Stadium Facts

49ers Stadium: The REAL costs of a $937M NFL stadium...

2009-11-30T22:27:00.000-08:00

Dear Santa Clarans:

Here are...

A member of Santa Clara Plays Fair helped me put together the above pie chart.

Now, you've already seen the team's own sleight-of-hand : Lump the contribution of a "Santa Clara Stadium Authority" in with the team's own contribution - and then try to tell Santa Clarans that we're only paying some 'fraction' of the stadium's cost.

Sorry, but it's not true. Not one penny of the 49ers' own money will go into the $330,400,000 contribution being made by any "Stadium Authority".

That joint-powers authority will be issuing some handsome pieces of high-risk, high-coupon paper - yes, more bonds - to raise a good deal of that money. After that, they'll be squeezing concessionaires for deposits and selling fans some very expensive Personal Seat Licenses to raise the rest.

This is still very much a publicly-subsidized NFL stadium - and a "stadium authority" contribution to that is anything but 'funny money'.

Thanks for all of your support - as well as for contributions like this one,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-
Ref.: City Council - Term Sheet of June 2, 2009 - Exhibit 14

Ref.: "The $800 MILLION MYTH"

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

SB 43: Putting a Spin on the Hijacking...

2009-10-12T14:13:00.001-07:00

Santa Clarans,

No sooner had the ink on SB 43 dried last night than the Stadium Spenders were out in force, claiming that SB 43 somehow gives us 'options'.

It does no such thing.

The Stadium Crowd is perpetuating the myth that SB 43 somehow 'preserves' Santa Clarans' right to vote on a "Sweetheart Charter Exemption" being demanded by the San Francisco 49ers. The phrasing is always expressed in this way: 'Well, we're not taking away anyone's rights - the City of Santa Clara, in the end will decide.'...

...Which, on its face, is real nice happy-talk. But the truth is that SB 43 allows a compliant City Council to DENY Santa Clarans a vote on exactly that Charter exemption. - The very language of SB 43 itself proves that:

"This bill would authorize the Santa Clara
Stadium Authority to let a design-build
contract without utilizing a competitive
bid process for the stadium construction
project..."

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_43_bill_20090915_enrolled.html

If the intention of our City Council were truly to protect Santa Clarans' right to vote on any exemptions to their own City Charter...

...then there would have been no need for SB 43 to begin with, would there?

Sorry, but SB 43 is designed to preserve "flexibility" only for the 49ers - not for Santa Clara. If this 49er-Friendly City Council is truly interested in getting Santa Clarans to support their squandering of a $114 million subsidy** for an NFL stadium, then they should have no problem putting both the "Massive Stadium Subsidy" AND the "Sweetheart Charter Exemption" on next June's ballot.

They don't need SB 43 in order to give us Santa Clarans the TWO ballot measures we're entitled to have.

Santa Clarans, thanks again for your support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-
======================================
**$114 million subsidy: This is shown clearly in Exhibit 14 to the Term Sheet as approved on June 2 by our own City Council. See this one, single page...

http://santaclaraca.gov/pdf/collateral/49ers-20090601-Exhibit-14.pdf

The $114M is simply the sum of $42M + $35M + $37M. ALL of that is public money - including advances from the 49ers which will have to be paid back with public money, plus interest. ---WFB
======================================

The 49ers Stadium WILL raid the General Fund!

2009-09-26T17:17:00.000-07:00

Santa Clarans,

During our visit to Sacramento on September 9th to voice our opposition to Senate Bill 43, we happened to expose yet another "Stadium Subsidy Myth".

Stadium Spenders have apparently given up on that throwaway line, "No New Taxes" - but they've unfortunately put a falsehood in its place: Before the Senate Committee on Local Government, one stadium supporter actually stated - falsely - that the stadium won't affect Santa Clara's General Fund.

