In Response To The Mayor's Newest Offer

[TheWiz]

Amidst the hoopla and the recent events of the end of the season and the release of 2 assistant coaches from the club has been the newest stadium developments. I invite eeveryone to go read the articles on the topic on the 49erswebzone when you get a chance.

The fact is that even the city has given up on Candlestick. With the acknowledgement that building a record sized garage in wetlands was a crap shoot, they've gone other directions. Despite claims all autumn that Candlestick Point won't require extensive utility and infrastructure changes and that 20k fans would want to bus in from across the city to a game, they've changed heart.

Instead their best offer is now Hunter's point, which the team studied and shot down nearly 2 years ago as a viable site. The land on which the stadium proposal would resides won't be cleaned up until 2011 according to the Navy. Yet the mayor claims he can force the Navy to get it done earlier. Sure there wouldn't be Candlestick Point construction, but even recently high levels of toxins were found in Hunter Points sewage lines. Sure it has the space, if you don't mind never drinking the water or a parking lot that may glow at night. Not to mention it places the team on a plot of land just as volatile as Candlestick Point.

The city acknowledges now that Candlestick point will result in construction delays, a lack of tailgaiting space, and a risky construction plan requiring a massive parking garage on soft land that could be delayed by years. Instead they 'promise' we can start building in 2009, plenty of parking space despite the scary water problem, while still building in San Francisco. It's like telling a waiter that glass is obviously dirty and having him return with a clean glass and filling it with brown water to drink. It's a political shim-sham. Now the city can claim it offered the team a secondary site that has plenty of open parking space. Then they can throw the ill-will in our direction once we turn it down because it's still a building-schedule risk and even worse for traffic access. They'll say we're changing stories and using excuses to leave the city, we don't deserve to be 49ers, and to boost political rancor against us.

In return we've hired a political activist to pitch the idea to Santa Clara who helped the Giants get their stadium built, a lobbyist to shoot down the political machinations of the mayors office and political bay area backlash, and soon a public relations firm to handle the inevitable mud slinging the Mayor will do to save face. He will eventually go down as the mayor who let the stadium leave town and he'll do anything to look 're-electable' while it happens. He will try to make us look back and make him look like a victim just to keep his office.

However, Hunters Point is nothing special. We can build in Santa Clara without disruptions at Candlestick Point. There is much, much better highway and rail access to Santa Clara than Hunter's Point. Santa Clara has no environmental or building risks that could cause delays in construction. Not to mention the overall surroundings in Santa Clara are a world better than San Francisco. In Santa Clare you've got a theme park next door, restaurants and an ampitheatre to be build nearby, and possible condos in the vicinity. Hotels may even spring up. It's a darned goodplace for a California family to spend both Saturday and Sunday from preseason through October and even then it's an attractive area. Heck, even San Francisco is a short drive away if they want to see Rail Cars and taste seaside cuisine.

Now the city has positioned itself to look good. The team is looking once again at Hunter's point but every press release shows us digging in with Santa Clara. Local elections aside the team will be pressing hard for Santa Clara approval by the end of January and early February on the land and a full stadium and development proposal will soon follow.

Just to throw one more idea out there, read the recent interview with Denise Debartolo-York. For those who label the ownership as even being cheap in the past, you'll be impressed. Ownership not only has given a blank check policy to our front office this offseason. They're also committed to perhaps investing more of their private money as owners in a new stadium than any ball club in NFL history. I'm talking over 600M of the 600M-800M price tag the Santa Clara location requires.

[AlaskaNinersFan]

Fascinating stuff thanks for letting us in on the news.

[tumbleweed]

Santa Clara is definately the best choice. The transportation issue alone makes it worthwhile not to mention the parking and tailgating. The sooner the better!

[majesstik1]

Thanks for the heads up Wiz.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Sounds like good news.

I don't have a problem what so ever with the 49ers playing in Santa Clara, so as long as they remain the San Francisco 49ers.

I also hope that the stadium we get is a nice looking stadium. I'd like to be thouroughly more impressed than I was with the stadium plans we were shown this summer. While it might be nicer than Candlestick, it does seem like a pretty generic design.

All in all, I really hope this gets done. I love Candlestick to death, but we need a new park. Santa Clara will be very effective for traffic getting in and out of the stadium, something I can't say for the Stick.

[birdman7389]

If we are getting a new stadium....d needs to be baddarse, and state of the art!

Look at Arizona, and the new Cowboys stadium......thats what I'm talking about!

[Hopper15]

This should be in the goldmine.

[jeffc]

I agree the SF Mayor bringing Hunter's Point up again is just window dressing to try to save some face when the 49ers leave SF. Both Candlestick Point and Hunter's point have multiple problems which have already been raised, but here's a summary:

Candlestick:

1. Distant parking lot on wetlands with little or no tailgating as a result.
2. Remote parking lots and buses to stadium during construction. Again a lack of tailgating.

