What the S.F. 49ERS Need

[Peter Proud]

They need a new stadium for the following reasons:

1. The current stadium does not have the luxury boxes that bring in the non- shared revenue that helps teams make a profit and allow for the 'extras'
that make playing for the 49ers a players dream.

2. The current stadium is outdated, run-down, and lacking infra-sturcture
that provides better access for the fans and still provide for tailgating
which can enhance the game-day experience for the fans and all of the
people who work to make a better football experience for both the fan at
the game and the fans watching the game on TV or a computer.

3. The current stadium does not meet the standards required by the NFL to
host a SuperBowl. If a SuperBowl qualified stadium were in place, having
a SuperBowl every say 6-8 years would bring more visitors and money
then a one-time shot at the Olympics!

What the 49ers don't need:

1. They don't need to solve the City of San Francisco's low-income housing
needs.

2. They don't need to become a Dept. of Public Works charged with the
improvement of local transportation issues.

3. They don't need to become a Dept. of Human Services and provide
solutions to the area's joblessness problems.

4. They don't need the City of San Francisco to provide them with fans!

The San Francisco 49ers are a business... they aren't a government body
responsible for every need and want of the citizenry!

[9erMan]

They need a new stadium for the following reasons:

1. The current stadium does not have the luxury boxes that bring in the non- shared revenue that helps teams make a profit and allow for the 'extras'
that make playing for the 49ers a players dream.

2. The current stadium is outdated, run-down, and lacking infra-sturcture
that provides better access for the fans and still provide for tailgating
which can enhance the game-day experience for the fans and all of the
people who work to make a better football experience for both the fan at
the game and the fans watching the game on TV or a computer.

3. The current stadium does not meet the standards required by the NFL to
host a SuperBowl. If a SuperBowl qualified stadium were in place, having
a SuperBowl every say 6-8 years would bring more visitors and money
then a one-time shot at the Olympics!

What the 49ers don't need:

1. They don't need to solve the City of San Francisco's low-income housing
needs.

2. They don't need to become a Dept. of Public Works charged with the
improvement of local transportation issues.

3. They don't need to become a Dept. of Human Services and provide
solutions to the area's joblessness problems.

4. They don't need the City of San Francisco to provide them with fans!

The San Francisco 49ers are a business... they aren't a government body
responsible for every need and want of the citizenry!

Well said. Too many people seem to think the 49ers are beholden to the City of SF and the team rather than the city should resolve the infrastructure and transportation problems.

[TopHat]

I couldn't have said it better myself. As much as we'd love to think of the 49ers as ours (the fans) the truth is the 49ers are a business and need to operate as a business. What's best for the 49ers and their fans are what's most important. It sounds to me that Gavin Newsome and the rest of the political infrastructure of SF are looking for someone else to solve the problems of SF that they are unable to.

[Giedi]

I couldn't have said it better myself. As much as we'd love to think of the 49ers as ours (the fans) the truth is the 49ers are a business and need to operate as a business. What's best for the 49ers and their fans are what's most important. It sounds to me that Gavin Newsome and the rest of the political infrastructure of SF are looking for someone else to solve the problems of SF that they are unable to.

Quite possibly, and the sad fact is that much of government money is misspent or lost in some fashion or another.

It totally escapes me why Governments have to have a different accounting system than regular businesses do. I've never really figured that out. Is it historical? Is it a legal requirement? I dunno, but Governments use fund accouning vs GAAP accounting that the rest of us regular folks and businesses use.

As for the politics of it all. Yes, if they can get York to pay for it, they will. The key there is to have York make a good sound proposal that all can live with. If George Lucas can do it... ummm... well... York er...

Anyway... I do hope they stay in San Francisco. But I would rather have a Stadium in Santa Clara than the same 'ol stadium in Candlestick.

Giedi

[bucksniners]

Why should the tax payer subsidize a billionaire? That's what they want people to do when they ask the tax payer to pay taxes to keep a team. The Yorks are using one city against another to get the tax payer to pay for something most people will never use. If it's such a good deal then they should build it, operate it, and pay their fare share of commuinty taxes just like every other busniess in the city, where ever it may be.

[TheWiz]

Why should the tax payer subsidize a billionaire? That's what they want people to do when they ask the tax payer to pay taxes to keep a team. The Yorks are using one city against another to get the tax payer to pay for something most people will never use. If it's such a good deal then they should build it, operate it, and pay their fare share of commuinty taxes just like every other busniess in the city, where ever it may be.

The list of socially acceptable things cities waste money on...

- Libraries. Let's face it, in the digital age, paper books are the way of the ancients. The contents of a public library can be stored on only a few thousand dollars of computer hardware and backed up too. Not to mention libraries require annual costs to upkeep and staff and thousands of acres of rainforest are slashed to provide paper for those dust collecting texts. In the end, a new, nicely designed 10M+ library is only a benefit for the small percentage of heavy readers when in a decade from now all of its resources will be publically available and easily attainted without its existance.

- Schools. Only a percentage of the population has children who attend school. But yet everyone must pay thousands in property taxes per year just so the neighbors kids can learn to read and write. Tens of millions is spent in what can only be seen as public duty. The city never directly gains, good students go off to colleges and settle down elsewhere. Its the dropouts who stick in the same city and work blue collar jobs. Schools are a perfect example of costly facilities that benefit a few at the expense of everyone because of public obligation. You've spent hundreds educating the kids next door. I'm assuming you must be getting finger paintings and go to their school plays and such or else you're getting nothing out of it! Now, how much have you gotten out of the 49ers?

- Parks. The city spends money terraforming the land, thousands per park per year on sports fields and grass and labor. It returns zero. Not a penny. Money righty down the drain. Want to take a walk? Just drive to a nice neighborhood. It's even easier to build fields next to schools, cuts labor and construction costs.

The point is all of these facilities which return to income and benefit a very few create one thing: Quality of LIFE! People approve schools and libraries because they like to know those public functions are there! People also, spooky enough, like entertainment. Many, in fact a LOT of Santa Clara residents want to be known as the home of the 49ers. They like knowing they can go to games there.

- The season ticket holder next door is ecstatic. He saves hours on commute time and a lot on gas when the team moves into his community.
- The 13 year old boy is happy. One day he may get to play in the lacrosse state championship in an NFL arena in his home city and his sister may get to see the US womens soccer team take on the Poland national team in an exhibition the year it goes up.
- The police force stands to make a lot in overtime pay just to stand in the stadium and watch the game or to direct traffic for a few hours.
- Even the schools should be happy. Stadiums increase property values in areas not immediately adjacent it and spikes in values mean increased taxes and more general fund money to spend on education.

And it goes on...

[SF_49ers_Kezar]

The list of socially acceptable things cities waste money on...
- Libraries
- Schools
- Parks


Well how many families would buy a home in an area without the three items above?

Is a football stadium a feature that the majority of home buyers consider? If a stadium were important, then all the citizens would live in one of the 32 NFL towns. Yep, nothing would be better then buying a home in Rutherford N.J. or even in the Bayview area of S.F. to be near to Candlestick.

The list of socially acceptable things cities waste money
- Schools


This type of illogic is why the U.S. is falling behind in jobs and income compared to other countries. The U.S. has out-sourced education to other countries, and now we use H1-B visas to bring the educated citizens of other countries to the U.S.

Everyone raised in the U.S. has had the benefit of receiving an education; I do not mind paying taxes so others can educate their children. When I was young someone paid taxes for me education; I want to thank them. Someday I will need to go to a hospital and I really want a doctor who has had the benefit of a good education. Gees, I want Police Officers, Firemen, and even a QB who have a good education.

The city never directly gains, good students go off to colleges and settle down elsewhere.


Hmm, so all educated children leave their home town and move somewhere else. If even this absurd statement is true, then some educated citizens may move into my area.

The list of socially acceptable things cities waste money on...
- Libraries. Let's face it, in the digital age, paper books are the way of the ancients.


Well the libraries have many PCs for students to use; not all families can afford a personal computer at home. The libraries also provide a safe environment for after school and a cultural experience.