Nothing could be further from the truth - a 49ers stadium in Santa Clara WILL raid Santa Clara's General Fund, and it will do so in two ways:

1. The RDA has previously bought land from the City, and it is paying the General Fund back for it. That payback agreement is referred to as the "Cooperation Agreement". However, if the Redevelopment Agency issues construction bonds for a stadium, RDA proceeds will have to be diverted away from paying back our General Fund and toward paying off those stadium bonds. The result is less proceeds to our General Fund, compared to what we would see if we never built an NFL stadium.

2. In order to issue those stadium bonds, the Redevelopment Agency - which is our current City Council - must pass an SB 211 amendment which will divert even more RDA passthroughs away from the General Fund. The cost to the City, the County and the Valley Water District was estimated at over $17M over the term of the bonds:

http://santaclaraca.gov/pdf/collateral/49ers-20090602-Report-on-Tax-Benefit.pdf
(See page 5 of 5.)

To see the true impact of a subsidized stadium on our General Fund, please see:

http://santaclaraca.gov/pdf/collateral/49ers-Term-Sheet-Presentation.pdf

...and page down to slide 48-of-55.

Over the long term, the Net Present Value of building NO STADIUM AT ALL is a $98 million increase to our General Fund.

Actually building a stadium REDUCES this to $31 million.

And settling for $67,000,000 less in our General Fund than we're entitled to?

Unfortunately, on June 2nd, our City Council approved exactly that when they voted 5-2 to accept the Term Sheet "as-is".

Santa Clarans, the City's General Fund was running a deficit of at least $5 million for the fiscal year just ended, and this deficit is only expected to grow in years to come. Subsidizing a one-billion-dollar stadium for the San Francisco 49ers doesn't help that situation. It makes it worse.

So, when someone falsely claims that a stadium won't affect our City's General Fund - the fund through which we pay our police officers, firefighters and librarians - you will always be able to point to the truth above...

...and it's in the City's own Agenda Reports.

Thanks for all of your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-

49ers Stadium: The $800 MILLION MYTH

2009-07-09T13:52:00.000-07:00

Santa Clarans,

We're sure grateful to have met more of you in Central Park last Saturday before the fireworks display.

And we appreciate also the kind of City leadership that enabled our own city's fireworks to proceed while so many municipalities around us were forced to cancel their own. So, welcome to the visitors who took a place on the lawn and celebrated right along with us!

It's time. May I bust up another "Stadium Myth"?

This one cropped up several times in our outreach on the Fourth of July, and it bears some resemblance to the falsehoods previously published in the local press.

Looks like it's time to put a fork in it - again - to show that it's completely overdone:

Stadium boosters persist in the false claim that Santa Clara is getting a good deal 'because the 49ers are paying $800 million and we're only paying $100 million'.

That's completely untrue. The 49ers are not paying $800 million for any stadium, least of all for any stadium in Santa Clara.

Debunking this myth is a snap - we need only go to the actual exhibits from the Term Sheet vote by the City Council on July 2nd, 2009:

http://santaclaraca.gov/pdf/collateral/49ers-20090601-Exhibit-14.pdf

The true contributions to the construction costs of the stadium are:

$330 million: Santa Clara Stadium Authority
$114 million: City/RDA (Sum of $42M + $35M + $37M)
$493 million: Team/NFL

You can see the sleight-of-hand at work with this card trick: Stadium proponents still believe they're entitled to tack the Stadium Authority's contribution onto the Team/NFL contribution.

That's deceptive and it's untrue.

Let's be clear: The Santa Clara Stadium Authority will need to issue bonds in order to raise that $330 million - and not one penny of that money will ever come from the San Francisco 49ers or from the York family.

Let's be even clearer: Note that the Stadium Authority's bonds will almost surely have a much lower rating than the RDA's own bonds, meaning that the Stadium Authority will be under tremendous pressure to milk every possible revenue source to pay off their higher coupon, or interest: Naming rights, Personal Seat Licenses, an "Admissions Tax", concessionaire equity...

I have to ask - yet again: If a stadium has all the benefits claimed by its proponents, why do the 49ers and their stadium supporters feel the need to deceive us about the true costs of the stadium - and about who's really paying?