Hunters Point:

1. EPA SuperFund (toxic waste) site. Expensive and time-consuming to clean up.
2. No existing highway access. Would need half billion dollar roadways built to it, basically doubling the cost of the stadium.
3. Lots of parking, if you like some cancer with your tailgating.

Santa Clara:

1. Three highways and two rail lines already converge there. Existing 6 lane roads.
2. Existing hotels, convention center, resturants, theme park already there.
3. Not much parking unless built on new development out by highway 237 instead of in the Great America parking lot.

In addition Santa Clara and adjacent San Mateo Counties each have more than double the season ticket holders of San Francisco. A newspaper article said 20% for each South Bay county (40% total) versus 8% in SF. For comparison, Sacramento County also has 8% of the season ticket holders.

One can see why the NFL commissioner reportedly called the Santa Clara location a "no brainer" for a new stadium.

[ckirby96]

Candlestick is a dump and Hunter's Point doesn't sound too appealing, but I hope the Niners figure out a way to remain in SF. So much tradition there.

One thought occurred to me as an alternative site is the location where Bay Meadows stands today. I know the city of San Mateo was considering shutting it down for housing, but wouldn't that be a great site for a new stadium? It has freeway access, a Caltrain stop, and is a good central location for fans coming both from the City and the South Bay.

Just some food for thought. :pigfly:

[sosaucy408]

i hope we stay in s.f. but i'm from santa clara so im all for it as long as the name stays the same. either way, playoffs next year!

[ftn49]

Instead their best offer is now Hunter's point, which the team studied and shot down nearly 2 years ago as a viable site. The land on which the stadium proposal would resides won't be cleaned up until 2011 according to the Navy. Yet the mayor claims he can force the Navy to get it done earlier. Sure there wouldn't be Candlestick Point construction, but even recently high levels of toxins were found in Hunter Points sewage lines. Sure it has the space, if you don't mind never drinking the water or a parking lot that may glow at night. Not to mention it places the team on a plot of land just as volatile as Candlestick Point.


Kind of off topic a little bit but the enriched Uranium that the navy uses for there reactors doesn't glow, or cause things to.

I have heard civilian plants fuel rods do glow, but I couldn't tell you that for sure, just letting you know, Im sure you wanted to.:wink:

[statniner]

In Santa Clara:

There's 101 and 280 closeby.

There is a lightrail closeby, you just need to walk from the planned stadium.

The planned stadium is surrounded by several hotels and inns, Santa Clara convention center, and plenty of business type of buildings.

There is not a lot of housing around the planned stadium.

I stick with Santa Clara.

I am a-likin' The Yorks.

I am not liking Gavin Newsom. Why does he focus on building an infrastracture when there are a lot of homeless people right in front of him asking for help?

[Smith2Battle]

Thnx alot for the post. Goes to show that the Yorks have the best interest of this team in mind and that they really want to bring back the glory. We shouldnt be so quick to judge them in the future on this topic since the city of SF is obviously the one to blame for the setbacks on this issue. The Yorks are trying everything they can to keep the team in SF and they have to have the Santa Clara option to show SF they mean business. It is horrible to think that SF would rather play politics than make a serious attempt to keep this team, and then like toddlers refuse to let the team keep its name if it does go to Santa Clara. The city of SF obviously does not care about the fans.....the Yorks do.

[Sf49rminer]

Very interesting explanation on the politics. My old boss has impressed upon me the importance in staying involved in knowing what's going on around you. I think this perfectly illustrates that point. Know who your electing people!

[markiemarko]

Hunters Point/Baywiew district is approximately in the same area as Candlestick Point is....the neighborhood that surrounds Monster Park/Candlestick point is Hunters Point...

[SoCal49er]

I came across this article on the niners website about SB49 that the state senator Carol Migden is trying to pass up there in SF. I tried to go to her website and look it up, but of course there's nothing on it referring to SB49. Can anyone give me some in-depth detail about it? I don't live up there so its hard to find articles talking about city affairs. Thanks.

http://www.sf49ers.com/pressbox/news_detail.php?PRKey=2738&section=PR%20News

I urge everyone to call Ms. Migden and voice your displeasure. She can be reached here:
http://dist03.casen.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=NONE&SEC=

[arch]

I don't know. I think a glowing parking lot during those sunday and monday night games would be awesome

[sanctified]

I came across this article on the niners website about SB49 that the state senator Carol Migden is trying to pass up there in SF. I tried to go to her website and look it up, but of course there's nothing on it referring to SB49. Can anyone give me some in-depth detail about it? I don't live up there so its hard to find articles talking about city affairs. Thanks.

http://www.sf49ers.com/pressbox/news_detail.php?PRKey=2738&section=PR%20News

I urge everyone to call Ms. Migden and voice your displeasure. She can be reached here:
http://dist03.casen.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=NONE&SEC=
Yes, someone please fill us in. Based on the article, SB49 seems like a moronic attempt to force the team to stay in San Francisco--a move that just smacks of legislators overstepping their bounds. How would Migden and the bill's supporters feel if the team had to leave the region all together? (Mind you, I don't know if that's even a possible ramification should the bill be enacted.)

