49ers Stadium: Santa Clarans Testify AGAINST SB 43 in Sacramento!

Santa Clarans,

I can't do better than this eyewitness account of yesterday's hearing of the State Assembly's Committee on Local Government.

Please hear what Erlinda Estrada and her husband, John Hogle, SCPF Members, learned when they drove to Sacramento and spoke before that Committee AGAINST SB 43:

"John & I had a grand old time today. The Assembly Committee on Local Government voted 5-2 to allow SB43 to go forward, pending amendments, to the Assembly floor. Some members of the Committee wanted a number of changes before the bill proceeds further.

"Committee Chair Caballero said that she wanted the language revised to ensure that a process is in place to ensure the citizens of Santa Clara can weigh in on whether this "design/build" process is appropriate for the city. Two voted against it moving forward, Duval and Knight. Among their reservations were 1) it was a local issue and should be decided locally 2) they felt voters should have their voices heard in a charter change and 3) Knight even wondered why, if it's such a good deal, the 49ers didn't just build it without city help

"Senator Elaine Alquist, author of the bill, also had thrown in some other amendments at the last possible moment, including something about highways. That seemed to rub several committee members the wrong way and they wanted her to basically "clean up" the bill.

"Those who spoke in favor of the bill: Mayor Patricia Mahan and Councilmember Kevin Moore (both supposedly speaking for themselves, not in their official capacity); Lyle Hannigan (sp? 49ers); Danny Curtin representing carpenters; someone from the Building and Trades Council. Engineer Mark Smith noted that his group (ACEC) had reservations about the bill's variance from the state's current design/build requirements.

"Those opposing the bill: a very eloquent Jamie McLeod; Ciaran O'Donnell; John Hogle; and I.

"We all spoke about how this seemed to be an attempt to circumvent the Charter review process and amend the Charter without a vote of Santa Clarans. Both John and I pointed out how we were blind-sided by this bill and how it was a "stealth" move on the part of Alquist (I noted how the only thing about this bill posted on Alquist's web site was posted at 5:30 pm Tuesday, July 7th). The Committee did seem receptive to us and seemed impressed that citizens showed up at all.

"I think this whole affair shows the residents of Santa Clara how little the Council trusts us or even thinks of us in their pursuit of this stadium."


I can only agree with that last paragraph.

Santa Clarans, thanks to all for your continued support.

Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

49ers Stadium: Looks Like They Don't Trust Us, After All...

Santa Clarans, it was good to meet as many of you as we did in Central Park on Saturday before the fireworks display.

But it looks like it might just be time for a different kind of fireworks: We just learned that a hijacked State Senate Bill, with its original language completely deleted, now allows Sacramento to determine that a stadium subsidy of $114 MILLION is what's "right" for Santa Clara - and that a stadium can be constructed with a sole-source contract in violation of City ordinances.

The bill is SB 43, and it was originally written by Sen. Elaine Alquist, SD-13, to make changes to the Business and Professions Code.

But only days ago, the bill was routed into the State Assembly, and the name of a new author was appended: The Assembly Majority Leader, Assy. Alberto Torrico, AD-20. The original language on "health professionals" was completely scrapped. In place of that, we now see language which tells ONLY Santa Clarans that a stadium subsidy is in their best interests, and that ONLY the San Francisco 49ers will be allowed to build that stadium with a sole-source construction contract - while spending $114 MILLION of our money.

So, a hijacked Senate Bill now hijacks the rights of Santa Clarans to enforce their own City Charter? Because Sacramento has decided that a subsidized NFL stadium is "good" for us?

And this breathtaking usurpation of our City's own ordinances? It comes from a State Legislature which has proven itself utterly unable to work with the Governor to fix a completely out-of-control fiscal disaster at State Level.

This State Legislature is competent to tell Santa Clarans that they need to waste $114 MILLION in subsidies on an NFL stadium which benefits only the San Francisco 49ers?

Santa Clara Plays Fair urges all Santa Clarans to tell this City Council - and the San Francisco 49ers - that they are completely out of line if they support SB 43 in any way. Please visit this link, and register your objections:

http://santaclaraca.gov/about_us/email-us.aspx?MayorandCouncil

We take pains to note: It was this very City Council - and this very management of the 49ers - that promised us that our voices would be heard and that the process for a stadium would be a public and open one.