Thanks, Santa Clarans, for your support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer of Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-
For your convenience, here's a link to City Council Minutes and Exhibits, especially those from June 2 (Term Sheet vote) and June 23, 2009 (Convention Center Space Vote):

http://santaclaraca.gov/city_gov/49er_stadium_proposal_agenda_rpts.html

49ers Stadium: A Yardstick for the "Term Sheet"

2009-05-26T13:42:00.000-07:00

Some Stadium Facts: It took over two years of secrecy with SIXTY-EIGHT closed-session meetings, not to mention spending $1.1 million of RDA money on consultants' fees.

But your City Council has finally set a date for a public session so that we can see the 49ers' stadium "term sheet".

At last.

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.

Even if real numbers are going to be hard to come by until that City Council Meeting is held, there is a yardstick by which all Santa Clarans can "measure" the term sheet. That yardstick is the statement of "Guiding Principles", passed by City Council unanimously on January 9, 2007:

http://santaclaraca.gov/pdf/collateral/January_9_Agenda_Report_re_Proposed_49ers_Stadium.pdf

See page 4 and note the very first Guiding Principle: "No use or obligation of General Fund monies of the City of Santa Clara."

That means: There must be NO loss to the General Fund of any kind. Not only must a stadium deal not cause direct debits to the General Fund - but the stadium must not stop payments to the General Fund that we're entitled to.

That's another way of saying: Don't just look at the General Fund; look at the payments it is lawfully entitled to from the Redevelopment Agency, as well as any payments from a Stadium Authority we might choose to create. The General Fund should show only net gains.

Santa Clara Plays Fair urges all Santa Clarans to hold our City Council to the same standards that they agreed to over two years ago, and that they evaluate any "deal" with the San Francisco 49ers against these Guiding Principles.

Owing especially to the serious fiscal challenges that our City - and we ourselves - are facing - we shouldn't be settling for anything less than that.

Thanks for your support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair

49ers Stadium: The Truth about the 'Lion's Share'...

2009-02-08T16:22:00.000-08:00

Concerning the true costs of an NFL stadium in the City of Santa Clara: One preposterous claim ** printed in the San Jose Mercury News on November 17th, 2008, told us that "well over 70 percent of the bill will be borne by the 49ers and the NFL."

The City's own figures prove that to be utterly false:

$222.0M: Santa Clara Public Equity
$330.5M: Santa Clara Stadium Authority
$363.3M: 49ers and NFL
-------------------------------------------
$915.8M: TOTAL

Note that the team-and-league contribution is a mere 39.7% of the total - but that our RDA and a Stadium Authority - a joint-powers authority not yet formed - will be forced to cough up the remaining 60.3%.

Late news even reveals that the NFL is now pleading poverty, and will not contribute to any stadium here. That will put even more pressure on the public contribution being demanded by the 49ers.

Unfortunately, Tim Kawakami, sportswriter for the San Jose Mercury News, also repeats the same math-challenged assertion *** by referring to some "potential $600 million to $800 million share" down to the 49ers. This is also false.

Both of these distortions rely on a little sleight of hand: Lumping the Stadium Authority contribution in with the team's minority share.

Stadium Facts urges Santa Clarans to read the City's own reports - and to be very careful when evaluating claims by stadium fans. As 2009 goes forward, there will be a war of words waged by stadium subsidizers - and not all of their output is going to be truthful.

If the stadium is as good a deal as its supporters are claiming: It shouldn't be necessary to distort the truth about who's paying for most of it - should it?

Best regards,
Bill Bailey
Treasurer, Santa Clara Plays Fair
http://www.santaclaraplaysfair.org/

** Update on February 24th, 2009: The link to the original Letter-to-the-Editor is dead. However the original can probably be had from the Mercury News' archival service (for a fee). I stand by my citation of that letter as quoted above. The link to the Kawakami article is still active.

*** Update on April 26, 2009: It took a few months, but the link to Tim Kawakami's article finally aged and is no longer active. But his original opinion piece can still be had from the Mercury News' archives.