[Hopper15]

The 49ers are staying in SF, York is just using SC as a scare tactic like most predicted.

A plan is being formed for a new stadium at a new site in SF that is well thought out and which will start being built late 2009.

http://www.mercurynews.com/images/mercurynews/mercurynews/16382/268380505772.jpg

[sanctified]

The 49ers are staying in SF, York is just using SC as a scare tactic like most predicted.

A plan is being formed for a new stadium at a new site in SF that is well thought out and which will start being built late 2009.

http://www.mercurynews.com/images/mercurynews/mercurynews/16382/268380505772.jpg
How's the infrastructure there? I ask having absolutely zero knowledge of the area, only noticing that your post is in direct opposition to TheWiz's.

[Hopper15]

How's the infrastructure there? I ask having absolutely zero knowledge of the area, only noticing that your post is in direct opposition to TheWiz's.


It's serviceable that's all I know.

[markiemarko]

it still will suck if its located at hunters point shipyard, the traffic will still suck with 64,000 plus fans leaving the stadium with limited access to the freeways and the streets of SF will be clogged with traffic...not every one would want to take public transportation in that neighborhood....I can see alot of muggings and crime going on after games...

[Niner Jan]

The 49ers are staying in SF, York is just using SC as a scare tactic like most predicted.

A plan is being formed for a new stadium at a new site in SF that is well thought out and which will start being built late 2009.

SAYS WHO? I don't believe it! Santa Clara is a 100 times better a site for a new stadium than swampy, stinky, polluted SF.

[BY97]

The 49ers are staying in SF, York is just using SC as a scare tactic like most predicted.

A plan is being formed for a new stadium at a new site in SF that is well thought out and which will start being built late 2009.

http://www.mercurynews.com/images/mercurynews/mercurynews/16382/268380505772.jpg
So you found a drawing, cool. It means nothing. The fact is, this is nothing more than wishfull thinking by SF. Hunter's point is a nightmare. The Yorks are working with Santa Clara. They were patient with SF for a very long time. There is no scare tacic. This is real.

[Hopper15]

So you found a drawing, cool. It means nothing. The fact is, this is nothing more than wishfull thinking by SF. Hunter's point is a nightmare. The Yorks are working with Santa Clara. They were patient with SF for a very long time. There is no scare tacic. This is real.

I'm not worried I'm confindent the new stadium will be built in SF.

[AlaskaNinersFan]

Jets and Giants play in jersey,Cowboys play in irving...Who the hell cares if we move half an hour down the road.Just get it done!

[Giedi]

I'm not worried I'm confindent the new stadium will be built in SF.

Me too. Nancy, the new speaker of the house, says that too. Heh.

Giedi

[Roaring Back]

Cheerleading the Santa Clara proposal will not make it happen people. If it requires public financing, and it does, it will not happen. York is using Santa Clara the same way Bob Lurie and Lew Wolff did. It's a precidented bargaining gambit to get the city of SF's attention. Hopefully it will work.

[markiemarko]

Cheerleading the Santa Clara proposal will not make it happen people. If it requires public financing, and it does, it will not happen. York is using Santa Clara the same way Bob Lurie and Lew Wolff did. It's a precidented bargaining gambit to get the city of SF's attention. Hopefully it will work.

Doesnt sound like cheerleading to me....
http://www.insidebayarea.com/49ers/ci_4955030

The San Francisco 49ers are asking Santa Clara leaders for a six-month courtship to explore how the city and the team could jointly finance a stadium, before deciding whether to enter a long-term relationship in which the city would own the building and lease it to the team.
In a letter to Mayor Patricia Mahan and the City Council Thursday, the 49ers laid out a series of "guiding principles" for how to get a 68,000-seat stadium built on city-owned land next to Great America. Chief among them: no new taxes for Santa Clara residents, and no net cost to the city's general fund. However, the deal would require some form of public investment.

Public finacing will happen whether the stadium is built in SC of SF.....

[matineematt]

Migden's SB49 is about to illustrate for us the Law of Unintended Consequences. If a team can't move within a 100 mile radius, it will likely move a lot further away, depriving the very people the proposed law is trying to protect. Sloppy staff work if you ask me.

[pin0yb0i]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/05/BAG12NDCEK1.DTL

The San Francisco 49ers next week will ask the city of Santa Clara to spend six months studying the possibility of jointly building a 68,000-seat stadium.

Team officials pledged Thursday that building the $600 million to $800 million project won't cost taxpayers, but they insisted they have no firm ideas on how the stadium will ultimately be financed.

They said the potential South Bay stadium site -- currently used as the parking lot for the Great America amusement park -- solves parking concerns that surfaced with earlier proposals to build at San Francisco's Candlestick Point. In Santa Clara, the team says nearby office building lots could host tailgaters and fans because the offices are typically closed on game days.