So we have:

Libraries: Can be used almost every day of the year by the City of Santa Clara citizens who paid for them
Schools: Can be used almost every day of the a year by the City of Santa Clara citizens who paid for them
Parks: Can be used almost every day of the a year by the City of Santa Clara citizens who paid for them


Then we have:

Football Stadium: can be used 10 days a year (maybe a few more days) mostly by citizens of other Cities. A Santa Clara resident must subsidy this structure, and also at least buy a ticket for entry.
- The Football Stadium under the original 49er's proposal would lose $71M over 30 years for the City of Santa Clara.


It is obvious to me (maybe others?), that the Stadium is the item that is a waste of money.

I'm all for a new stadium .... as long as some else pays for it.

[bucksniners]

You have not given me any reason why a tax on the public should be acceptable to build a stadium that most people will never use because they couldn’t afford game day tickets plus parking, when they can go to a library, park, beach, local little league game, etc., free.

Would you give a subsidy to a movie theater to open business in your city? No, I think not. Then why would you tax people and then give the money to a monopoly, NFL football, to open up shop. And I say this as a fan of 50 years, but when it comes to taxation without representation, I defend my rights, which if you looked at pro sports you would realize they are monopolies due to the supreme court giving them an exemption to law of competition in 1922 and 1953 .

If you were a true capitalist then you would see that there is no competition here and the invisible hand of the free market, Adam Smith, has been circumvented by the government (representatives of you and me), through lobbyists and perks, giving a bunch of billionaires the right to leverage one city against another, putting the tax payers at risk, when the billionaires should be footing the bill. This is a unfair advantage that tilts the playing field toward the owners to play games with our tax dollars.

If you know history, then you would remember the Boston Tea Party, when taxation without representation became the cry of the colonists. It’s the theme of this critique and is an example of what’s happening in our society with privatization of entities like electricity, that were subverted by companies like Enron, the military (Backwater), etc. that needs to be addressed by concerned citizens.

The people who own these teams don’t need us to help them; they need more investors to provide the capital to make their dreams happen. Asking someone to pay a tax is unacceptable in any just society because NFL football doesn’t come under the heading of “the commons.” It’ a luxury! The true patriots build businesses by their own smarts and work ethic, not asking for hand outs from innocent by standers—tax payers.:look:

[ThE_DaVe]

The list of socially acceptable things cities waste money on...

- Libraries. Let's face it, in the digital age, paper books are the way of the ancients. The contents of a public library can be stored on only a few thousand dollars of computer hardware and backed up too. Not to mention libraries require annual costs to upkeep and staff and thousands of acres of rainforest are slashed to provide paper for those dust collecting texts. In the end, a new, nicely designed 10M+ library is only a benefit for the small percentage of heavy readers when in a decade from now all of its resources will be publically available and easily attainted without its existance.



Im guessing you dont go to libraries often. My opinion of Libraries has changed greatly since I started working in one. If Libraries were as obsolete as you make them out to be then why havent they all been closed down? As long as ppl can read there will be books, as long as there are books, there will be libraries.

[SoSublime]

Well how many families would buy a home in an area without the three items above?

Is a football stadium a feature that the majority of home buyers consider? If a stadium were important, then all the citizens would live in one of the 32 NFL towns. Yep, nothing would be better then buying a home in Rutherford N.J. or even in the Bayview area of S.F. to be near to Candlestick.



This type of illogic is why the U.S. is falling behind in jobs and income compared to other countries. The U.S. has out-sourced education to other countries, and now we use H1-B visas to bring the educated citizens of other countries to the U.S.

Everyone raised in the U.S. has had the benefit of receiving an education; I do not mind paying taxes so others can educate their children. When I was young someone paid taxes for me education; I want to thank them. Someday I will need to go to a hospital and I really want a doctor who has had the benefit of a good education. Gees, I want Police Officers, Firemen, and even a QB who have a good education.



Hmm, so all educated children leave their home town and move somewhere else. If even this absurd statement is true, then some educated citizens may move into my area.



Well the libraries have many PCs for students to use; not all families can afford a personal computer at home. The libraries also provide a safe environment for after school and a cultural experience.

So we have:

Libraries: Can be used almost every day of the year by the City of Santa Clara citizens who paid for them
Schools: Can be used almost every day of the a year by the City of Santa Clara citizens who paid for them
Parks: Can be used almost every day of the a year by the City of Santa Clara citizens who paid for them


Then we have:

Football Stadium: can be used 10 days a year (maybe a few more days) mostly by citizens of other Cities. A Santa Clara resident must subsidy this structure, and also at least buy a ticket for entry.
- The Football Stadium under the original 49er's proposal would lose $71M over 30 years for the City of Santa Clara.


It is obvious to me (maybe others?), that the Stadium is the item that is a waste of money.

I'm all for a new stadium .... as long as some else pays for it.

Great post.

[TheWiz]

Well how many families would buy a home in an area without the three items above?

I never said that or even implied that communities should not have things like public schools and so on. My point was in fact that all of the institutions listed in fact LOSE tons of money. It costs a lot to educate and run public services, all of which are used only by a few and clearly, the benefits are worth the losses as you pointed out. So, saying that investing in a stadium that may lose money is a bad idea based upon the fact that it will lose money is rather absurd when annually all the city DOES is invest in losing bets financially. The difference is the loss is deemed credible and necessary by the citizens.

Meanwhile, if you read some studies, the quality of life increase and community value benefit greatly in the black for a stadium when you look beyond point blank finances.

Is a football stadium a feature that the majority of home buyers consider? If a stadium were important, then all the citizens would live in one of the 32 NFL towns. Yep, nothing would be better then buying a home in Rutherford N.J. or even in the Bayview area of S.F. to be near to Candlestick.

You must not be aware that property values actually decrease significantly for homes close to stadiums. It would be like living next to an airport. But the value for businesses shoots up like a rocket and amazingly, people DO consider retail location when choosing homes. Along with local school quality and taxes, proximity to transportation, shopping centers, and emergency services are all common factors and selling points of homes.


This type of illogic is why the U.S. is falling behind in jobs and income compared to other countries. The U.S. has out-sourced education to other countries, and now we use H1-B visas to bring the educated citizens of other countries to the U.S.

Everyone raised in the U.S. has had the benefit of receiving an education; I do not mind paying taxes so others can educate their children. When I was young someone paid taxes for me education; I want to thank them. Someday I will need to go to a hospital and I really want a doctor who has had the benefit of a good education. Gees, I want Police Officers, Firemen, and even a QB who have a good education.

Huh? Outsourcing education? The problem with american schools are numerous, funding is not one of them. In this country we spend more per student in public schools than any other nation in the world and we get terrible results. Largely because education has become highly "PC"ed. It has nothing to do with funding but how its done. Grade inflation, kids expelled for writing stories about vampires or a finger painting a noose, parents who get teachers fired if they make a child cry, etc. The worst part is how it mirrors the diet craze. No one will get off their rear end and onto a treadmill and they wait for miracle pills that require no work. At school you can't push kids hard anymore, instead there's billions spent on 'research' to find zero effort ways for people to learn.

And what about people who pay for private schools? As I said and you proved through your own statement: it's a public obligation that people deem worthy of spending on. That was my point! It was never that a stadium is a BETTER choice, just that financial loss cannot be a deciding factor because these institutions incur them and no one complains.


Hmm, so all educated children leave their home town and move somewhere else. If even this absurd statement is true, then some educated citizens may move into my area.

Absurd, how many people educated in a small town do you think actually get employed and return to that small town in todays society? Last time I looked and talked to people, kids who get out of college go wherever the heck they can get a good job, not where they were raised. How many of your neighbors grew up in the city they're currently living in?


Well the libraries have many PCs for students to use; not all families can afford a personal computer at home. The libraries also provide a safe environment for after school and a cultural experience.

Not doubting that one bit. But only recently have libraries been working to make computer access more abundant and a more central part of their services. Not only by demand but because it's overall cheaper. But it doesn't change the face that in the near future books will be obsolete as a data format. You don't need a massive building for computers and after school programs. It's going to go the way of the newspaper industry. People use computers now more for their news and newspapers have had to adapt to survive.