Environmental Impact Process

2008-08-20T10:48:00.000-07:00

The long-awaited Environmental Impact process for the proposed SF 49ers stdium has begun. You have until Sept. 15th to voice specific concerns with the proposed stadium's impact to the environment and our quality of life.

The first step in the EIR is for the public and interested agencies to provide input on specific concerns they have with the physical aspects of the stadium. These concerns can include noise, traffic, parking, light pollution, visual concerns, impact to the environment.

There will be two public scoping meetings held on Sept. 2. These meetings are an opportunity for the public to provide verbal input on specific areas the EIR should cover. Written input can also be provided. All input is due by Sept. 15th, 2008.

This input, together with regulatory requirements and input from staff, will form the basis for the EIR. The EIR will assess the risks and impacts of the identified concerns, and propose ways to mitigate those concerns.

The outline for the EIR is posted at:

http://santaclaraca.gov/pdf/collateral/49ers-20080818-Stadium-Project.pdf

Now is your time to act.

Read the outline, write down all your concerns. In addition to the meetings on Sept. 2nd, comments or questions may be directed to the project manager, Jeffrey Schwilk, at 408-615-2450 or jschwilk@santaclaraca.gov or by postal mail at:

City of Santa Clara
Planning Department
c/o Jeffrey Schwilk, AICP
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050

Mary Emerson for City Council

2008-08-16T12:16:00.000-07:00

"We must be the change we wish to see in the world."

-- Mahatma Gandhi

After watching city politics for the past few years, I have come to realize that our city and our communities are the direct result of what we put into them. I would like to serve the City by representing you on City Council.

My analytical skills and business experience complement the other skills on City Council. I will fight for fiscal accountability, ensure community involvement in decision making processes, work for transparency of City Government, and advocate for green initiatives.

Please check out my website at:

maryemerson.org

If you like what you see, please help spread the word by talking to your friends and neighbors, endorsing me, contributing or volunteering to work with me on the campaign.

I would be deeply honored to have your vote & your support!

Regards,

Mary

Held Hostage by Ghosts of the Future

2008-06-06T04:19:00.000-07:00

The SJMN reported Wednesday that the likelihood of seeing the SF 49ers Stadium proposal on the November ballot is increasingly remote.

"[Y]eah, it's looking like that may not happen in November," Councilman Will Kennedy said.

We've spent over a year of blood, sweat, tears (not to mention big bucks) on this project. Over $1 Million in consultants, unknown hours of City Staff time on analysis, and almost weekly Closed Session meetings chaired by Senior Staff -- all while other RDA projects are effectively put on hold.

Questions Santa Clara residents should now be asking themselves and their City Government are:

How much more money & valuable (albeit unaccounted for) staff time can we afford to put into this project?

What good is the SF 49ers' promise to cover construction cost-overruns only through 2013, when the multi-year project won't break ground until after 2010?

How much longer can we NOT fund RDA projects vital to the city's well-being because $136 Million is being held hostage by the increasingly unlikely prospect of negotiating a n acceptable deal with the SF 49ers.

The City's dirty little secret is that while RDA money may be earmarked to partially fund a number of important projects, those projects will not go forward until they are fully funded.

To illustrate the point, look at just one highly visible RDA project: the long-awaited Northside Library.

The city has reserved $17.7 Million in the RDA budget for the Northside Branch Library. But an additional $3.365 Million is needed for LEED certification and the expanded Community Room. Despite the City's stated commitment to this project, they have made it clear that until all funds are identified, there will be no library in the Northside.

And what is competing for a library to enrich the education and lives of our Northside neighbors?

$136 Million reserved to subsidize the SF 49ers stadium.

I wish the SF 49ers good luck with their other prospects -- San Francisco, Brisbane, maybe even LA. Because Santa Clara voters are too smart to trade in our infrastructure and mortgage our hard-earned future for the profit of an out-of-state corporation.

It's the subsidy, stupid.

2008-06-02T07:39:00.000-07:00

San Francisco voters will go to the poll tomorrow to decide whether the City of SF should "encourage the development of a site in Hunters Point Shipyard for a new stadium."

Note that the text of this Proposition G says nothing about SF residents having to pay for any part of the stadium.

