This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article.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.
July 04, 2012
49ers get another restraining order on RDA funds, July 27 hearing date
The San Francisco 49ers owners won another court victory yesterday in the battle over $30 million in property taxes they want for their Santa Clara stadium, getting a restraining order (yes, another one) preventing the Santa Clara board that controls the money from spending it on anything else:
The decision to temporarily put the tax funds under lock and key follows an impassioned public debate over whether the redevelopment money should be used on the Santa Clara stadium or local schools. The judge presiding over the case set a July 27 hearing at which he may rule on the 49ers' claim that the team should get the funds because voters had earmarked the money specifically for the stadium.
"This is a powerful argument, and one that may prevail," said Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly.
The San Jose Mercury News describes this as a signal that the judge "may soon give [the money] to the team"; I read it more as a sign that the judge thinks the argument has enough merit that the 49ers could prevail, and he wants to be sure the county doesn't go blow the money on something frivolous like schoolteachers in the meantime. Still, it's inarguably a good sign for the 49ers owners, who are now one step closer to getting the money that was authorized by voters to come out of redevelopment agency funds, back before the redevelopment agency was dissolved and its funds reverted to control of the new board. Me, I'm just hoping for a quick decision so I don't have to type that last clause too many more times...
I'm going to take it as a given that the judge is going to release the funds to the RDA successor agency. That's a rebuke to the governor who feels it's bad public policy to commit RDA funds to this project. So what happens then, does the state get involved in appeals? Or does everyone just give up because NFL football is so darned awesome?
Posted by santa clara jay on July 4, 2012 11:50 AM
What the voters actually approved in the Measure J stadium ballot language was:
"Contributions to the construction costs of the stadium shall not exceed $40,000,000."
'Shall not exceed' means that there's a threshold of $40 million, it does not mean that the voters approved exactly $40 million.
And at last December's DDA study sessions, the 49ers admitted that they knew the RDA money could go away.
They went ahead and loaned the Stadium Authority $40 million anyway (note that the city has already spent $10 million in RDA money on the stadium project.)
What this shows is that the oversight committee needs its own legal council right away.
Posted by SantaClaraTaxpayer on July 4, 2012 12:06 PM
Oops.
That should be legal 'counsel'.
SCJ: Good question.
Just so we're all clear on this... am I to understand that the 49ers have asked for restraining order(s) to stop a gov't agency spending tax dollars (presumably on anything at all where this $30m is concerned) because they believe a now defunct agency, lawfully eliminated by the governor of the state, may have promised them some of it?
Good to know the legal system is serving the people who pay for it (I mean legal payments, not lobbying and campaign contributions etc).
Maybe it's time for a major asteroid/earth collision after all...
The 49ers and City of Santa Clara may have more to worry about. There may be more problems on the legality of the Stadium Authority itself.
The Stadium Authority (SA), a Joint Powers Authority authorized by State law and Measure J, was created between the City and the Redevelopment Agency. Since February 2012, the Redevelopment Agency no longer exists.
Anticipating this, on June 28, 2011 City Council amended Measure J by adding a new member to the JPA Stadium Authority and adding Claus 17.25 to City Code (the words of the city attorney were "The Bayshore North Project Enhancement Authority would now like to amend the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement to be added as a party to the agreement and as a member of the Stadium Authority.").
The City lawyer noted at the time: "Chapter 17.20 SCCC does not prohibit the addition of a new member to the Stadium Authority."
But, neither Measure J nor State law mentions successor, surrogate, or additional members.
Furthermore, Measure J and State Law prohibit any change to Measure J without approval by vote of the people of Santa Clara. That has not happened. Therefore, since February 1, 2012, all contracts with the Stadium Authority may be null and void because the Stadium Authority may no longer be a legal entity. Because the City is not disclosing this to the 49ers, the Stadium Authority may be entering into unenforceable contracts.
Nah, this restraining order is just meant to ensure that the money is still there. This is a court fight that the 49ers might win; that the $30M is "theirs." You just have to err on the side of caution here. Think how much damage it would cause it the County spent that $30M immediately, and then it turned out that, oops, they shouldn't have done that.
Honestly, I think this decision protects everyone, including the 49ers, the county, and the schools.
I'm perfectly fine with this decision. I just hope the courts decide that "up to" $40M includes a $0 amount.
Posted by MikeM on July 7, 2012 01:22 AM
Even if Judge Connelly does rule in the 49ers favor....The State of California will most likely appeal the judgement...
Attention, Attention, just in....July 6, 2012 the Powers that be in Sacramento just passed the "Bullet Train," project, thereby spending money that the State of California does cearly not have....California to the SF Forty-Niners, "Give Us OUR Money!"
Posted by truth be told on July 7, 2012 01:46 AM
I wondering why the judge gave the editorial about the "powerful argument...that may prevail". Unless he's trying to be deceptive, he's giving me a clear signal of how he intends to rule. Why did he say anything at all?
Posted by santa clara jay on July 7, 2012 02:25 AM
There is another meeting of the Oversight Board this coming Monday, July 9, at 2 pm in SC City Council Chambers.
The agenda specifically says that they will be reconsidering the two agreements they severed the last time they met - the cooperation and predevelopment agreements between the RDA and the Stadium Authority.
This will remove the 49ers complaint from their court filing that not enough members of the public were present at the last Oversight Board (read - not enough people in 49ers gear were there to tell the Oversight Board to give public dollars to the 49ers.) This of course also means that members of the public who think that public dollars should go to public needs will also be there to speak in favor of money for our schools/city/county.
Posted by SantaClaraTaxpayer on July 7, 2012 05:40 PM