So we have:

Libraries: Can be used almost every day of the year by the City of Santa Clara citizens who paid for them
Schools: Can be used almost every day of the a year by the City of Santa Clara citizens who paid for them
Parks: Can be used almost every day of the a year by the City of Santa Clara citizens who paid for them


CAN be, but are they? I'd love to see how you would 'use' a public school yourself. It's used for the school program. If you got within a distance of a school, you'd be tackled and labeled a possible child kidnapper or abuser. If you took a survey of how many people use a public park or library at least once a month, what percentage do you think you would get? People like the PERCEPTION of access and services a LOT more than they're really used. Chances are actually that with a stadium built...more citizens will go to more NFL contests in 1 year than visit the library over an entire year.


Then we have:

Football Stadium: can be used 10 days a year (maybe a few more days) mostly by citizens of other Cities. A Santa Clara resident must subsidy this structure, and also at least buy a ticket for entry.

And whose fault is that? Santa Clara OWNS the stadium! For 355 days of the year...guess what...it's as public a venue as your library if the city wants it to be. The city can hold events there for free for citizens if it wants. The stadium cannot be USED "10 days a year", it can be used by the city as much as it wants for as many as 355 days.


- The Football Stadium under the original 49er's proposal would lose $71M over 30 years for the City of Santa Clara.


:link:

I'd love to see who created this number and have a list of all of their factors. I hope it's SCPF, that organization cracks me up. They site losses but cannot comment at all on the effect on city property values, rent rates, and economic activity (all of which increase) a stadium will bring. Feel free to go down about 2 posts and read an article written by 2 economists whose research showed actual net economic value was almost always in favor if the city in such deals.


It is obvious to me (maybe others?), that the Stadium is the item that is a waste of money.

I'm all for a new stadium .... as long as some else pays for it.

Sure, you want something for nothing. You want all of the economic impact and none of the liability. Again, check out the link and wake up. Just for comparison? in 1999 equivalent dollars, SF has spent a total of 138M on the 49ers since their inception. The return in terms of economic impact, cash actually brought into the city in increased value and economy? Over 2.4 BILLION dollars. The city in the end has reaped well over 2.2 Billion in taxes and value over the last 60+ years, on par with about 35M per year. Yeah, I'm sure SF is REALLY missing that 138M investment. Especially since about 120M of that was to retrofit Candlestick after which we only won 5 superbowls for that city.

San Francisco got 30+ years of football for only 120M in equivalent cash. How has it turned out for San Francisco?! And you're telling me that it will hurt and destroy Santa Clara?

[SF_49ers_Kezar]

I never said that or even implied that communities should not have things like public schools and so on. My point was in fact that all of the institutions listed in fact LOSE tons of money

Your first post:

The list of socially acceptable things cities waste money on...
- Libraries
- Schools
- Parks


The first premise you are stating is that the above City core functions are a waste of money. I strongly disagree with the framework for your argument and do not accept that any of these three items are a waste of money.

Now:

So, saying that investing in a stadium that may lose money is a bad idea based upon the fact that it will lose money is rather absurd when annually all the city DOES is invest in losing bets financially. The difference is the loss is deemed credible and necessary by the citizens.

Essentially you are trying to group together a football stadium with core City services. In my opinion a stadium is a luxury item, not a core service. Especially for the City of Santa Clara that is already in debt. I do not consider a Stadium an investment.

You must not be aware that property values actually decrease significantly for homes close to stadiums. It would be like living next to an airport. But the value for businesses shoots up like a rocket and amazingly, people DO consider retail location when choosing homes. Along with local school quality and taxes, proximity to transportation, shopping centers, and emergency services are all common factors and selling points of homes.

I am quite aware that the area around a Stadium has low property value; this can be seen today at the Bayview or the HP area of SF. This is not a positive for homes in Santa Clara that are a couple of miles from the proposed Stadium project.

On game days, home owners will have to show passes to gain entry to closed streets to make their way home.



And whose fault is that? Santa Clara OWNS the stadium! For 355 days of the year...guess what...it's as public a venue as your library if the city wants it to be. The city can hold events there for free for citizens if it wants. The stadium cannot be USED "10 days a year", it can be used by the city as much as it wants for as many as 355 days.

I keep hearing the benefit of OWNING a stadium, but

The City can own the stadium, but the 49ers only want to pay $5M in rent yearly.
The City can own the stadium, but the 49ers take a portion of any profits made from other non- NFL events. This is ridiculous.
The City can own the Stadium, but must pay about $25M a year in 1) insurance, 2) Security, 3) County taxes.


If Santa Clara OWNS the stadium, how come the City cannot charge more for rent?? How come the City can not ask for a land lease? The last offer from the 49ers was $5M a year, which is the same rate that the 49ers pay for Candlestick which is an absolute dump. I do not consider the inability to charge any rent or to keep profits real OWNERSHIP. This may change in the current negotiations in regards to the term sheet.

I find it really amazing how some on the board strongly express how great stadium OWNERSHIP is, but then become annoyed at the suggestion that the 49ers should actually increase their rent, land lease fees, or not share in some of the Stadium profits from events that the City produces.

:link:


The document created by the City staff and presented by the City Manager regarding the return on investment is located at:
http://santaclaraca.gov/pdf/collateral/49ers-Estimate-of-Return-on-Investment.pdf

The above shows the return over 30 years: $90M in RDA losses and only a gain of $19M in the general fund over 30years; a net loss of $71M.

I have posted this link before in a under a different topic. I am sure you will scoff at this data, or use some verbiage to try to rationalize why these numbers are wrong because they do not support your view that the stadium is a money maker.


Sure, you want something for nothing. You want all of the economic impact and none of the liability. Again, check out the link and wake up. Just for comparison? in 1999 equivalent dollars, SF has spent a total of 138M on the 49ers since their inception. The return in terms of economic impact, cash actually brought into the city in increased value and economy? Over 2.4 BILLION dollars. The city in the end has reaped well over 2.2 Billion in taxes and value over the last 60+ years, on par with about 35M per year. Yeah, I'm sure SF is REALLY missing that 138M investment. Especially since about 120M of that was to retrofit Candlestick after which we only won 5 superbowls for that city.


I would rather see the new Stadium built in San Francisco; so I do not want anything.
San Francisco approved $100M in bonds over 10 years ago and never built a new stadium; why did San Francisco ignore this golden opportunity? Maybe because stadiums do NOT make money for the Cities that own them.

The City of San Francisco has had to forgo it $5M in rent from the 49ers to help pay for repairs to Candlestick; over the last couple of years; so there is no income from the Candlestick Stadium (which is used zero times, other than 10 football games). In addition, the tax payers of San Francisco will need to fork out $20M to have Candlestick demolished and the concrete hauled away.

Will a new stadium make money for the State of California: Yes;
Will the new stadium make money for the County of Santa Clara: Yes,
Will the new stadium make money for Cities like San Francisco and San Jose: maybe.

Will the Stadium make money for the little City of Santa Clara?
…………………….. the City that is to help finance the stadium– NO.

[Rattlehead]

Wiz, you're a nutcase you know it. Where to you get the energy? Why can't you get it inside of your head...the Niners will not move outside of the city. We both know it.

[TheWiz]

Your first post:

The first premise you are stating is that the above City core functions are a waste of money. I strongly disagree with the framework for your argument and do not accept that any of these three items are a waste of money.


Okay, waste is not the correct word. But cities spend money on them at a financial net loss. Not only do they cost a large sum to create facilities and land for but also require upkeep on an annual basis that take millions from city funds. The fact that they are born losers financially (they will never earn money for a city by investing in them) was my point. Cities still pour money into them despite being negative return investments because the perceived social return is considered worth the loss.


Now:

Essentially you are trying to group together a football stadium with core City services. In my opinion a stadium is a luxury item, not a core service. Especially for the City of Santa Clara that is already in debt. I do not consider a Stadium an investment.

On a social level you're entirely correct. You can't weigh the societal importance of education against something likes a sports team. My point is this. People will stand against the stadium with a simple argument: It will 'lose' the city x-amount of dollars. But annually, those institutions do in fact, lose money themselves. In fact, you get no return from them. People invest tens of millions of their tax dollars to fund them and it's a net loss every year. Losing tens of millions on schools. Now, if you even use your "71m over 30 years" number, that means they would lose 2M per year using very bad financial math but common sense in its place. But schools, libraries, and parks do not crate economic activity, national advertising, or the pride of calling yourself "home fo the 49ers".


