This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article.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 09, 2010
49ers get $444 million in Santa Clara cash, just need half a billion more
And so the 100-to-1 Rule stands untarnished: Voters in Santa Clara, where the San Francisco 49ers spent at least $4 million campaigning for a new $937 million stadium, as against about $20,000 by the opposition, have approved the plan, with Measure J winning by a 60-40% margin.
What Measure J actually approves, though, isn't the stadium per se, but rather the package of $114 million in direct tax subsidies, plus $330 million in money that's supposed to be reimbursed from uncertain venue revenues, that the 49ers say they need to make their stadium work. And there's still one huge missing piece of the puzzle: The team says it wants the NFL to kick in via a subsidized loan (actually a grant, since the team could "repay" it via revenues it would otherwise have to give to the league anyway). Only trouble is, the program that supplied these loans ran out of funds three years ago, and it now needs to be renewed as part of the next collective bargaining agreement.
And the only trouble with that is that the old CBA doesn't expire until next March, and the league and players already look to be headed for contract armageddon after that, with the players' union head predicting that the chances of a lockout in 2011 is a 14 on a scale of 1 to 10. So it could be quite a while before the Niners know whether they can count on NFL help, meaning construction likely wouldn't begin until 2012 at the earliest — making the team's plans for a 2014 opening possible, but not necessarily likely.
And it's worth noting that a lot can happen in two years. In 1997, after all, the 49ers won a vote to get $100 million in public money for a new stadium in San Francisco, one that never ultimately got off the ground. Team owner Jed York says this deal is less complicated, without an adjacent mall and with better transportation infrastructure. Still, as San Jose Mercury News columnist Gary Peterson notes, yesterday's vote was "not to be confused with a touchdown. It's more like a first-and-10 from midfield."
Here's the numbers:
46,494 registered voters (29,000 are absentee)
only 18,840 cast votes
11,231 voted for the stadium
7,609 voted against the stadium
I have no idea why so many people decided to sit this election out when the financial future of our city is at stake.
The 49ers spent $218 per voter, and $365 per "yes" vote
Whitman spent $48 per voter, and $74 per "Whitman" vote on CA's primary for governor
SCPF spent $.87 per voter, and $2.15 per "no" vote
Looks to me like the majority of Santa Clarans really didn't care all that much and the majority of the ones that did vote don't see this as a huge risk to the city's financial future. For better or worse the public has spoken and their will now be done.
Posted by Dan on June 9, 2010 02:10 PM
It would be hard for the public to see this as a risk when the 49ers campaign told them repeatedly that the stadium has no cost to residents, will never raise their taxes, won't impact the general fund, and has no risk. Then the local papers printed that message. The SF Chronicle did print some better information, including Roger Noll's article on the costs, risks, and debt (which was truthful) but the SJ Merc wouldn't print anything by Roger Noll nor would they even quote him. The 49ers ran a huge misinformation campaign and it worked. They also engineered our election process to give us ballot materials that did not disclose the costs, and the papers wouldn't report on that either. This just shows what can happen when politicians join together with big money to give a gift of public funds to a private corporation, and the media goes along with it because the private corporation is professional sports.
Posted by SantaClaraTaxpayer on June 9, 2010 02:44 PM
Even yesterday, a reporter said that our mayor said she didn't know where the $444 million number came from that opponents quote as the stadium construction costs ($114 million direct subsidy plus $330 million from the Stadium Authority-those add to $444 million, and that's straight out of the Term Sheet table of costs). So when public officials deny the costs that come from reports city staff have developed, then how is the public to know who is telling the truth? The public doesn't realize by and large that there are no 'truth in advertising' rules in campaigns, and that freedom of speech let the 49ers campaign say anything they wanted to win.
Posted by SantaClaraTaxpayer on June 9, 2010 02:48 PM
Our Mayor is so into herself and is so out of touch with the people on the Northside. Too bad officials aren't elected by disticts. That would mean that the majority of the people on the city council would not meet that requirement since they all live within a few miles of each other. I'll bet it would have been different if they wanted to build the stadium in their neighborhood.
We are the only city that does not have a downtown - how pathetic is that?
Shame on the City of Santa Clara who would rather spend OUR money on something with the name "San Franciso".
District representation sounds like an excellent idea given what's transpired.
Well our city fireworks show is cancelled this year to save money ($80,000). Too bad, I was hoping to go and boo the mayor like in past years.
The money spent on the 49ers thusfar would have paid for a lot of fireworks or whatever else the council is going to have to cut, like library hours (many of the stadium advocates like to point out that even if stadiums don't make money for the city, libraries don't either. That's what we were dealing with).
Posted by santa clara jay on June 9, 2010 07:49 PM
I'm keeping all of the mail solicitations I received so I can hit up all of the supporters to help me pay the tax I know is coming to pay for the bankrupt Stadium Authority.
Posted by JC on June 9, 2010 10:39 PM
The best part of the election being over is that the media won't feel obliged to cover the whining of the anti-stadium group---geez---you got a good ole' fashion ass whipping--60-40%---wake up---not all of us bought into that the sky would fall if the stadium was approved--in fact most of us thought the opposite---time to behave like Kennedy who while opposed said he would not say anything negative about the outcome as it was clear it was the peoples choice--
Posted by SanJoseA's on June 9, 2010 11:28 PM
Thanks Neil, for once again listing the correct costs of $114 million and $330 million (and its uncertain funding sources), which is something the SJ Mercury News has refused to accurately describe.
Today, Howard Mintz of the SJ Merc wrote an article that discusses the difficulties facing the 49ers in getting their almost $500 million in funding, the $330 million the Stadium Authority has to raise, and the risky nature of naming rights and seat licenses. Howard Mintz includes a
quote from Dr. Roger Noll, after talking to Roger
Noll repeatedly during the election process and choosing to not quote Dr. Noll.
All along the SJMerc has chosen to not write about these issues because they wanted this to pass. All along they've written that the 49ers were paying $823 million. The day after the
election, they decide to be honest about the money and the Stadium Authority's uncertain funding sources.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_15263324
Posted by SantaClaraTaxpayer on June 10, 2010 12:29 AM
Well SJ A's a whupping is one way of looking at it. But we feel like we were in a boxing match against someone with horseshoes in his gloves.
Posted by Santa Clara Jay on June 10, 2010 03:23 PM