AK is a joke--she also indicated that it was less than smart of the '9ers to "move away from a significant portion of their fan base"...huh?? The fan base is primarily Silicon Valley and SV companies--and she knows that since she used to write for the Mercury News--but of course now on a national level she needs to try and create a story--

Noll---also claimed that the '9ers are just doing this to secure a better deal from SF...how ironic--he says that this deal is fraught with risk but that there is a better deal out there in SF....and this guy is supposed to be an expert?

No wonder a term sheet is non-binding. If the Yorks/49ers can't come up with their share of the stadium's costs, they can ask Santa Clara taxpayers to pony up more money. Its probably also explains why the agreement is with a dummy corporation called, "49ers Stadium, LLC" as opposed to the San Francisco 49ers, LTD, which is the company that actually owns the 49ers.

@Juan--where do you come up with your ridiculous statements---separate what SC is putting up, what the '9ers are putting up and how much money is supposed to be generated by the joint authority--your ridicuous statements here and elsewhere impact the credibility of your cause---state facts and not half truths and your cause would have generated more respect-

SanJoseA's:

So you've "answered" both Ms. Killion and Mr. Pardell not by offering contrary arguments by but attacking them in schoolboy fashion?

Insults over facts? I guess we know how solid your argument is, then, don't we?

The truth is that this deal depends on the ability of the stadium authority (not the 9ers) to raise the majority of the money, and the taxpayers will be on the hook if they can't do so. If the deal was truly as good for the citizens of SC as the 9ers would like people to think, they would be willing to guarantee those instruments. They are not.

What Mr. Noll has said is absolutely true. The taxpayer (via the city) is committed to funding the facility once the money is borrowed. If the expected revenues from PSLs and NR don't materialize, it's too late. See City of Glendale and Jobing.com arena if you want to know what happens next. The liability does not decrease simply because the revenues don't match expectations... and tax revenues make up the difference (ad infinitum, generally).

SJ A's????

Juan has posted about 1,000 times in the Mercury about the funding sources for the stadium. Here he is pointing out the fact that what we're voting on in SC tomorrow isn't binding and one can't say that the 49ers won't ask the council for more money if J passes
The 49ers have been cagey will their financials; Santa Clara has played their hand like bumpkins...

unhuh---and how about the "expert" Mr. Noll stating that this is only a ploy on the '9ers part to get a better deal out of SF--if this is such a horrible deal for SC why would SF be waiting in the wings according to Mr. Noll with a better deal?

and directly at Juan--the term sheet does require all construction overruns to be paid by the '9ers---AK is questioning whether the NFL and '9ers will put forth their requirement for the construction of the stadium--no where does it say that they city of SC will pay if the '9ers choose not to fund a portion of the construction of the stadium--as I said--half truths--you all love to mix the 3 pots of money as if they are interchangable--

SF isn't waiting in the wings with a 'better' deal. The SF deal requires private financing. It also requires the 49ers to own the stadium, and they would rather the risk be taken by the public.

In February, I was polled by the 49ers (a pollster being paid by the 49ers) and one of the questions was 'Would you support or oppose the City of Santa Clara providing more money for the stadium if the 49ers can't come up with their entire share?'

Voting on a non-binding document absolutely puts us at risk for being strongarmed into providing more money. Our city council majority has rolled over and played dead and let the 49ers dictate our election process. The 49ers lawyers are way better than municipal lawyers (got that from the SF Chron's Ray Ratto). The 49ers are a business out to make money, not to make money for the city.

Seems to me that the people of Santa Clara have managed to do a pretty fair job in running their city. And tomorrow they will do the right thing in spite of all of the ominous predictions made by all of the carpet-baggers living in less well run cities.