I am quite aware that the area around a Stadium has low property value; this can be seen today at the Bayview or the HP area of SF. This is not a positive for homes in Santa Clara that are a couple of miles from the proposed Stadium project.

I think you overate the radius. I've been no more than a mile from 90k+ seating stadiums packed to the rafters for a big game and barely heard a peep. It's only homes in the very immediate vicinity that will suffer, if any. The drop is due to both noise and perceived traffic increase. But the traffic will filter all east and west towards the highway ramps and as I said, the noise will be very tolerable. Meanwhile, those only 1.5+ miles across town will suffer neither effect and will eventually see a raise in home values and rent rates when expected retail goes up in that region.


On game days, home owners will have to show passes to gain entry to closed streets to make their way home.

Hardly the worst thing to ever happen. Only those with extreme proximity will be effected and it will be at worst 12 days per year.


I keep hearing the benefit of OWNING a stadium, but

The City can own the stadium, but the 49ers only want to pay $5M in rent yearly.
The City can own the stadium, but the 49ers take a portion of any profits made from other non- NFL events. This is ridiculous.
The City can own the Stadium, but must pay about $25M a year in 1) insurance, 2) Security, 3) County taxes.


- Yes, 5M in rent. This however is also a preliminary figure and if you've read some posts I've written previously, it is quite possible that during negotiations this fact will change. Possibly to include either a higher annual rate over all 30 years or to include increases to 6M, 7M, 8M on a fixed schedule. Either way, this 5M all goes towards the stadium authority.

- Umm, on your second bullet, you are completely wrong. This has never been proposed. Any money earned goes to the stadium authority and that money is used annually to pay for the stadium and operation. If the stadium authority pays off all operational costs, the 1st 1M goes right to the city and the 2nd 1M goes to the stadium authority reserves for future expenditure. Anything past that goes at most, one-third to the 49ers. Now, one can say "well going to the stadium authority just reduces the costs for the 49ers" which is true. But if the city holds no such events, the 49ers STILL must cover all shortfalls. In reports the authorty only earns a very conservative 1.6M (in 2013), inflation adjusted at 3% per year. The city admits this amount is conservative as much as the costs for operation are overstated. LEt's be realistic though. If you even get one top notch event per year, you can easily clear 1M in ticket sales. Let's say in an olympic year you get the mens team in an exhibition with argentina, something that can easily sell 60k tickets and at only $30 per ticket average, that's 1.8M before costs. Not to mention concessions and parking will pay off a lot of the event costs, but that's easily a 1M turnaround and profit.

- There is no reason the city cannot use the stadium entirely for free events. For the same amount it costs to upkeep the local high school fields, they can actually use the fields for similar events. It's a perk, not a superb one, but it's a perk.

- On the third point, wrong again. You see, the stadium authority earns all profits from concessions and parking. They also get all of the profits from things like local ads in program sales, and will be using a flat tax on tickets sold for NFL events as well. In fact, the city stands to make so much money that pay off all annual interest on debt servicing (the bonds) and turn in over 21.5M gross profit without city run events income added in. The insurance (6.2M in '12), taxes (2.6M in '12) and security (650k in '12) are easily covered. In fact a lot of the money goes to cover gameday expenses, operations overhead, utilities and maintenance costs. Yet in '12 with less than half the possible authority intake from city planned events (will only be open from August onwards that year) and severe overestimate of costs and underestimation of income, the stadium doesn't cost the city 1 penny. Why? Because even if it has a 1.7M stadium operation shortfall, all 1.7M gets paid by the team, not the fund. So how the CITY pays out 25M per year...that's a false statement.

- Seriously, 1 superbowl(which Goodell has almost directly implied we'd receive) and that's millions of dollars for the city and the authority overnight. The NFL held the superbowl at Stanford in the mid 80s so you can't say the region can't get a game.


If Santa Clara OWNS the stadium, how come the City cannot charge more for rent??

They could. But if you ask me, 500k per usage sounds pretty darned good to me considering no other event whether a concert, soccer game or monster truck rally will ever pay anywhere near that rate. 5M is a base amount, it's not set in stone.


How come the City can not ask for a land lease?

Sure, they could. Explain this. Opponents state the land value as much as 5M per acre and say the property to be used is worth over 50M and the team should at least pay a 3.5M+ inflation fixed land rent. If the land is worth so ridiculously amazingly much, why is it being leased for less than 150k by Great America! The city clearly could charge MILLIONS more for the land, but they don't. The opponents should be asking why they are renting the land for so little with no complaints but yet wants millions from the 49ers if they are there. That's like telling two friends "Hey Bob, you can squat at my place for $150, but Fred, I want a $3k deposit from you even though I'll be making money from you being here". The city also doesn't even lose the land, it retains full rights to it except for at worst 12 days per year.


The last offer from the 49ers was $5M a year, which is the same rate that the 49ers pay for Candlestick which is an absolute dump. I do not consider the inability to charge any rent or to keep profits real OWNERSHIP. This may change in the current negotiations in regards to the term sheet.

But every penny of that goes into maintenance for candlestick whether it's fixing the elevators or the parking drainage or the speaker and lighting mountings. A brand new stadium? At worst it suffers some 'breaking in' costs but nowhere near 5M. Also, the 49ers got moved into Candlestick for free and have been paying 5M since well, back in the 70s. But Santa Clara? hundreds of millions of team and NFL money stands to be invested. You'd think that sinced they're covering all cost overruns and financing shortages and over 80% of the costs to build the stadium, they shouldn't be asked to pay a ransom just to use the stadium they've financed.


I find it really amazing how some on the board strongly express how great stadium OWNERSHIP is, but then become annoyed at the suggestion that the 49ers should actually increase their rent, land lease fees, or not share in some of the Stadium profits from events that the City produces.

I find it a bit ridiculous for a city to be given a stadium at a fraction of the overall cost that is built on land for which they currently barely charge a fraction of the possible annual rental value and expect a team to pay land rental rates for a stadium they do not own simply because they have more money. Asking Great America to pay <150k per year for a parking lot but demanding 3M+ plus if the 49ers use less than the same total plot of land to build a stadium they will not own is a bit ridiculous don't you think? That's what I call "Hey, this new guy has deeper pockets, let's demand more money".


:link:

The document created by the City staff and presented by the City Manager regarding the return on investment is located at:
http://santaclaraca.gov/pdf/collateral/49ers-Estimate-of-Return-on-Investment.pdf

The above shows the return over 30 years: $90M in RDA losses and only a gain of $19M in the general fund over 30years; a net loss of $71M.

I've seen this document many times since last December. If you have read the full feasibility report you will also find the general statement "These figures are conservative with a purpose." This mean revenues are assumed to be much lower than possible and average and costs are assumed to be much larger than expected. This leads to a very worst case scenario.

If you even look at the fine prints on your own linked report:

"Revenues and expenses from one-time or periodic events (i.e. super bowl) and/or an incremental increase in development in the vicinity of the proposed stadium are difficult to predict and have not been included in the analysis."

In fact, not even the income from home playoff contests are included, since only 8 home games per year and 2 barely attended pre-season games are involved. Not a single expected Superbowl is included. In fact, not a single penny from likely and expected development and they admit it. The revenue from a few liquour licenses on top of annual taxes on them would be a big boon for the city.


I have posted this link before in a under a different topic. I am sure you will scoff at this data, or use some verbiage to try to rationalize why these numbers are wrong because they do not support your view that the stadium is a money maker.

That's quite an inflammatory claim. First of all, I don't "scoff" at it but given what I know, I'm definitely skeptical until I see it. As for verbiage, there is no verbiage. I'm not here to propoganda or influence anyone into a false ideal. I'm here actualy arguing facts and trying to fight against the misconceptions, assumptions, and incorrect adoption of beliefs. There is no verbiage. The argument I just gave is direct and from the source itself based on simple, daily logic and ideas.