San Jose Mercury News columnist Ann Killion essentially called Prop G a lose-lose proposition for the 49ers:

If Proposition G wins, ... [it] could compromise the team's appeal to Santa Clara voters: Why should the small pool of Santa Clara voters pony up $160 million for a stadium when San Francisco voters have approved a measure that would cost [SF] virtually nothing?

If Proposition G loses, ... it ... would weaken the team's leverage with Santa Clara: removing their most viable alternative, while creating an anti-stadium climate.

This is why concerned residents of Santa Clara have been opposed to the deal all along: it's the subsidy. Thank you Ann!

The fiancé keeps his options open

2008-05-12T11:41:00.000-07:00

On Sunday, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the SF 49ers are talking to Brisbane city officials about a new stadium. They "are just looking to add some insurance in case" other options don't work out.

That engagement ring is looking more tarnished all the time.

StadiumFigures.com

2008-05-07T21:58:00.000-07:00

Stadium Figures, a website published by another concerned resident, examines something that hasn't got a lot of coverage: the proposed stadium is directly on the flight path of airplanes in and out of San Jose Airport.

This raises a few issues:

Noise. The predominant wind direction around here is out of the North. Airplanes take off into the wind. They will be at full power when they fly over the stadium. This stadium doesn't have a dome.
Accidents. The stadium is within the "General Aviation Aircraft Accident Location Pattern"

And unlike all the big bad wolves who are huffing and puffing for NFL football, Stadium Figures are not blowing hot air. They've got references to back up all their facts and figures. Check it out.

Make that a box of Cracker Jacks

2008-04-02T21:58:00.000-07:00

Okay, so I spoke prematurely in accusing the San Francisco 49ers of giving the city a cubic zirconium engagement ring. At least that would be pretty, unlike what this deal is turning into.

We just learned that the initial project applications filed by the San Francisco 49ers is not yet complete. Without a complete application, the city can not even start the ball rolling on the environmental impact report...

It kind of makes you wonder if their heart is really in this, no?

Cubic Zirconium

2008-03-16T17:48:00.000-07:00

"It's kind of like getting the engagement ring," Mahan said regarding Santa Clara City Council's decision January 15th to move forward with negotiations to subsidize a stadium for the San Francisco 49ers.

"I'm ecstatic," Jed York, son of team owners John and Denise DeBartolo York, said after the 6-1 vote.

San Francisco 49ers officials stated that paperwork would be filed first thing in the morning to start the Environmental Impact Report required for the stadium.

But something seemed to have been lost in the translation from ecstasy into action, as the billionaire's corporation did not submit paperwork first thing the next morning.

In fact, it was 8 long weeks before the SF 49ers made the very first move in getting the paperwork done for a stadium. March 14th, they ponied up a paltry $14,113 to start the review process for building a 68,500-seat stadium in Santa Clara.

It would appear that Santa Clara's suitor is treating us like the dumb cousin of our exotic neighbor to the north.

And Mme. Mayor, you might want to check your finger. That engagement ring just might turn it green.

"An all-out blitz"

2008-03-10T06:53:00.000-07:00

... an all-out blitz to win a multimillion-dollar sweetheart deal from [elected officials] ...

Is this Stadium Facts ranting about the recent wave of glossy mailers from the San Francisco 49ers to voters in Santa Clara? Nope.

Despite making an eye-popping $20 billion from TV deals ... [this football operation] desperately wants to make $600 million more by taking eight games a year off of free TV and hiding them on the ... new NFL Network.

Is this some football-hater, carrying on about corporate greed and politicians with questionable ethics? Nope.

This is Duriel Harris, former All-Pro wide receiver for the Miami Dolphins, in his letter to the editor of the San Jose Mercury News. He concluded:

This only hurts the fans who love our game the most... It's not too late for the NFL to resolve to treat fans right in 2008.

You can read the full letter here.

All that and the Brooklyn Bridge, too?!