If so, then why was it necessary to work out a back-room deal for a State measure which violates the lawful ordinances of a Chartered City?

Don't the San Francisco 49ers trust us to do what's right?



Thanks for all of your support and best regards,
Bill Bailey
Treasurer

-=0=-

The actual language of SB 43 is here:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_43_bill_20090630_amended_asm_v96.html

49ers Stadium: Joint Session, June 2nd

We'd like to thank our neighbors, our members, and every concerned Santa Claran who took time on Tuesday evening, June 2, to comment publicly on the Stadium Term Sheet.

Regrettably, the "proceed" option was approved, and by a vote of 5-2. But we encourage Santa Clarans to keep speaking out on this issue - loudly and repeatedly.

At the meeting, this writer heard Jed York tell an interviewer that the only way a stadium deal works is by a public-private partnership.

I could not disagree more. The financing for an NFL stadium in Santa Clara still includes a demand for a handout. And if our technology companies in our city do well without a handout, so can the San Francisco 49ers.

The handout, in this case, is for a stadium which will gives us only 500 jobs paying less than $35,000 a year.

The next step in the process: Preparing the Disposition and Development Agreement and finishing the EIR.

The final step (maybe) is the vote of Santa Clarans, probably in March of 2010.

We're certainly aware that the details of the stadium financing in Santa Clara are complex - which may just be the way "stadium subsidizers" like it.

But if there are any questions that residents have, any of us at Santa Clara Plays Fair will be happy to share what we learned while we spent a weekend and most of a Monday reading and re-reading the many pages of supporting material for the Term Sheet.

Please post comments, email us at the addresses on the home site, or telephone us at 1(877)703-4300.



Thanks for all of your encouragement and support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-

49ers Stadium: Can it be? A Term Sheet?

At last. Maybe.

After two years of secrecy, SIXTY-EIGHT closed-session meetings and $1.1 MILLION of RDA money spent on consultants' fees: Your City Council has set a date for a public session so that we can finally see the 49ers' stadium "term sheet".

This public session will be held on Tuesday evening, June 2, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers.

Santa Clara Plays Fair urges as many residents as can possibly attend to be there - and that they make themselves heard.

Now, actual dollar figures will be scarce until the Agenda for this meeting appears on the City Clerk's Agenda webpage, probably on Friday evening, May 29th. However, there is a dollar figure that SCPF urges Santa Clarans to insist upon:

$0.00.

That means, "NO SUBSIDY". But last evening, it became abundantly clear even from the limited information that City Council was willing to share that they still insist upon spending public money, probably close to ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS, to subsidize an NFL stadium costing a cool BILLION.

That is just plain wrong - especially considering the economic turmoil in which we now find ourselves and our City. We highly recommend that all Santa Clarans speak out, and that they reject this subsidy out of hand - loudly, often and in Chambers on June the 2nd.

Is it unrealistic to insist upon the "zero dollar" figure above? Not at all. One need examine only the funding of the Meadowlands Stadium for two other NFL teams, the New York Jets and Giants. The two teams secured 100% private financing, with the NFL chipping in. Total cost? $1.6 Billion - 60% MORE than the subsidized stadium being forced upon Santa Clara.

And the Meadowlands' public subsidy?:

$0.00.

There is absolutely no reason why that cannot be done here - and both our City Council and the San Francisco 49ers know that.



Thanks for all of your support,

Bill Bailey
Treasurer

49ers Stadium: Al Davis - The Devil You DO Know...

Last week, the commercial press gushed all over the millionaire Yorks coupling with the millionaire Al Davis on a joint 49ers-Raiders stadium. The budget disaster in Sacramento finally pushed it off the front page. But it's still worth looking at - hard:

First: How does a joint stadium eliminate the massive subsidy being demanded by the 49ers? Sorry, but if two multi-millionaire NFL team owners can build a joint venue, then all public subsidies should definitely be off the table. These two team owners - and not our RDA - should be covering the construction and the annual operating costs of any stadium. The silence of the press on this issue poorly serves Santa Clara and Santa Clarans.

