Well football players DO get hurt quite often. And their stadium will be the sight of many medical emergencies both off and on field.

I think this bill only applies to the general contractor. Subcontractors will go through competitive bidding. Since the team's covering cost overruns, they want to be sure the firm in charge of construction has experience with stadiums.

The point is that we the citizens of Santa Clara are supposed to get to vote on amending our city charter. Sacramento should not be involved. Our city council already has a committee to review city charter issues with regards to the stadium, and Elaine Alquist is trying to bypass this process. Some of our city council members only just found out about SB 43 this past weekend, giving them, and our residents, almost no time to respond. Again, the state should not get involved with a local matter.

I blame Diane Feinstein. She's the one who got gov't outside Santa Clara involved when she stuck her nose in threatening to block the name change, etc...

The press release for SB 43 says, "If Santa Clara County voters give their final approval next year, the stadium is scheduled to be completed in 2014."
County voters? Only Santa Clara city residents are voting on the stadium, unless I've missed something.

No you're correct it's only Santa Clara city voters, not the county. Just goes to show you even the wording of the bill is fishy.

Any wonder why gov't is so inefficient? Here you have a private enterprise willing to cover any cost over runs of the proposed stadium and yet you have people arguing that it needs to go to a competitive bid process---this "SC law" was intended to avoid sweetheart deals that were less than beneficial to the city---so what is in it for the '9ers to give a sweetheart deal when they have to pay for any cost overruns? For those who say a rule is a rule than understand you are part of the problem of gov't when no one can think but rather blindly marches behind rules/laws that were intended for other purposes.

SanJoseA's-It's not just about cost overruns. Our little city of 100,000 will be on the hook for 40 mil in RDA bonds, 35 mil in debt servicing, 20 mil to move an electric substation, 42 mil to build a new parking garage, and another 330 mil in bonds for construction-to be paid for by seat licenses and naming rights. Oakland couldn't sell all of its personal seat licenses, so they pay 20 mil per year out of their city budget in debt for the Coliseum. Other stadiums can't sell naming rights because of the current economy-what happens to Santa Clara when we can't pay that 330 mil in bond debt? No on in the city is willing to address that issue. We are 5 mil in the red for this fiscal year, projected to be 7.2 mil next year, which will use up all of our cash reserves. WE HAVE NO CASH to spend on the stadium. If this is such a good deal, why don't the rest of the cities in Santa Clara County help pay for it? Answer-it isn't a good deal.

Senator Elaine Alquist is owned by the constructions & trade unions. Her campaign finance reports proves that. They stand to benefit from the amendment change. I'd bet the house she's in the Yorks' back pocket. Also, for those who believe the 49ers will bare no expense for constructing the stadium, perhaps this article will assist readers in understanding the York's financial commitments.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/03/SPE118ICPA.DTL&type=49ers

This 49er stadium deal is bad for our city, benefiting a few of our corrupt city council members (Moore, Mahan, etc.) with lust for higher office, and that is it. The main negotiator for the City, Jennifer Sparicino is paid $250,000 annually and hasn't even audited the amount of time and money the City has spent so far on this exercise in corruption and greed. We are a small city. This white elephant will bankrupt us.

Please see the following article in the San Jose Mercury News today:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12773140
in which Elaine Alquist's staff acknowledges that she has received $$ from the 49ers, and did meet with 49ers owners and Santa Clara officials before making changes that gutted SB 43 (except for the title) and remade the bill for the sole benefit of the 49ers. Her chief of staff told me yesterday that she had NOT received any $$ from the 49ers. Clearly, that wasn't true.

Please see the following article in the San Jose Mercury News today:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12773140
in which Elaine Alquist's staff acknowledges that she has received $$ from the 49ers, and did meet with 49ers owners and Santa Clara officials before making changes that gutted SB 43 (except for the title) and remade the bill for the sole benefit of the 49ers. Her chief of staff told me yesterday that she had NOT received any $$ from the 49ers. Clearly, that wasn't true.

Wow---she received a $1000 campaign donation from the '49ers---and as noted---so did all of the other politicians---I am sure that $1000 campaign donation completely influenced her---thank god someone can think outside of the box---I have yet to see a comment here that questions why the competitive bid process is critical when a private enterprise will pay cost overruns---rather I see a rash of anti-stadium types trying to parlay this into why the stadium shouldn't go forward--separate the two arguments--otherwise you completely lose your credibility--

SanJoseAs - The 49ers have agreed to pay for construction overruns up to a certain point. Also, in regards to stadium revenue shortages, they've only agreed to pay what they consider "reasonable". That's why the term sheet calls for a dispute resolution clause for the 49ers.

Juan--you have just added additional facts for why design build is a much better concept than competitive bidding--thank you for clarifying-

The design/build language in SB 43 is apparently flawed. From yesterday's meeting:
The Committee's OWN COUNSEL provides a statement as to the gross flaws in SB 43:

"SB 43 would breach the carefully crafted compromised reached in 2000 between all interested stakeholders by not including any of the language included in every other design-build authorization law. There is not a single cross-reference to existing design-build laws. SB 43 even states that all existing design-build laws are legally inapplicable in this situation. "
And someone from ACEC had reservations about the bill's variance from the state's current design/build requirements. This is a flawed bill, and should not go forward.

SanJoseAs - No I haven't. In fact, allowing the 49ers too much control, will impede Santa Clara taxpayers from auditing the development of the stadium. No one will know if the quality is being sacrificed for the sake of cost. In addition, what would prevent the 49ers from incurring cost overruns, and then coming back and requesting more money from Santa Clarans?

SanJoseAs - No I haven't. In fact, allowing the 49ers too much control, will impede Santa Clara taxpayers from auditing the development of the stadium. No one will know if the quality is being sacrificed for the sake of cost. In addition, what would prevent the 49ers from incurring cost overruns, and then coming back and requesting more money from Santa Clarans?

SanJoseAs - No I haven't. In fact, allowing the 49ers too much control, will impede Santa Clara taxpayers from auditing the development of the stadium. No one will know if the quality is being sacrificed for the sake of cost. In addition, what would prevent the 49ers from incurring cost overruns, and then coming back and requesting more money from Santa Clarans?