Then it boils down to "so what, so maybe we only lose 50M as a city if we have multiple playoff years and 2 superbowls...". At which point a simple fact ensues that such success will also involve more business and higher values fo the surrounding community.


I would rather see the new Stadium built in San Francisco; so I do not want anything.
San Francisco approved $100M in bonds over 10 years ago and never built a new stadium; why did San Francisco ignore this golden opportunity? Maybe because stadiums do NOT make money for the Cities that own them.

Umm, the 49ers BARELY (by a small part of a percentage) approved that bond measure after "Eddie" spent millions in advertising and campaigning. It only took a small grassroots "save the spotted owl instead" movement to create massive opposition. The society and politics of the bay area are very liberal and much more about special interest liberal causes as opposed to funding for ciy projects. Also, the measure fell apart because of "Eddie's" legal problems that led to him selling the team's controling interest to the Yorks. The Yorks, who sued Eddie, received the team because they spent several hundreds of millions in cash and investments to Eddie while the remainder of the teams value satisfied the legal reward agreed to by the Yorks. The deal fell through because after buying a portion of the team we didn't have an owner with a ton of cash sitting around to build the stadium plan. On top of that, shortly after the bond measure was passed, it wasn't more than 2 years or so that the realty company who had millions at stake for the 'mall' part of the deal claimed bankruptcy and dissolved as a company.


The City of San Francisco has had to forgo it $5M in rent from the 49ers to help pay for repairs to Candlestick; over the last couple of years; so there is no income from the Candlestick Stadium (which is used zero times, other than 10 football games). In addition, the tax payers of San Francisco will need to fork out $20M to have Candlestick demolished and the concrete hauled away.

What?! You need a reality check. The city violated its lease with the team for almost half a decade. It funneled the 5M sum to other city operations and funding and spent a tiny percentage of amount on the stadium. The team had to result to litigation against the city which involved 10M+ city settlement to fix major problems at the stadium. To say the city has needed to use MORE than its annual 5M is a joke. Also, keep in mind that Candlestick is a 50+ year old stadium not designed for football! The city built it for baseball only and has gotten 40+ years of baseball and 30+ years of football from its investment.

The city of San Francisco...has it earned well over 20M in the 50 or so years of Candlestick's existance? Also, there is no reason that the city MUST demolish and drag away the stadium. In fact, it never did so to Kezar. It tore away a lot of the stands but it saved Kezar stadium as a whole, as a field and it put some cheaper, smaller stands in place. It still lives on as a pubic venue. Meanwhile, there is no reason the city cannot do the same for Candlestick (in fact, convert a chunk of it into a 49ers/Giants/Venue shrine that will generate income for many years).


Will a new stadium make money for the State of California: Yes;
Will the new stadium make money for the County of Santa Clara: Yes,
Will the new stadium make money for Cities like San Francisco and San Jose: maybe.

Will the Stadium make money for the little City of Santa Clara?
…………………….. the City that is to help finance the stadium– NO.

And economists disagree. There is in fact an economist in the region whon has written a book arguing the opposite. And yet his argument disregards all concepts of 'trickle down' economics as well as societal value and property increases. No economist can create an argument against stadiums that actually takes all effects into account. They harp and complain about perhaps the OAK deal, which is an outlier and a travesty and NOT the norm. But they also find any negative case possible and try to pretend that 80%+ of the other sports stadium deals follow suit.

Does the state of california include payments and cash to santa clara? Yes.
Does the county of santa clara include the city? Yes. (In fact, heavy regional impact leads to increased businesses and interest in santa clara and residency as well. Acting as if regional wealth will not impact the center of such growth is like imagining that an earthquake will do the least damage to cities closest to its epicenter.)
Will the new stadium make money for Cities like San Francisco and San Jose: Who cares? If the team builds for those 2 cities, why aren't THEY subisidizing a move?!
Will the Stadium make money for the little City of Santa Clara?
…………………….. the City that is to help finance the stadium– YES!!!! Let me ask you a question. San Francisco spent over 100M+ in bonds to retrofit Candlestick to fit football games. Was THAT a net loss for the city in the 30 years following? Are you saying the city got ripped off? Overall, they spent AS MUCH as Santa Clara is being asked for and made MILLIONS. In fact, economic reports suggest well over 1B from that deal. Here is a local, direct, and easily applicable example.

Show to me how an equivalent early 70s investment has 'screwed' the city of San Francisco left and right since it was made. The same city with a senator trying to block the team from leaving. The mayor leaning upon a toxic waste dump as an attractive alternative. Seems to me like you've got a city full of politicians arguing left and right to keep the team from moving out of the city limits. Explain and find figures that support tens of millions of dollars in losses for the city. If you want to argue against the Santa Clara stadium on the grounds of public subsidy, how do you draw a conclusion against Candlestick?!

[SF_49ers_Kezar]

Does the state of california include payments and cash to santa clara? Yes.
Does the county of santa clara include the city? Yes. (In fact, heavy regional impact leads to increased businesses and interest in santa clara and residency as well. Acting as if regional wealth will not impact the center of such growth is like imagining that an earthquake will do the least damage to cities closest to its epicenter.)
Will the new stadium make money for Cities like San Francisco and San Jose: Who cares? If the team builds for those 2 cities, why aren't THEY subisidizing a move?!
Will the Stadium make money for the little City of Santa Clara?
…………………….. the City that is to help finance the stadium– YES!!!! Let me ask you a question. San Francisco spent over 100M+ in bonds to retrofit Candlestick to fit football games. Was THAT a net loss for the city in the 30 years following? Are you saying the city got ripped off? Overall, they spent AS MUCH as Santa Clara is being asked for and made MILLIONS. In fact, economic reports suggest well over 1B from that deal. Here is a local, direct, and easily applicable example.


There are two key financial items to consider for a Stadium Project

Revenue to fund the project
Profits/Losses over 30 years, after the Stadium is completed.


My main point is that the City of Santa Clara is just too small, and that places the City at a large disadvantage in regards to both items listed above.

Revenue to build Stadium:

Airports: Both San Francisco and San Jose have Airports. Both Cites have runway taxes, passenger fees, also they add a tax for taxies departing the airport. The City of Santa has none of these items to generate revenue to assist with building a stadium
Hotel Rooms: San Francisco has about 32,000 hotel rooms, San Jose over 10,000, Santa Clara about 4,000. So for taxes on hotel rooms, Santa Clara generates a much smaller amount to assist with building a stadium.
Population: San Jose: 970,000; San Francisco: 765,000; Santa Clara: 110,000. Thus Santa Clara gets a much smaller share of the County taxes paid on homes; at least by a factor of 7.


Stadium Profit/Loss: Stadium in City of Santa Clara versus San Francisco

Hotel Rooms: Santa Clara can not even come close to accommodating the out of town fans. Most out of town fans would stay in SF (still) or now use SJ; thus these two cities will both benefit (while paying nothing). The economic impact of a new stadium to Santa Clara will not be as great as it would be were to SF; there is no doubt in my mind about this point.
Entertainment & Food: There is almost no Entertainment in Santa Clara; expect for Great America which states it will be closed on games days and wants compensation. When I go to the 9er game I stay in SF. I see many out of town fans (mean people wearing Eagles Jerseys or Seattle Jerseys) in North Beach, Fisherman’s Wharf, Union Square, China Town, riding Cable Cars, and shopping at the new Westfield Mall. Santa Clara has none of these features; so it cannot even come close to SF in obtaining the same additional Sales Tax as SF.
San Francisco is both a City and a County. This is another large advantage for SF; The City of SC will need to share some funds with the County; the City of SC is only 1/17 of the County’s population.


To try to summarize:
I can understand the large impact to the SF economy from a football stadium; due to the size of SF and its unique tourist sites and entertainment areas, SF can capture almost all the new revenue from a new football stadium. But the ability of SF to profit from a stadium (in the past or in the future) does not translate to the City of Santa Clara. This City is too small to absorb the benefits; a large amount of the revenues will spill over into San Jose.

[TheWiz]

First of let me note that this exchange has been largely very educational and I appreciate your candor and even-handedness. This is after all a discussion and many people take it too personally at times. I also hope stadium interested readers on this board follow the back and forth banter and take everything into consideration.