2008-01-24T19:17:00.000-08:00

Editorial cartoonist Steven DeCinzo won 1st Place for Best Cartoon from the Association of Alternative Weeklies in 2000. He has penned a number of incisive panels on the 49er's proposal. The latest appeared in this week's Silicon Valley Metro:

The Brooklyn Bridge has of course been the scourge of gullible people since 1901. A hundred years from now, will cartoonists be drawing NFL stadiums instead?

Here are some earlier commentaries from Mr DeCinzo:

Feasibility Study: $111 million Impact to the General Fund

2008-01-13T20:28:00.000-08:00

The numbers are in, and the proposed stadium subsidy adds up to be a big fat loser for the city of Santa Clara. The city's General Fund would lose $111 million in cash, lost revenues and opportunity costs. To see where all that money goes, check out this presentation.

You will see that NFL events will provide no financial benefits to the city. In fact, in this proposal, the City would have to subsidize NFL events with revenue from non-NFL events. Rather than enriching a for-profit enterprise, let's focus on the needs of real Santa Clarans.

We can do better than this. We must do better than this.

What about the schools?

2008-01-13T19:45:00.000-08:00

Redevelopment Agencies (RDA) divert the majority of property taxes collected in an RDA district to development, with the net effect of starving cities and schools.

At some point, the state realized how damaging this can be, and passed SB211. Under SB211, any minor change to the RDA forces the RDA to relinquish some of their sheltered money back to specific groups -- notably schools. This is called an SB211 amendment.

The stadium subsidy would require the RDA to borrow $65 million, thus forcing them to do an RDA amendment.

SB211 doesn't require a stadium. In fact, the RDA could pass an SB211 amendment today, triggering those pass-through payments, but has chosen not to do that.

Moreover, if the RDA borrows more money, they will not be able to repay their RDA debt early (which the city is currently on track to do in 2020.) Once the debt is paid off and property taxes revert to normal distribution, schools will actually get significantly more than they get with SB211.

So, if you take the long view, an SB211 amendment would not be good for the schools. But if you feel the schools are really hurting today, and that they need a near term injection of cash, you don't need a stadium. You just need to pass an SB211 amendment.

Subsidy opponents interviewed on KPFA

2007-12-28T08:33:00.000-08:00

This morning KPFA, 94.1 FM, interviewed Byron Fleck, a founding member of our sister organization NotWithMyMoney.org. You can listen to a recording of it here -- fast forward to about the 33'42" mark.

Also on the show was Neil deMause, co-author of the seminal book "Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money Into Private Profit," and the wesbite of the same name.

KPFA is listener-sponsored, and has been broadcasting from Berkeley, CA since 1949.

Just barely above junk bonds

2007-12-05T12:11:00.000-08:00

The 49ers would like Santa Clara taxpayers to believe that building, owning and operating this stadium will be a fabulous investment of our money. Better than buying Google stock at $100, or Sunpower at $25.

Some members of City Council are all but ready to put on Gold Rush outfits to repeat that chant.

But if it's such a screaming good deal, why haven't the 49ers themselves scooped it up yet? Or the city of San Francisco, which has been looking this over even longer than we have?

Well, one source for impartial opinions turns out to be the bankers, because to build a 68,000 seat stadium, the city will have to borrow a lot of money. The bankers are the ones who will have to take a hard look at the deal and decide how risky it is. The bankers have no personal attachments to this, only their money. And money itself is neutral.

At the November 20 City Council meeting, David Brodsly, the city's own bond consultant struggled to spit out the cold hard facts: the Stadium Authority bonds will be BBB-rated -- just one step above junk bonds!

Besides the bruised egos ("They think our pride and joy is junk!") there is also the practical matter of bond interests. Safe loans have lower interest rates. Risky loans have higher interest rates (think pay-day loan.) Higher interest rates drive up the total cost of borrowing of money. Ultimately this will make it harder for the stadium to break even.

Nobody on City Council batted an eyelash at this. Here we are, mortgaging our future for this white elephant, but nobody even registered a reaction when a disinterested bystander calls it a turkey.

Here's a video clip of the remarks, with a transcript:

Santa Clara resident Don Buchanan: "What kind of a rating do you think this bond will receive?"