Having only just gotten politically involved during the past year thanks to what the NFL is trying to do to my little city, I can say that I no longer think my city is well run. On the contrary, reviews of FPPC forms and looking into who was funded by whom among our elected officials has led me to believe the opposite. Many people here, as a result of the 49ers campaign, have become aware of the behind the scenes shenanigans that has resulted in our city council majority voting as a block consistently to give the 49ers everything they've asked for. Look for some changes come the Nov. 2010 elections, when our pro-stadium mayor is termed out, one pro-stadium council member is termed out, and another pro-stadium council member's first term ends. As the husband of one of my friends said, 'I've never known what was going on behind the scenes in politics here, but now that I know, I will never, ever vote for anyone who supported the stadium." Many people here feel that way. People on the north side of the city have had no representation on the council, ever,and that's the part of the city that the council majority was willing to throw under a bus for the sake of a stadium (the part adjacent to the stadium). People on the north side now know how important it is for them to be represented. The stadium will forever become a litmus test for voters in the future, because of the rotten, dirty campaign that has been waged here in favor of the 49ers with the help of our city council majority and former council members in charge of the 49ers front group.

Tonight, someone representing the 49ers said on Channel 4 (can't find a link to this online) that the pro-stadium crowd is afraid the yes voters will feel complacent and will stay home, while the no voters are motivated and will vote.

Translation, if they lose tomorrow, and they very well could based on the results of precinct walking, talks, leafletting, and phone calling done by stadium opponents-all of which have shown more NO voters than Yes, the Yes on J crowd will use 'complacent yes' voters as their excuse. I personally know many NO voters who won't take polls and who hang up on pollsters. People are absolutely sick of the 49ers saturation campaign (20 or so slick mailers, many are multiple glossy pages; non stop radio and TV ads, sometimes 4 per hour, and they repeat the same lies over and over). This has gone on for many months now, and they've gone about 3 times door to door because they have unlimited money to spend.
I'm guessing when all is said and done, the 49ers will have spent $5 million on this campaign of deceit and manipulation of our election process, and our local media has refused to report what has really gone on here, because the print media here stand to make money off of having the 49ers stadium in Santa Clara.

John Burrows,

Put your money where your mouth is. Be part of progress! Buy a home in 95054.

BTW a "Carpet Bagger" is someone who lands in a opportunistic way in some locale to take advantage of a situation. It makes no sense to say that someone who doesn't live in Santa Clara advising against the stadium is a carpetbagger. You didn't use the term correctly.

I personally think that the 49ers organization will start offering up a sub-lease agreement to the Raiders and if they turn it down, they'll look to the Jaguars and Chargers about sharing a stadium with them. That will help cover any possible gaps in funding. If the Raiders are smart and Measure J passes then they'll work with the 49ers to help them get the Santa Clara Stadium built.

Well it looks like we'll get the chance to find out. The Santa Clara stadium appears headed for a pretty solid win.

It is unbelievable that out of 46,000 voters, only about 18,000 went to the polls in Santa Clara. I wonder why so many people decided not to vote at all in this election. Granted, the absentee ballot was absolutely huge and may have been off putting, but could that many people simply think it was not important to vote at all?

In a word, yes. Hopefully the new open primary will help with that in the future. I know one of the things that's always made me apathetic as a voter during primary season is that as an independent I can't vote for any of the major parties candidates. Not that it usually keeps me away from the polls but it'll be a non-issue next year. As for this election and the stadium specifically, it's possible people just didn't care. It wasn't that contentious of a ballot other than the stadium issue. The major candidates had all but nominated themselves (and their hefty margins of victory bore that out), and the Propositions were the same way other than 15. The rest all passed by hefty margins as well. Slam dunk elections are bad for voter turn out.

I wish I could say I'm surprised at the outcome (or even the turnout), but I can't. Well, Santa Clara, good luck with aaaaallll Thaaaat...

Re: Neil's article the other day, I could actually see the 9ers bailing on their own proposal given the uncertainty surrounding "their" contribution (and where they might get the money). It will be an interesting couple of years...

I take solace in Neil's opinion that this isn't a touchdown, only a 1st and 10. It's still along way to go for the 49ers.

However, my hope wasn't to have an interesting two years. The city has tons of problems and challenges that wern't being dealt with. Instead lawsuits the city can ill afford will have to be resolved.

Now this pattern of neglect of other, less sexy, is going to continue.