Second: Why did Al Davis spend close to 27 years suing nearly all of his major partners? In 1980, Al Davis sued his own League to get out of Oakland. In 1995, he sued them and Oakland/Alameda County over his return there. In July of 2007, the last such legal action - again blaming the NFL for the fiasco in Oakland twelve years earlier - was finally tossed out of court. John Ryan of the Mercury News wondered: When do the costs of Mr. Davis' lawsuits exceed the total price of an NFL stadium?

Not funny.

This "shotgun stadium" is the second time NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has interceded in the badly-flawed stadium gamble - while managing barely to mention our city by name. (See below.)

This time, Commissioner Goodell isn't simply demanding that the San Francisco 49ers make Al Davis a partner. Without coming right out and saying it: He's really demanding that WE Santa Clarans make Al Davis a partner.

Talk about the Devil we do know: Imagine Al Davis ever agreeing (1) to share equal responsibility for a billion-dollar stadium, (2) to pay our General Fund a rightful Ground Lease - or even (3) to sign a lease lasting as long as the massive indebtedness that both teams are demanding of our RDA. That's until the year 2026.

Preposterous.

Conclusion: Stadium supporters should stop wasting our time with distractions such as this one. It's time that they told Santa Clarans - honestly - what they're really demanding: Public subsidies amounting to scores of millions of dollars.



Thanks for your support,

Bill Bailey
Treasurer

(Click here for more than you really wanted to know about our new "stadium partners".)

49ers Stadium: Other People's Money

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell's recent visit to Oakland was reported by the San Francisco Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/15/SPDL14O310.DTL

When asked about concerns that either the 49ers or the Raiders would move to Los Angeles, Commissioner Goodell dodged the question - but he also inadvertently gave a pretty clear idea about the agenda of millionaire sports team owners in general:

"We're worried about the California market in general. If you look at our stadium situations - San Diego is trying to address (its) stadium situation, San Francisco, the Oakland Raiders ... I think collectively we have to try to address these matters on a statewide level as well as in the local communities," Goodell said.

What's "statewide" got to do with it? Don't outrageously-priced stadiums "serve" localities rather than State residents?

Californians, and not just Santa Clarans, may want to prepare themselves. As more and more communities challenge that old orthodoxy about high-priced athletic stadiums being "good for business", athletic leagues and not just the NFL are lobbying State legislators, and not City Councils, to get their heaping of public money.

My guess: Commissioner Goodell may well have taken a page from Seattle Seahawks owner Paul Allen, Microsoft billionaire. When Seattlites made it clear that they would probably never go for local bond issues sucking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the public purse and blowing them into sports stadiums - Mr. Allen simply went to Olympia, Washington, to get what he wanted:

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2005/03/promises_promis_2.html

Although quite a few Washingtonians may never have realized it: $300 million dollars in public monies were provided by all of them for the very Qwest stadium in which few of them will ever set foot.

Seattle City Councilmember Nick Licata even testified before the U.S. House Domestic Policy Subcommittee on Taxpayers Financed Stadiums, Conventions Centers, and Hotels on exactly this issue. The text of his testimony, a mere two pages worth, is very well thought-out and worth a read by all of us here in Santa Clara:

http://domesticpolicy.oversight.house.gov/documents/20070329144725-38118.pdf

If Commissioner Goodell is truly advocating an end run around local funding decisions controlled by local taxpayers, taxpayers should be deeply concerned. Expressed in starkest terms: If you don't give millionaire NFL owners like Dr. John York what they want, they'll go lobby in Sacramento and they'll take it from you anyway.

Now, it remains to be seen how even Commissioner Goodell and the NFL owners would even dare to ask for money at State level, especially with the State budget deficit now pushing some $42 billion.

But from what we've read and seen out of the stadium supporters - it sure wouldn't stop them from trying.



With best regards,
Bill Bailey
Treasurer

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

We at Santa Clara Plays Fair would like to wish all of you a very fine Christmas, and every success in 2009!