[markiemarko]

I posted a similar article earlier, but it will probably get lost with the other posts in that thread....

http://forums.49ers.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=15642&page=3

post
http://forums.49ers.com/messageboard/showpost.php?p=461265&postcount=30

[San_Fran_49ers]

http://cbs5.com/sports/local_story_005121250.html

The team would still be called the "San Francisco 49ers," though Santa Clara is about 45 miles south of San Francisco.

Not a bad article, not a whole lot of info but still a pretty good read.

[pin0yb0i]

also, here's a copy of the actual letter that the 49ers sent santa clara if you want to read it in full..

http://bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia/mn/sports/archive/49ersmahanletter.pdf

[Joe Montana]

I would vote for a new state of the art football stadium on Hunters Point but only if the cleanup was done and in a timely manner so it didn't effect the completion date. To me, Santa Clara is... Santa Clara. Nothing wrong with it but it is NOT San Francisco and IMO you could not beat a new waterfront stadium in SanFrancisco. Prior to Pac Bell being built, it was a disaster area down there but it has been great. To me, the fact of a Santa Clara site being in Santa Clara outweighs the other problems that may come with a new stadium in San Francisco.
If the Niners can get it done in SF, I hope they do.

[sandiegojoe]

the only way I see Hunters point happening is if Newsome somehow makes it more financially appealing to the Yorks. It's a tough sell.

I'm not too sure how Newsome thinks he can get the Navy cleanup accelerated for one thing. He'd have to hire private contractors to handle the remediation. The Navy isn't just gonna shift budget spending of superfund to hunters point cause Gavin wants a stadium. (If they did, they'd be facing lawsuits from all sorts of groups for diverting resources from other superfund projects)

The only way I could see it happening is if the city of SF sued the Navy for not cleaning up HP in a timely matter (but even that would take years)

Toxic waste dump or not.. No matter how dirty HP is, it can be cleaned up and made perfectly safe. The only two questions are cost and time. There are bound to be numerous lawsuits, permitting issues, soil, groundwater, and soil-gas testing, soil removal, remediation, groundwater cleanup.

I'd expect them to do a bunch of removals and then cap off the entire area where the stadium is to be built, and have ongoing remediation for years to come. There is likely a way to make the stadium "safe" while the cleanup of contaminated groundwater occurs for years after it opens (they have pump and treat systems that could run monday through Saturday, and be shut off on sunday for the games). The groundwater below the stadium could be dirty, but the "cap" below the stadium would prevent contaminated gasses from getting to the fans while the treatment was still underway.

I work as an environmental consultant and see this type of stuff done on small scale sites, but don't know if anything this large has been done on such a tight timeframe in recent history.

Like anything, if you throw enough money at it, you can make it work, but financially, the City would HAVE TO help out financially to do it. They could sue the navy afterwards for reimbursement, but it's still gonna be an ugly mess for SF.

But if they're willing to do it.....

[Roaring Back]

I wonder where Great America patrons will park. In a garage?

Hmm, what about on Sundays in the fall? Sundays are popular days for amusement parks.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

The 49ers are staying in SF, York is just using SC as a scare tactic like most predicted.

A plan is being formed for a new stadium at a new site in SF that is well thought out and which will start being built late 2009.


Bah, hah, hah, ha.

That is the funnyiest post I've seen on the board in a long time.

There has been a wealth of information posted both here as well as printed in local papers which totally refutes this position.

For starters, the Niners can not "stay in SF" since they are NOT LOCATED in SF. Team head quarters have been located in Santa Clara for nearly 20 years. Anyone trying to convince you the team is moving is simply using scare tactics by misreporting the facts to confuse the issue and obscure the truth.

What are they trying to hide? They are trying to hide the fact that SF politicians have blown this deal completely. After a decade of failed negotiations, combined with poor maintenance of the existing stadium and decaying infrastructure at Candlestick point, the Niners recently announced they are now interested in building a new stadium in Santa Clara, directly across the street from the current team headquarters.

The team specifically stated there are no plans to move the team outside of the SF Bay Area nor will they change the team's name. Attempts to suggest a team name change are simply more scare tactics and diversions.

Those are the facts people. Please understand them and avoid posting incorrect data, misinformation or distortion. You're welcome to post opinion, but do not attempt to represent your opinion as FACTS. There are many people who come to these boards seeking truth - not lies.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Ok, well I was wrong. :thud: There is something even funnier in this thread.:laugh:

The very idea of a city mayor thinking he can force the United States Navy to change their plans and accomodate his own personal time schedule is freaking hysterical!

Owww. It hurts. Cut it out Gavin, you're killing me.... :falldownlaugh:



(Yeah, yeah, I too read the story where some Navy PR guy supposedly said it was "possible". But you and I all know the rest of the sentence muttered sotto voice was "but highly unlikely".:pigfly: )

[Hopper15]

Bah, hah, hah, ha.