There are two key financial items to consider for a Stadium Project

Revenue to fund the project
Profits/Losses over 30 years, after the Stadium is completed.


Sure, you've got the revenue to fund the project but I interject immediately with the following ideas. The team has asked Santa Clara to help fund approximately 20% of the expected 900M-1B in total costs. The method by which Santa Clara has responded has in fact been the cities choice. The team never, ever asked for a method of payment. It has suggested, but it has generally left the city council to explore many options on its own and devise its own plan.

I am not in the opinion that the city has in fact made the best choices along these lines. If I recall correctly the city has opted for spending close to 100M in new bonds from the RDA, 30M in bonds involving the garage, and another 40M or so from Hotel taxes. The city can do much better. It has the 180M reserve in its power fund and let's be honest, Santa Claran's, if anything, save a LOT of money for not being on PG&E's grid. Wisely, the city has already spent many man hours and set up a plan to allocate all 180M to grid improvements, updates, and towards keeping the grid very viable and cheap for many decades to come. But I think it's ridiculous to think that with the litigations against PG&E and the global warming that the city can't expect to see some more windfall in its favor. Not tapping into a mere sixth of that overflow, 30M worth, is a mistake. Especially because that 30M may be a part not used for 10+ years. Meanwhile, it saves the city from having to use its RDA cash flow reserves and lower bond reserves to help pay for the stadium. Also, there is a very sound economic argument that the eventual increase in property values and also retail creation due to the stadium will eventually (pun intended) fuel more general fund taxes that can easily replace the 30M spent over time. It's a huge reserve and to blow it all just to keep electrical rates a little cheaper versus the imapct of a stadium? Questionnable in my opinion.


My main point is that the City of Santa Clara is just too small, and that places the City at a large disadvantage in regards to both items listed above.

Revenue to build Stadium:

Airports: Both San Francisco and San Jose have Airports. Both Cites have runway taxes, passenger fees, also they add a tax for taxies departing the airport. The City of Santa has none of these items to generate revenue to assist with building a stadium
Hotel Rooms: San Francisco has about 32,000 hotel rooms, San Jose over 10,000, Santa Clara about 4,000. So for taxes on hotel rooms, Santa Clara generates a much smaller amount to assist with building a stadium.
Population: San Jose: 970,000; San Francisco: 765,000; Santa Clara: 110,000. Thus Santa Clara gets a much smaller share of the County taxes paid on homes; at least by a factor of 7.


You're right. Those cities do have big airport tax and hotel tax potential. It's politically easy to pass laws that involve taxing airports and hotels largely because the voting constituency that approves such measures are not hotel or airport users. It passes the buck onto non-local residents so there is less 'guilt' perceived by actual local voters for taxing out of towners. But I will note that SJ airport in barely in San Jose, a great move that leaves the noise and pollution more on the Santa Clara side of things. But also that Santa Clara has failed in attracting more hotels to build on its side of the airport, something a stadium will do. A stadium should at least attract a new 500-1,000 rooms of hotels and motels in anticipation of getting better location for stadium events and expected increased tourism.

But we're also looking at population. Irving, TX the new home of the
Cowboys has barely over 200k estimated in population. Buffalo? About 260k in 2006. The actual borough of east rutherford, new jersey (NYG) had less than 9k population in the 2k national census! Actually, to be even more direct, look at the city of Hartford, Connecticut who at one point had a deal with the Patriots, a 2006 population of under 125k. Population is not as much a factor. Although, I will admit that the state and counties had a stronger hand in the DAL and NE possible deals. But city size, as long as it's not a small suburb, is not a limiting factor.

In fact, the county is heavily, heavily in favor of a stadium. So much so that I used an adjective twice. The business groups all want it, the nearby cities all want it, and the county authority is in favor of one. At one point it seemed inevitable that the city could easily work and coax its way into a 10M-20M county subsidy through taxes, business taxes, and extremely low cost bonds sold by big local corporations to help fund the stadium. The region is LOVING the idea of a stadium but the city has not even dared to ask for a little nudge to help make it happen. A stadiums impact across SJ and nearby cities in terms of economic impact alone over 30 years easily makes a 10M-20M payment a laughable investment compared to the huge expected returns.


Stadium Profit/Loss: Stadium in City of Santa Clara versus San Francisco
[LIST]
Hotel Rooms: Santa Clara can not even come close to accommodating the out of town fans. Most out of town fans would stay in SF (still) or now use SJ; thus these two cities will both benefit (while paying nothing). The economic impact of a new stadium to Santa Clara will not be as great as it would be were to SF; there is no doubt in my mind about this point.

If there is that much demand for hotel rooms, why aren't businesses struggling to match the demand? The regional hotel impact I covered in my last statement above. As for economic impact, are you MAD?! San Francisco already has a stadium that draws fans. All of the eatery, retail and bar impact will barely change as opposed to a city not having a team suddenly gaining one. San Francisco stands to have the same impact but with possibly 10k more fans. Santa Clara stands to gain 7 times that number! I can only imagine you're instead arguing the point against Santa Clara's costs as well.

As an aside, how many regular fans will be hotel users? Up front you've got STHers who live within 2 hours of the stadium most likely and even on Monday night games that go until 9 pm, they drive home afterwards. Then you've got a large contiguency of expected local sales of those within 2 hours who buy tickets for games but not all season long. I find it hard to believe that too many fans will need boarding. Even if it's a 4+ hour drive, for a noon Sunday contest, you can still get home after a long game by 9 pm. It's onyl the sunday night contest and monday/thursday night games where fans who have long commutes will consider hotels. Hotels on the other hand, are more considered by playoff and superbowl fans.


Entertainment & Food: There is almost no Entertainment in Santa Clara; expect for Great America which states it will be closed on games days and wants compensation. When I go to the 9er game I stay in SF. I see many out of town fans (mean people wearing Eagles Jerseys or Seattle Jerseys) in North Beach, Fisherman’s Wharf, Union Square, China Town, riding Cable Cars, and shopping at the new Westfield Mall. Santa Clara has none of these features; so it cannot even come close to SF in obtaining the same additional Sales Tax as SF.

Well, last time I checked there is no sales tax increase proposal, only a hotel tax at which point SC hotels are still a lot cheaper than either big city you have mentioned so far in this post. But you also mention that there is a lack of attractions. I may not be an economist but doesn't demand create a need for an increase in supply? You don't think that a stadium will increase the creation of a stadium won't help fuel demand for a mall, several sports bars, a museum, a couple of local attractions, etc? Let's be honest, a lot of those attractions you mentioned have long since sprung up since the city has gained the Giants and 49ers franchises! China town, Trolleys, the Wharf and the Beach may be niceand unique but do you think Santa Clara has absolutely no identity and no change of being able to attract people? Especially because San Francisco is a BART ride up the penninsula and Oakland and San Jose are nearby.


To try to summarize:
I can understand the large impact to the SF economy from a football stadium; due to the size of SF and its unique tourist sites and entertainment areas, SF can capture almost all the new revenue from a new football stadium. But the ability of SF to profit from a stadium (in the past or in the future) does not translate to the City of Santa Clara. This City is too small to absorb the benefits; a large amount of the revenues will spill over into San Jose.

I find your summary lacking. SF already benefits heavily from a stadium! You can't expect a massive increase from a new stadium in that city, it can at best feel an increase upon the previous effects. To think that Santa Clara will not feel an impact because SF and SJ are close by...?

The biggest problem is the following view that you offer: " This City is too small to absorb the benefits; a large amount of the revenues will spill over into San Jose."

You're arguing that "a city/area will feel so much impact that it cannot attain its full value". Last time I checked a basic economic idea is that if a city/area is so overflowing in potential, business will JUMP at the chance to reap profits! A city that creates so much impact that it cannot contain is very much the perfect location for businesses of all kinds to take root. Businesses would pour in like a waterfall to seize that type of income and impact.

That's growth! Why let a competing business in San Jose gain profits when there's open land in Santa Clara right next to the source?! It encourages more hotels to build on the SC side of the airport, more retail to be built close to the stadium as well.