David Brodsly, Managing Director, KNN Public Finance (the city's bond consultant): "The two bond issues that are ... umm ... being contemplated by the Stadium Authority ... they would be the [inaudible] ... the ... the admissions bond would probably be in the BBB level which is the bottom of the investment grade range, that's ... it's ... that ... it's the less certain area of the market, but that's ... that's a good guess standing here today."

Tough Love

2007-11-21T07:45:00.000-08:00

San Jose Mercury News sports columnist Tim Kawakami comments on an interview with SF 49er owner Denise DeBartolo-York:

HURRY UP SANTA CLARANS! Denise D-Y demands your fealty! You will watch her 2-8 football team and you will LOVE IT. AND HER! AND YOU WILL PAY HER! NOW!!!!

The 49ers are losing 2-8 this year, so far. They were 7-9, 4-12, and 2-14 in the last 3 seasons. And yet they want Santa Clara to subsidize their stadium to the tune of $287,000,000, by our estimates.

Compare and contrast...

The New England Patriots are 10-0 this year, so far. They were 12-4, 10-6, and 14-2 in the last 3 seasons. They built their stadium entirely with private financing. And Patriot fans did not need to buy personal seat licenses, either.

Support our Niners! Make them pay for their own darn stadium!!!

White elephant

2007-11-07T21:42:00.000-08:00

white elephant, n. 1. an Indian elephant of a pale color that is sometimes venerated in India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and [Burma]; 2a. a property requiring much care and expense and yielding little profit; 2b. an object no longer of value to its owner but of value to others; 2c. something of little or no value. Merriam-Webster Online.

White elephants are rare albinos that are highly prized by the kings of Thailand, Burma and other Asian countries. Thanks to their special status, they don't have to work as beasts of burden, like their normally pigmented cousins. However, just like regular elephants, they are large animals with large appetites. Therefore giving someone a white elephant is considered both a gift and a curse.

According to Mahidol University (Thailand,) because of ...

... the inordinate cost of maintaining a white elephant ... [such a] gift could easily induce bankruptcy if not also accompanied by a grant of land. So singular an honor as a white elephant could obviously not be refused, but without land it was subtly barbed -- an indirect criticism which apparently cooled the heels of excessively ambitious minions.

So instead of "Oh boy, we are going to own a billion-dollar stadium, and it will only cost us a couple of hundred millions," maybe we should be asking "Why do we have to pay $222,000,000 to scoop up elephant droppings?"

The cold, cruel truth

2007-11-06T20:37:00.000-08:00

These words of wisdom are from Ray Ratto's recent article on the A's stadium — Time to call A's owner for crying wolf on stadium — but the analysis holds just as true for the current San Francisco 49ers' request for a massive public subsidy from the City of Santa Clara . . .

the cold, cruel truth, proven again and again by economists everywhere, is that stadiums have not paid off for anyone except for the team owners.

Starbucks on Mars

2007-11-05T23:53:00.000-08:00

The article is almost a year old — A stadium in Santa Clara? You'll be dead before it happens — but every time I read this line . . .

There will be a Starbucks on Mars before there's a 49ers stadium in Santa Clara.

. . I have just a little hope that fiscal sanity will triumph over reckless spending in Santa Clara. [And if it doesn't, maybe the latte run will be just a bit more exciting.]

Thanks Scott Ostler!

A quick thought

2007-11-04T01:43:00.000-07:00

If contributing $222,000,000 and 15 acres of land to a project AND assuming the risks of stadium operations were such a great deal, why can't the San Francisco 49ers find private investors willing to invest private money into this project?

The fact that they have turned instead to the City of Santa Clara to ask for a massive public handout for this project is perhaps the best evidence that this enormous gift of public money is a poor investment.

One of Silicon Valley's many claims to fame is its venture capital firms, and if the 49ers can't find private investors in this area (or anywhere else, for that matter) to partner with them, then they should not expect the City to provide the money for them.

The New England Patriots have proven that football stadiums can be built with little to no public assets. The 49ers should take a page from their play book.