That is the funnyiest post I've seen on the board in a long time.

There has been a wealth of information posted both here as well as printed in local papers which totally refutes this position.

For starters, the Niners can not "stay in SF" since they are NOT LOCATED in SF. Team head quarters have been located in Santa Clara for nearly 20 years. Anyone trying to convince you the team is moving is simply using scare tactics by misreporting the facts to confuse the issue and obscure the truth.

What are they trying to hide? They are trying to hide the fact that SF politicians have blown this deal completely. After a decade of failed negotiations, combined with poor maintenance of the existing stadium and decaying infrastructure at Candlestick point, the Niners recently announced they are now interested in building a new stadium in Santa Clara, directly across the street from the current team headquarters.

The team specifically stated there are no plans to move the team outside of the SF Bay Area nor will they change the team's name. Attempts to suggest a team name change are simply more scare tactics and diversions.

Those are the facts people. Please understand them and avoid posting incorrect data, misinformation or distortion. You're welcome to post opinion, but do not attempt to represent your opinion as FACTS. There are many people who come to these boards seeking truth - not lies.


If that was the case then the team would of already be in Santa Clara.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

If that was the case then the team would of already be in Santa Clara.

They already ARE in Santa Clara. Look up the address for team head quarters. Team players report for work 5 days a week to facilities located in Santa Clara. They RENT a stadium from the City of San Francisco to play in for ONLY 10 days per year.

(Unless of course they earn a few home games in the post season ....)

[Kezar Niner]

I find it very comical that Newsome threw Hunters Point into the mix. They are pretty much asking the 49ers to clean up their mess. To dump their private money and take out loans to pretty up the butthole of San Francisco. They are asking the 49ers to pay for HP's sex change and plastic surgery, lol.

[First to hit 6]

i dont care where they go please stay as san francisco 49ers

[matineematt]

They will stay the SF 49ers. Check out supportourniners.com for the principles for the new stadium. This point is more fully explained there.

[ethanh]

I believe the 49ers are very serious about moving to SC and I wish they would think twice. The AT&T park in SF is the jewel of baseball and it took some gutsy moves to make it happen back in 99. The area now has completly had a face lift. SC may be the easier move but in the long run they are moving from a major city area on the water and into the San Jose suburbs.(Those rail lines go the San Jose not SF)

I have walked around the Great America Parking lot and have questioned the amount of space there. They are goingt to need a parking garage which is in the plan. It is only supposed to be for Great America patrons but it is right next to the stadium so come on. Also the fact that people are going to park in buisness corporation lots around the site does not sound like tailgate time to me.

I see the plans of Hunters Point and am impressed and hope that the area could one day look like that. It may not be the 49ers job to help but they could be a part of something like what the SF Giants did. The fact remains if you leave SF you are going to upset many fans. If you stay you wont.

[grimlock49]

I believe the 49ers are very serious about moving to SC and I wish they would think twice. The AT&T park in SF is the jewel of baseball and it took some gutsy moves to make it happen back in 99. The area now has completly had a face lift. SC may be the easier move but in the long run they are moving from a major city area on the water and into the San Jose suburbs.(Those rail lines go the San Jose not SF)

I have walked around the Great America Parking lot and have questioned the amount of space there. They are goingt to need a parking garage which is in the plan. It is only supposed to be for Great America patrons but it is right next to the stadium so come on. Also the fact that people are going to park in buisness corporation lots around the site does not sound like tailgate time to me.

I see the plans of Hunters Point and am impressed and hope that the area could one day look like that. It may not be the 49ers job to help but they could be a part of something like what the SF Giants did. The fact remains if you leave SF you are going to upset many fans. If you stay you wont.

I won't be upset. Just get me a new stadium.

Look at the Dallas Cowboys new stadium. They moved 30 minutes to Arlington from Dallas. They have played in Irving for a long time and they were still the Dallas Cowboys. Arlington has Six Flags over Texas next to the new stadium as well. I think it is a great idea and a great move.

[TheWiz]

I believe the 49ers are very serious about moving to SC and I wish they would think twice. The AT&T park in SF is the jewel of baseball and it took some gutsy moves to make it happen back in 99. The area now has completly had a face lift. SC may be the easier move but in the long run they are moving from a major city area on the water and into the San Jose suburbs.(Those rail lines go the San Jose not SF)

I have walked around the Great America Parking lot and have questioned the amount of space there. They are goingt to need a parking garage which is in the plan. It is only supposed to be for Great America patrons but it is right next to the stadium so come on. Also the fact that people are going to park in buisness corporation lots around the site does not sound like tailgate time to me.

I see the plans of Hunters Point and am impressed and hope that the area could one day look like that. It may not be the 49ers job to help but they could be a part of something like what the SF Giants did. The fact remains if you leave SF you are going to upset many fans. If you stay you wont.