By definition "too small to absorb the benefits" means easily attainable impact is available to any business willing to move into the area.

[rjk*49]

Excellent reading, you guys.

[SF_49ers_Kezar]

Sure, you've got the revenue to fund the project but I interject immediately with the following ideas. The team has asked Santa Clara to help fund approximately 20% of the expected 900M-1B in total costs. The method by which Santa Clara has responded has in fact been the cities choice. The team never, ever asked for a method of payment. It has suggested, but it has generally left the city council to explore many options on its own and devise its own plan.

The City of Santa Clara has limited resources and this somewhat restricts it choices for funding; also it must also obtain tax payer approval which affects the possible choices for funding.

The 49ers requested $160M from Santa Clara to assist with the construction of the new stadium; SC is short by $51M; the City cannot provide the requested amount.

Look at the disparity between SF and SC.
The City of Santa Clara has projected it can obtain about $34M over 30 years from a special Hotel charge.
Let’s look at SF and consider a very low 60% hotel occupancy rate with only $1 a day special charge per room:
32,000 (rooms) *0.60 (occupancy rate) *365 (days per year) *$1
We get $7M a year or $210M over 30years. So with no impact to SF tax payers all the monies being requested by the 49ers to build a stadium can be obtained. This shows the significant difference in the tax generation capabilities of these two cities.


But also that Santa Clara has failed in attracting more hotels to build on its side of the airport, something a stadium will do. A stadium should at least attract a new 500-1,000 rooms of hotels and motels in anticipation of getting better location for stadium events and expected increased tourism.

Well there are no hotels next to Candlestick after 48 years; I do not believe that AT&T Park has led to any new Hotels. There are sufficient (at least 8) hotels along the light rail line in San Jose; so an inventory of rooms already exists (so inventory in SJ results in no revenue in SC). Existing SJ hotels can just drop there price on slow weekend (XMAS, Thanksgiving) and this will limit growth in SC.

In fact, the county is heavily, heavily in favor of a stadium. So much so that I used an adjective twice. The business groups all want it, the nearby cities all want it, and the county authority is in favor of one. At one point it seemed inevitable that the city could easily work and coax its way into a 10M-20M county subsidy through taxes, business taxes, and extremely low cost bonds sold by big local corporations to help fund the stadium. The region is LOVING the idea of a stadium but the city has not even dared to ask for a little nudge to help make it happen. A stadiums impact across SJ and nearby cities in terms of economic impact alone over 30 years easily makes a 10M-20M payment a laughable investment compared to the huge expected returns.

You are making one of major points: the impact to other Cites in Santa Clara County is large; and I believe much much larger then the impact to the City of Santa Clara. So much so, that I used the same adjective twice. Of course SJ is all for the Santa Clara stadium project; this increases tax revenues in their City with no investment. All the businesses in SJ, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Milpitas, etc will benefit; but the return to SC is miniscule from the dollars spent outside it borders.

Santa Clara
If a dollar is spent in the City of Santa Clara, then Santa Clara gets 1 cent of the sales tax and must split another ½ cent with the County of Santa Clara. But a lot of the purchases (food, gas, etc) will occur in surrounding Cities; so SC will get almost nothing from these purchases. (Santa Clara portion’s of the County tax of 0.5 cents is about 1/17).

SF can keep all 1.5 cents per dollar spent as it is both a City and County. Since it is the only city in the County it does not have to share the County portion.


San Francisco already has a stadium that draws fans. All of the eatery, retail and bar impact will barely change as opposed to a city not having a team suddenly gaining one. San Francisco stands to have the same impact but with possibly 10k more fans. Santa Clara stands to gain 7 times that number! I can only imagine you're instead arguing the point against Santa Clara's costs as well.


SF is now losing money on Candlestick; all $5M per year in rent is lost, plus continued maintenance costs (like fixing broken escalators). SF will continue to lose money from about 2006 through at least 2012. Also there is the $20M to demolish the stadium. There are zero extra events at Candlestick. Many posters on this board state that extra events make big money (they can at least move the NCAA bowl game from AT&T to the new stadium). So SF is missing out on other events besides football; missing out on possible revenue for new luxury suites, missing out on parking revenue in the future.

You're arguing that "a city/area will feel so much impact that it cannot attain its full value". Last time I checked a basic economic idea is that if a city/area is so overflowing in potential, business will JUMP at the chance to reap profits! A city that creates so much impact that it cannot contain is very much the perfect location for businesses of all kinds to take root. Businesses would pour in like a waterfall to seize that type of income and impact.

That's growth! Why let a competing business in San Jose gain profits when there's open land in Santa Clara right next to the source?! It encourages more hotels to build on the SC side of the airport, more retail to be built close to the stadium as well.

By definition "too small to absorb the benefits" means easily attainable impact is available to any business willing to move into the area.

I do not believe there will be construction boom because of a football stadium open 10 days (maybe a few more per year). Looking at AT&T today which has about 100 events a year; there are only 3 places across the street for entertainment/bars (one went out of business last year – then re-opened). The area around AT&T is bolstered by the Biotech companies and many condos … yet these businesses still struggle.

One of my key points is that there is significant infrastructure and business already existing in the Cites surrounding Santa Clara:

Many restaurants, bars, and jazz clubs already in exist in San Jose; these will limit or compete with SC. Most of these SJ businesses are less than 5 miles to the proposed stadium and on the light rail line.
Hotels already exist, and games in November & December (when hotels are slow) will be a windfall to SJ.
Fans that are on their way to games will stop to buy sandwiches, beverages, other items; but most of this will result in Sales Tax revenue going to surrounding cites.


For a Super Bowl which is a week long event, SC will not see as large a cash infusion as SF or SJ. Most fans would stay in SF or SJ for the whole week; maybe some media and players in SC.

The team will still be called the “San Francisco 49ers”; if they win a Super Bowl the parade would be on Market Street in SF. When there is a blimp overhead, there will still be shots of the Golden Gate and Coit Tower. I do not believe there are any tangible benefits in regards to name recognition for SC.

[TheWiz]

The 49ers requested $160M from Santa Clara to assist with the construction of the new stadium; SC is short by $51M; the City cannot provide the requested amount.

Those figures are incorrect. The team did ask for 160M but Santa Clara sees the investment as 221-222M. That's because of the money it will take to finance the parking garage. The city in its feasibility report indicated up to 136M in RDA funds and bonds and 35M from expected hotel taxes.


Look at the disparity between SF and SC.
The City of Santa Clara has projected it can obtain about $34M over 30 years from a special Hotel charge.
Let’s look at SF and consider a very low 60% hotel occupancy rate with only $1 a day special charge per room:
32,000 (rooms) *0.60 (occupancy rate) *365 (days per year) *$1
We get $7M a year or $210M over 30years. So with no impact to SF tax payers all the monies being requested by the 49ers to build a stadium can be obtained. This shows the significant difference in the tax generation capabilities of these two cities.

Not sure what point you are trying to make. All you can prove there is that San Francisco has more potential financing for a stadium. But it's also San Francisco. After all the team has done for that city it the residents have scratched and clawed and litigated their way to prevent even 100M coming back to the team in bonds. Newsome has absolutely no political climate to get any sort of city financing. The reason why a hotel tax even works is because SC hotels are much cheaper than the bigger cities, they can take on extra cost and still have excellent rates by comparison.

But one is also completely overlooking all of the other options. As I've argued, the city can in fact expect more income on its power utility as time goes on. Even in the most pessimistic, tapping a small slice of that huge surplus right now stil won't effect rates for nearly 2 decades at which point they'd still be cheaper than everywhere else. Cities also have used penny taxes previously. For example, charge a $.01 tax per gallon of fuel on saturdays. If the residents don't want to pay, buy gas another day. Only willing Santa Clara residents or outsiders would pay the whopping 13 to 20 cents for a tank. The city could add funding by pursuing a traffic surcharge, lopping a $2 charge on every ticket a local cop issues for traffic violations. Don't want to pay? Obey the law! Cities fund all manner of projects from schools to libraries with numerous, 'painless' little charges like this that no one can really complain about.


