the many other streams of NFL Revenue flowing out of a stadium - like the luxury box dough - and you have a lot of money that Santa Clara Agencies and Santa Clarans are simply not getting.

The 49ers and the NFL are extremely secretive about this.  They really don't want you looking too hard at what they'll be scooping out of a stadium here.

However, just a little online searching will give you a good idea of why NFL teams make money - and why NFL stadiums don't. 


All the best,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org


-=0=-
ESPN - alone - Pays $63 million to each NFL team ($2B/32)http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/01/20110117/Media/Sports-Media.aspx: 

Early, from 2007:

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2007/09/Issue-238/NFL-Season-Preview/NFL-Media-Rights-Deals-For-07-Season.aspx

AdWeek took down their coverage of the NFL's TV money - but they published data from Barclays Capital Estimates showing that the NFL collected $4.04 BILLION from five networks in the 2010-2011 NFL season alone.

49ers' Subsidies: Measure J - and Measure Jed

Dear Santa Clarans,


In November of 2004, voters in the Santa Clara Unified School District passed a bond measure to upgrade badly aged and seismically inadequate infrastructure at our middle and high schools.   That bond measure?

Measure J.

In June of 2010, however, voters in Santa Clara voted to pay HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in subsidies to the San Francisco 49ers, all for (1) $7,000-per-year jobs *, (2) economic activity less than that of the 49ers' own Training Center and (3) losses to our city's General Fund .

That bond measure was also called Measure J, but it could not be more different from the original Measure J.

This matters because of a couple of exchanges I've had in the last several months with "49ers stadium boosters" who should know better.  They persist with the utterly false claim that the 49ers are somehow putting money into the Santa Clara Unified School District.  Now, while it's true that the 49ers exploited a funding crisis in our schools to get what they wanted last June, please note they're not giving a single cent to Santa Clara schools.

It's downright deceitful of "stadium boosters" to be promoting confusion between the two ballot measures above in order to advance their cause of stadium subsidies for the San Francisco 49ers.

This also matters because of the SCUSD newsletter "School Days," for fall, 2011, which a great many of you have already received.  The latest letter indeed describes the true, original Measure J projects, which are upgrading Santa Clara schools by using money from the 2004 bond measure.  However, by providing no context, the article in "School Days" invites anyone unfamiliar with the 2004 measure to assume that the 49ers' "J" is somehow responsible for the upgrades in SCUSD classrooms and physical plant.

It simply is not.

When you read about the 2004 Measure J and what it's accomplishing for SCUSD schools, please remember that this is our $315,000,000.  We authorized it.  That amount and its debt service is being paid for out of our property taxes - and not by the San Francisco 49ers. 

There's a better name for the 2010 measure, though.  Let's just call it "Measure Jed."

After all, Jed York is the only one benefiting  from it.




Thanks for your continuing support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org

-=0=-
* See footnote here .

The Truth about the 49ers' Luxury Boxes

Santa Clarans,

On the evening of June 7, we learned that our costs to subsidize the San Francisco 49ers are going to increase greatly before we even see a stadium finance plan next summer.

But the most jaw-dropping part of the evening's meeting came in one of the 49ers' own presentations before Council.  The team's representatives actually claimed that their contribution to the stadium's "development" was their costs for their own luxury boxes in that stadium!

Please note from the "Stadium Term Sheet", Section 11.2b, that ALL luxury box income for NFL events goes directly to the 49ers themselves - not to any Santa Clara City Agency.  Not only that:  The 49ers collect even their base luxury box fees for non-NFL events as well.  (You'll find exactly this language in your Sample Ballots of June 8, 2010, too - Measure J gives that luxury box dough only to the 49ers.)

This is worth noting because of the media coverage this weekend concerning the team's sale of those luxury suite leases.  At the same time that the 49ers are putting $138 million into their own pockets, they're forcing the Santa Clara Stadium Authority pay the PSL* marketer's fee of $6,000,000 - with interest.  See here and here, Section 7b.

What the San Francisco 49ers raked in this weekend compensates them many times over for any 'development' costs they may have spent on their luxury boxes.  But that isn't news, and it doesn't help Santa Clara's Agencies to raise a single penny for the stadium subsidy itself.

The real news is how much the 49ers will taking out of the stadium - and how little will be left for Santa Clara and for Santa Clarans.

Thanks for your support,

William F. "Bill" Bailey, Treasurer,

SantaClaraPlaysFair.org

-=0=-
*Let's call them by their correct name:  They are indeed Personal Seat Licenses.

Same as they were in Oakland.

49ers' Stadium Subsidy Ticker: Over Four Years of Secrecy - And For What?

Santa Clarans,

Imagine that your city had loads of empty hundred-acre parcels.  Imagine that it's thinking about locating an arena somewhere within its city limits.  Imagine that the actual location is not yet determined.

Our elected leaders would seek to reduce to a minimum the public costs of the land, but the only way they can do that is to shield the ground lease negotiations from the rampant speculation which would drive up the costs to us taxpayers.

The Ralph M. Brown Act rightly allows an elected body to take negotiations over real estate - and personnel matters and bargaining-unit negotiations - into closed session in order to get the best deal for taxpayers.  No one claiming to advocate "taxpayer value" could sensibly argue otherwise.

But now I'm going to pop that balloon. 

If you look at our own City Council Agenda of May 1, 2007, you will see virtually the same wording as you'd see if you looked at the Agenda of two weeks ago. **   For over four years now, we have known exactly who the participants are.

But far more important:  We've always known exactly which five land parcels are involved and where they're located.

The ultimate costs of the 49ers' stadium subsidies to Santa Clara residents, then, are far more dependent upon the giveaways awarded by our City Council's "stadium boosters" than they ever will be on the base costs of the land.  Our "partners" aren't even a public corporation, in fact, but are the super-secretive San Francisco 49ers. 

Now, consider:  At the Council meeting of June 7th, we were finally told not only that our RDA will be taking cash advances from the 49ers and paying them back at up to 8.5% interest - but that our Santa Clara Stadium Authority will now be doing the same thing.  Both agencies will be paying far more money to the 49ers to service that debt than they would with any bonds they could issue.  In the case of the RDA, they'll be paying for it out of your tax increment money.

In fact, the costs of the massive 49ers' stadium subsidy to Santa Clarans are about to be greatly increased.

As taxpayers, the giveaways to the San Francisco 49ers are indeed our business.  However, the Closed Sessions of the Santa Clara City Council give the clearest indication that the 49ers don't want us finding out about these cost increases until it's way too late to do anything about them. 

If the secret, Closed Sessions of our City Council and our Agencies are in fact merely being held to conceal the increasing indebtedness of our Santa Clara Stadium Authority from us taxpayers, then they have no place in the All-American City. 

Santa Clarans who contacted City Hall before the June 14th Council Meeting were entirely right to do so.  Thank you all for speaking up.

In fact, the Councilman who went completely off-Agenda on June 14th in order to criticize your correspondence may have revealed a bit more about this entire process than he intended. 

Please.  Stay informed on the 49ers' stadium subsidy. 

Demand more.

Thanks for your support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer,

Santa Clara Plays Fair.org 

-=0=- 

Annotated Brown Act - brochure from 2003.  Dated, perhaps - but then again, something like the Brown Act probably shouldn't change much anyway.

** I mentioned the June 14th meeting on purpose - because it was "Not Held."   When we count up the number of Closed Sessions, we specifically exclude dates such as June 14th.  We count only the meetings that were actually held.  June 14th doesn't count.

May 10th, May 24th and June 7th, however, do count.  The total of secret, Closed Session Council/Agency meetings is indeed 91 as of this evening.  Really.