I would have to disagree about the space involved. First of all, the team is committed to building a fairly large, multi-story parking garage opposite the stadium which will replace the parking lost to Great America.

Keep in mind that it's almost always city regulations, not businesses, that determine parking lot sizes. Based upon a building a size a city official determines maximum occupancy and laws state a certain amount of spaces must be allocated. It's rather ridiculous because most business almost never reach that capacity. While a convenience store could hold up to 30 people and need 20 parking spots, chances are all business is quick and swift and rarely are more than 6 or 7 slots ever filled. Most of these laws are still under contest today since they often create massive lots for the most modest little string of stores. Great America is not much different. It's lot is very big and you can bet no one is regularly choosing to park in the far back corner.

You've got to give the idea of corporate parking some time. It can easily be done. Shuttles can be purchased and staffed that will cost the team very little given their infrequent use. I wouldn't be shocked if part of the proposal involves establishing a city shuttle system adapation for new park events. Also, corporate locations generally won't have any problems. They don't need their full lots on weekends. I'm sure as long as the team hires a cleanup crew and pays a modest percentage of parking fees, most locations will exist. Also, don't forget the possibility of offering the businesses some choice club/luxury seats at a small discount instead.

Another factor is stadium size. The new stadium is designed to be steep, not wide. In order to give best views, much like movie theatres, stadiums are going for steeper seating sections. These allow for better sight lines and generally keep you closer to the field. While 70s and 80s stadiums focused more on leg room by widening out seats, these increased space but moved you further from the field. The new trend increases sight and still has ample foot room.

Overall it won't be an easy agenda but no location for a nearly 70k person stadium will have every parking spot on the site. A parking garage, off-site parking, and a general lot will be needed anywhere.

[meyer65]

It's not that offsite parking can not work: it's that it isn't tailgating (which is one of the main thing the Yorks shoved in our faces aboyut the problem with the Candlestick proposal).
Also, I think it is funny how people think that the traffic problems will be solved if the Niners move. Come on. When you get 70,000 people in the same place, there will be traffic. Ad on the thousands of people that visit Great America on the weekends, and you've just thrown gas on the fire.
What is interesting is the relationship between where people are located and what their poinion is on the Santa Clara stadium. It seems you south bayers are for it, while those of us that live in the City/north bay are against it.

All this being said, I am a hardcore 49ers fan. Sure, I'll drive to Santa Clara every other weekend to watch the games. And I am sure I will love a new stadium. That being said, I would prefer for them to remain in SF. Not only because San Francisco IS the 49ers, but also because it is a hell of a lot more convenient for me.
But hey, I also don;t understand what's wrong with the stadium we have? I'm there to watch football (and see us win, hopefully) and that's it. I could really care less about where tha games are played.

[Bdawg9er]

This really is a no-brainer, Santa Clara is the prime location. After all, the entire organization is already based there, the only thing NOT there is the stadium in which they play. The SF mayor is a philandering moron that slept with his best friends wife, then played the rehab card as his excuse:unsure: for his behavior. The Niners have won 5 Super Bowls, and yet the city continues to crap on them when they ask for a new stadium. What's up with this?? How many World Series pennants have the Giants won while in SF, yet they have a very pretty place to play. I wouldn't blame the Niner organization if they wanted to move the team completely out of the bay area after the continued snubs they are receiving from city hall. This franchise has brought a huge amount of revenue as well as pride to the city of SF, now I think it's past due for the city to pony up and give them a new place to play, and if there is no decent real estate available in SF proper for them to build, then back the move to Santa Clara, it's just down the 101 a bit.....

Thanks for your piece here Wiz!

[ethanh]

The SF mayor is a philandering moron that slept with his best friends wife, then played the rehab card as his excuse:unsure: for his behavior. The Niners have won 5 Super Bowls, and yet the city continues to crap on them when they ask for a new stadium. What's up with this??

So because the Mayor cheated the team should move? That does not make sense and has nothing to do with the 49ers stadium. The only agrgument the 49ers have is that Candlestick has not been maintained properly while renting there. The mall stadium plan was a lemon put forth by the team and city and passed by voters. When it fell apart both sides took the blame and have been working on getting a new one. The SF olympic stadium plan was pulled by the 49ers so one could say the team jerked the city around. As for the santa Clara site being a no-brainer perhapse you should read the proposal when it comes out. You may be backing or voting on a plan that is as bad as the mall. The only no brainer to me: Is the stadium sitting next to an amusement park in SC or on the SF bay? Imagine if the SF Giants had taken that same route.

[4evrnyt]

Amidst the hoopla and the recent events of the end of the season and the release of 2 assistant coaches from the club has been the newest stadium developments. I invite eeveryone to go read the articles on the topic on the 49erswebzone when you get a chance.

The fact is that even the city has given up on Candlestick. With the acknowledgement that building a record sized garage in wetlands was a crap shoot, they've gone other directions. Despite claims all autumn that Candlestick Point won't require extensive utility and infrastructure changes and that 20k fans would want to bus in from across the city to a game, they've changed heart.