Well there are no hotels next to Candlestick after 48 years; I do not believe that AT&T Park has led to any new Hotels. There are sufficient (at least 8) hotels along the light rail line in San Jose; so an inventory of rooms already exists (so inventory in SJ results in no revenue in SC). Existing SJ hotels can just drop there price on slow weekend (XMAS, Thanksgiving) and this will limit growth in SC.

Of course there aren't. There really isn't the best land of location to build when and secondly, why do so way out on the water when right down the bay is the airport? Now, you can't tell me there hasn't been any hotels built between the stadium and the airport in 48 years. The fact is that building on the santa clara side to try and attract more stadium patrons is very much a tactic that a hotel would consider. Otherwise, why would they build close to great america, a place that has noise and lights going all hours of the night in the summer?


You are making one of major points: the impact to other Cites in Santa Clara County is large; and I believe much much larger then the impact to the City of Santa Clara. So much so, that I used the same adjective twice. Of course SJ is all for the Santa Clara stadium project; this increases tax revenues in their City with no investment. All the businesses in SJ, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Milpitas, etc will benefit; but the return to SC is miniscule from the dollars spent outside it borders.

And do you think that San Francisco is the only city to benefit from having the 49ers? You don't think that Santa Clara and a dozen cities in between haven't benefited from the regional impact and societal impact with charities and tourism in the entire region? Regional businesses doing well means your city doing well. How many cities do you find that are surrounded by regional growth that somehow is suffering? What's good for a county or region is good for everyone in that county or region. You're right, SJ will get an increase, but not as much as Santa Clara itself will. That's an increase in value that will filter into home prices and rents. Just out of curiousity, how much does SC pay for the airport or how much did it invest in the SJ Sharks franchise? Those are SJ attractions clearly benefitting SC in a similar way that you guys got for free.


Santa Clara
If a dollar is spent in the City of Santa Clara, then Santa Clara gets 1 cent of the sales tax and must split another ½ cent with the County of Santa Clara. But a lot of the purchases (food, gas, etc) will occur in surrounding Cities; so SC will get almost nothing from these purchases. (Santa Clara portion’s of the County tax of 0.5 cents is about 1/17).

SF can keep all 1.5 cents per dollar spent as it is both a City and County. Since it is the only city in the County it does not have to share the County portion.

I honestly don't even get what you're talking about.


SF is now losing money on Candlestick; all $5M per year in rent is lost, plus continued maintenance costs (like fixing broken escalators). SF will continue to lose money from about 2006 through at least 2012. Also there is the $20M to demolish the stadium. There are zero extra events at Candlestick. Many posters on this board state that extra events make big money (they can at least move the NCAA bowl game from AT&T to the new stadium). So SF is missing out on other events besides football; missing out on possible revenue for new luxury suites, missing out on parking revenue in the future.

No, no, and no. The city itself paid ZIP. ZERO. NADA. On maintenance for over 3 years. It pocketed the 49ers lease money and spent it elsewhere. The city is a victim of its own actions. The team sued the city to get back less than 2/3rds of the rent money so they could actually use it on the stadium. But problems, like the elevators, which could've been fixed cheaply and timely in 2004 wasn't fixed and only broken more severely and now costs more to fix. The city built Candelstick, it's their job to maintain it. If it's busted and crumbling, it's their fault.

There is no cost to demolish the stadium. Who says it even needs to be demolished? By the way, the city has gotten about 20 years out of Kezar and over 40 in a 2 sport stadium out of 138M in investment in the 49ers. The city has gotten massive economic impact, multiple titles, and done it while giving very little back to the team. You don't think that in over 50 years the team hasn't returned at least 158M in value to the city? That's barely over 3M per year.


I do not believe there will be construction boom because of a football stadium open 10 days (maybe a few more per year). Looking at AT&T today which has about 100 events a year; there are only 3 places across the street for entertainment/bars (one went out of business last year – then re-opened). The area around AT&T is bolstered by the Biotech companies and many condos … yet these businesses still struggle.

Just out of curiousity, how many people drive by AT&T on a leisurely stroll? Is it next to a golf course? An amusement park? A major airport? It's on the water, at the tip of a peninsula, away from the bulk of the city! Sure 80 is right there and it's a trip up 3rd St. It's built just east of the middle of the city, just south of the financial district. Where the heck do you expect a mall or a shopping center to pop up? Oh, how about the massive housing development and markets planned for the region just W and NW of Hunter's Point? How can you really compare a team built right on the water with water barriers to the south, east, and northeast and a massive highway shortly to its west and northwest to attract a lot of business? It's not a place anyone goes for commerce in the first place and there's a dirth of places to build.

Also, you know what, I'm wrong. The part where I said biotech companies built next to an NFL stadium would thrive, strike it from the record.


One of my key points is that there is significant infrastructure and business already existing in the Cites surrounding Santa Clara:

Many restaurants, bars, and jazz clubs already in exist in San Jose; these will limit or compete with SC. Most of these SJ businesses are less than 5 miles to the proposed stadium and on the light rail line.
Hotels already exist, and games in November & December (when hotels are slow) will be a windfall to SJ.
Fans that are on their way to games will stop to buy sandwiches, beverages, other items; but most of this will result in Sales Tax revenue going to surrounding cites.


Well, sheesh, let's give up now! Clearly no business could ever thrive in Santa Clara. How does a bar stay open when there are some 5 miles away in San Jose? Santa Clara may as well give up selling liquor licenses. And the new grocery store, heck, forget that, people can drive to another city completely and buy food there. No businesses could ever survive with that fierce competition!

Are you aware that if you build a store, bar, or location, people who are commuting 5 miles or 10 miles to the other nearest one will stop doing so? Stadiums in many other major cities move in and poof, bars, stores, shopping malls, all spring up around them. It doesn't matter if there's a big mall in San Jose 10 miles away. Build one closer with newer, flashier stores and closer and more Santa Clarans will stay and shop there and you know what, it will bring some San Joseans along to see what it's all about.


For a Super Bowl which is a week long event, SC will not see as large a cash infusion as SF or SJ. Most fans would stay in SF or SJ for the whole week; maybe some media and players in SC.

Sure, but they'll miss the point. When Jacksonville had a superbowl, boring as the city is, the celebration weren't in Tampa. Amazingly the NFL sponsored events, the hoopla, the media day, etc all would be in Santa Clara. Not San Francisco. So they can stay in a San Jose hotel but they'd be walking around and seeing Santa Clara and eating and buying in Santa Clara.

As for cash infusion, are you nuts? Let's just break this down. The costs for the stadium would be barely effected. A lot of the costs are annual costs very highly independant of the games. Things like overhead operations costs, non game day security, maintenance that is a bigger result of weather than fans or stadium usage, etc. That's a guaranteed packed stadium. The tickets? They sell at much higher rates and that's more ticket taxes that pay off the bonds. It's more parking and concessions income for the city. It's hours and hours of free national advertising and NFLN cameras. I think you're of a very, very different mind on this viewpoint. But the city actually accounts for zero, ZERO playoff contests in its projections, just 8 regular season games at average attendance for an ~8-8 club and 2 preseason contests. Add in the increasingly large profit margins because more contests tend to cost less and the city actually can make several million from us getting homefield and playing 2 playoff games at home or a Superbowl.


The team will still be called the “San Francisco 49ers”; if they win a Super Bowl the parade would be on Market Street in SF. When there is a blimp overhead, there will still be shots of the Golden Gate and Coit Tower. I do not believe there are any tangible benefits in regards to name recognition for SC.

Sure. When the Patriots win they go through Boston. They've not even the Boston Patriots. The Giants went through Manhattan. Chances are that the ticker tape and cadillacs would go through San Francisco, yes. But the Patriots also hold a celebration in Foxboro, the Giants held events at the Meadowlands. The 49ers would still hav a nice parade down Tasman Ave. most likely for fans to actually meet the players outside team headquarters, etc. The banner? Would hang in Santa Clara stadium. The trophy would sit in Santa Clara. Santa Clarans would be a few minutes drive from sitting outside the 49ers gates and getting the signatures and shaking hands with Superbowl champions. San Francisco gets press for one day, Santa Clara now gets it on game days.