This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
June 12, 2009
Unanswered questions in Santa Clara 49ers deal
Yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle had an unusually perceptive editorial on the proposed 49ers stadium in Santa Clara, noting that there are still many unanswered questions about the deal:
One team or two? The 49ers insist they can make a stadium deal work without partnering with the Raiders - though they list it as a possibility.
How much public money? The 49ers claim that Santa Clara's contribution is $79 million. But that does not include $35 million from a proposed hotel tax or the full cost of a $42 million parking garage. Are there other hidden costs?
Is the financing plan realistic? Even though the 49ers are liable if revenues fall short, the city is a partner in this deal and expecting a return on its investment. Voters deserve to know whether the revenue assumptions (ticket licenses, naming rights, concession rights, etc.) are plausible.
Of course, it's not like the Chronicle editors are asking the hard questions about a stadium deal in their own city. Because that would be wrong.
In other Niners news, an online poll of readers of the San Jose Business Journal showed almost 2-to-1 support for the stadium plan, though there's no way of knowing how many of those people are actually registered to vote in Santa Clara — nor, as one blogger notes, "safeguards in place to keep Carmen Policy from voting 500 times from different IP addresses." Great America amusement park owners Cedar Fair, meanwhile, are still grumbling over being cut out of negotiations around the stadium that would rise in their parking lot — which, given that Cedar Fair's lease needs to be reworked as part of the deal, has to be a headache that the 49ers would rather not have.
So help me out--the chronicle acts like it has uncovered hidden details---All of these details are spelled out---the Chronicle did no digging to uncover them. The city is committed to the parking garage regardless of whether the stadium gets built--as part of their convention center expansion that is underway--
Second--hotel owners in the area agreed to the tax themselves to generate these dollars---all which has been very public--
All the financial projections are based upon one team--if a second one is added the city's redevelopment agency gets back its investment--once again all very public--
Cedar Fair was blown off by the city of Santa Clara whic owns the land upon which the stadium will be built--something tells me that the attorneys realize that they are on solid footing and can ignore the extortion threats proposed by Cedar Fair for a business that is in serious decline--
Finally--if Carmen Policy voted 500 times the poll would show the mirror image results--he is leading the SF effort---
At the end of the day the Chronicle article is like reading the Nat'l Inquirer---as is your post---perhaps research a few of the facts yourself before giving space to an article that is pertinent to a newspaper that is on life support and will most likely be gone within the next 24 months---Thankfully!!
Posted by SanJoseA's on June 15, 2009 01:29 AM
Here's my own rundown of the unanswered questions in the Santa Clara deal:
http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2009/06/3697_could_49ers_dea.html
Posted by Neil on June 15, 2009 08:59 AM
The Chron article, SJ Merc articles, and your article all ignore 1) we don't have this money just sitting around, the 79 million is from bonds sold against our RDA funds, plus debt servicing on those bonds; 2) We will spend our 20 million $$ utility reserve to move an electric substation out of that parking lot; 3) Santa Clara is 5 Mil in debt this year, and will be another 7.5 mil in debt next year, which will use up any reserve our city has. We will then be running in the RED; 4) The city will create the Stadium Authority, which will sell another 330
million in bonds, no numbers for debt servicing for that. The bonds will have a BBB rating-just above junk bonds, and will be sold against personal seat licenses and naming rights for the stadium. Just how well did that work for the Oakland Coliseum? Not! Online surveys are meaningless because they are stacked with people who don't live in Santa Clara, just like our city council meeting, in which Santa Clara residents were kept out of the council chambers, because the 49ers and the trade unions had saved many seats in the chambers for their own members. The meeting was stacked with pro-49ers people who spoke in front of the council-and almost none of them live within Santa Clara. If this was such a good deal the surrounding communities would be jumping at the chance to help fund it-instead, our little community of 44,000 households is being asked to put up a huge contribution to fund millionaires who are quite capable of paying for the entire stadium themselves.
In terms of revenues, there will be derivative benefits from the inflow of money from neighboring cities and small towns. The local business and neighboring markets will benefit from the money generated. This will increase tax revenue and allow from more flexibility in paying debt service. Furthermore, The building of the stadium will create jobs, and will create more tax revenue. All this whining about the Santa Clara budget and "what is good for Santa Clara" is coming from SF supporters posing as concerned citizens. Face it, The Niners have more support in Santa Clara and NOT sf.
Posted by tony-watsonville on July 22, 2009 05:58 PM
In terms of revenues, there will be derivative benefits from the inflow of money from neighboring cities and small towns. The local business and neighboring markets will benefit from the money generated. This will increase tax revenue and allow from more flexibility in paying debt service. Furthermore, The building of the stadium will create jobs, and will create more tax revenue. All this whining about the Santa Clara budget and "what is good for Santa Clara" is coming from SF supporters posing as concerned citizens. Face it, The Niners have more support in Santa Clara and NOT sf.
Posted by tony-watsonville on July 22, 2009 05:59 PM