Instead their best offer is now Hunter's point, which the team studied and shot down nearly 2 years ago as a viable site. The land on which the stadium proposal would resides won't be cleaned up until 2011 according to the Navy. Yet the mayor claims he can force the Navy to get it done earlier. Sure there wouldn't be Candlestick Point construction, but even recently high levels of toxins were found in Hunter Points sewage lines. Sure it has the space, if you don't mind never drinking the water or a parking lot that may glow at night. Not to mention it places the team on a plot of land just as volatile as Candlestick Point.

The city acknowledges now that Candlestick point will result in construction delays, a lack of tailgaiting space, and a risky construction plan requiring a massive parking garage on soft land that could be delayed by years. Instead they 'promise' we can start building in 2009, plenty of parking space despite the scary water problem, while still building in San Francisco. It's like telling a waiter that glass is obviously dirty and having him return with a clean glass and filling it with brown water to drink. It's a political shim-sham. Now the city can claim it offered the team a secondary site that has plenty of open parking space. Then they can throw the ill-will in our direction once we turn it down because it's still a building-schedule risk and even worse for traffic access. They'll say we're changing stories and using excuses to leave the city, we don't deserve to be 49ers, and to boost political rancor against us.

In return we've hired a political activist to pitch the idea to Santa Clara who helped the Giants get their stadium built, a lobbyist to shoot down the political machinations of the mayors office and political bay area backlash, and soon a public relations firm to handle the inevitable mud slinging the Mayor will do to save face. He will eventually go down as the mayor who let the stadium leave town and he'll do anything to look 're-electable' while it happens. He will try to make us look back and make him look like a victim just to keep his office.

However, Hunters Point is nothing special. We can build in Santa Clara without disruptions at Candlestick Point. There is much, much better highway and rail access to Santa Clara than Hunter's Point. Santa Clara has no environmental or building risks that could cause delays in construction. Not to mention the overall surroundings in Santa Clara are a world better than San Francisco. In Santa Clare you've got a theme park next door, restaurants and an ampitheatre to be build nearby, and possible condos in the vicinity. Hotels may even spring up. It's a darned goodplace for a California family to spend both Saturday and Sunday from preseason through October and even then it's an attractive area. Heck, even San Francisco is a short drive away if they want to see Rail Cars and taste seaside cuisine.

Now the city has positioned itself to look good. The team is looking once again at Hunter's point but every press release shows us digging in with Santa Clara. Local elections aside the team will be pressing hard for Santa Clara approval by the end of January and early February on the land and a full stadium and development proposal will soon follow.

Just to throw one more idea out there, read the recent interview with Denise Debartolo-York. For those who label the ownership as even being cheap in the past, you'll be impressed. Ownership not only has given a blank check policy to our front office this offseason. They're also committed to perhaps investing more of their private money as owners in a new stadium than any ball club in NFL history. I'm talking over 600M of the 600M-800M price tag the Santa Clara location requires.

If the Mayor of Santa Clara wasn't a woman I would have said for sure that this heavily slanted piece finally fished out The Wiz's true identity...

[49ered]

Very cool. Thanks for letting us know.:banana5:

[Iamavictory]

Did the city of San Francisco or its fans raise a fuss when the team built its HQ's in Santa Clara 20-something years ago or whenever it was? Candlestick is a place where the team we love plays its games on Sundays a FEW times out of the year. Don't give me tradition. You want tradition? How about 5 Lombardi trophies and an organization committed to constantly striving to be the best? Did they win any one of the trophies at Candlestick? No. The city of San Francisco should be ashamed of itself for acting like it does. They do not own the organization. I think the team is about fed up with dealing with the city and waiting and waiting and waiting for a new stadium the team and its fans so richly deserve and the fans should be also. As long as the team remains in the Bay Area to play its games and retains its name, fans should be all for it. If people think Hunter's Point is so safe go built your house there. It's not like the NINERS! are packing up and sneaking away in the middle of the night. I now live in NM but I was born and raised in N Ca. I have been to SF many times. I love the city and it is my favorite city in the world. Even so, I love the NINERS! more. Think about it. How long has the organization been trying to get a new stadium built? Now, why do you think it hasn't happened yet? If the city cared about the organization half as much as they would like you to believe, how come the NINERS! were not thought of when Pac Bell was built? I wonder if those fans that so badly want to stay in the city of SF are more fans of the city than they are of the franchise? The muslims have traditions of dominating their women and treating them sub-human. Certain African tribes maul their females genetalia because of tradition. I know those are extreme examples but the point is tradition sometimes needs to be cast off for progress to happen. When that happens you have 2 choices, you can keep your tradition and sacrifice progress, or you can tell tradition farewell and thanks for the memories and start a NEW tradition...the tradition I would like to keep the most is a state of excellence for the San Francisco 49ERS! How about you?

[Roaring Back]

If the city cared about the organization half as much as they would like you to believe, how come the NINERS! were not thought of when Pac Bell was built?

Because the Giants were focused on building a stadium for the Giants.

[ethanh]

. The city of San Francisco should be ashamed of itself for acting like it does. They do not own the organization. I think the team is about fed up with dealing with the city and waiting and waiting and waiting for a new stadium the team and its fans so richly deserve and the fans should be also.

What happened with the stadium plan in the 90's? You can blame SF but the facts remain. And the new plan was cancelled by the 49ers not SF.

The stadium-mall plan that voters approved with two 1997 ballot measures. Proposition D authorized $100 million in revenue bonds to subsidize the project, and Proposition F allowed rezoning of 77 acres for the stadium and mall. That plan, hatched by the 49ers and mall developer and operator Mills Corp., never got off the ground.

Why?

In the late 1990s Eddie DeBartolo, Jr. was involved in a corruption investigation regarding Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards and one of his Mississippi riverboat casinos. DeBartolo later pled guilty to a failure to report a felony charge in 1998. He was suspended from active control of the 49ers for one year. His sister, Denise DeBartolo York, and her husband, Dr. John York, took over operations of the team.
Eddie DeBartolo returned from his suspension in 1999, but a series of lawsuits over control of the family's vast holdings led him to surrender controlling interest to the Yorks as part of a 2000 settlement. Denise York is now chairwoman of the board, while John York is CEO.

[TheWiz]

What happened with the stadium plan in the 90's? You can blame SF but the facts remain. And the new plan was cancelled by the 49ers not SF.

Only partially though Ethanh.

It is often overlooked that the Yorks boughtthe team through a series of annual payments, stocks and options in the family business, and property rights. Debartolo wanted to keep the team in his family and he got the best deal that way. At the time the team had a fledgling coach, a downtrodden stadium, few young stars if any, was in cap Hell, and generally was not worth a whole lot. The Yorks ended up striking a deal that got Eddie fair market value despite the stadium problems and involved a half decade of payments and transfers. Funny enough, it wasn't nearly a year after they ended that suddenly York dished out tens of millions to buy out coaching contracts, has plunked down money to expand weight rooms, a new practice field surface, and since then has largely been viewed as a good owner.

But the team also tried almost two-years ago now to revive the plan. No one stepped up to buy the team along with the massive dollars to also build a new stadium back when Debartolo sold the club. The Yorks sold a lot of assets and value to buy the team over time. Few owners have 1B in their back pocket to buy a team and afford a huge stadium all at once. By the time the team did turnaround and find the finances, Mills Corp. had gone down the drain. So did the overall plan with them and the 100M bond measure that passed by a hair was under contention already. Grassroots liberals rebelled and vowed to make the measure non-transferable.

People are screaming that they want the team to stay. The team played in a relatively cheap Kezar stadium for years and has played in a converted MLB stadium since the early 70s. Yet the people largely were against even a 100M bond measure for a new stadium in the 90s and fought even harder to keep in from being exercised recently. So, while the fans want the team to stay and the mayor needs the team to stay to save face, the average citizen clearly is against any city-based help to get a deal done.

[TheWiz]

If the Mayor of Santa Clara wasn't a woman I would have said for sure that this heavily slanted piece finally fished out The Wiz's true identity...

Heavily slanted? That tends to imply that I biased the facts in some way, which I didn't. Am I in favor of the Santa Clara project? You can bet your socks I am. It is my opinion and my knee jerk response to the city giving a ceremonial and largely long-shot alternative to the team. All the while they put lipstick on the pig and tried to sell it as a beauty queen.

[Peter Proud]

The 'wife', after years of neglect, no responses to pleas for attention, and declining prospects for a future stable/satisfying relationship, files for divorce. The 'husband' after being confronted with the 'wife's' assessment of the situation claims he wasn't aware of her feelings and will now do anything to save the marriage including a new 'diamond ring'. Upon further inspection, the wife finds that the diamond is really a circonian, it's surface is damaged, and it doesn't include thew mounting. But that's not all, the man wants her to pay for it because he lacks credit.

I think that's a fair assessment of the situation of the 49ers/City of San Francisco.

[TheWiz]

The 'wife', after years of neglect, no responses to pleas for attention, and declining prospects for a future stable/satisfying relationship, files for divorce. The 'husband' after being confronted with the 'wife's' assessment of the situation claims he wasn't aware of her feelings and will now do anything to save the marriage including a new 'diamond ring'. Upon further inspection, the wife finds that the diamond is really a circonian, it's surface is damaged, and it doesn't include thew mounting. But that's not all, the man wants her to pay for it because he lacks credit.

I think that's a fair assessment of the situation of the 49ers/City of San Francisco.

That's pretty much about right.

[ethanh]

People are screaming that they want the team to stay. The team played in a relatively cheap Kezar stadium for years and has played in a converted MLB stadium since the early 70s. Yet the people largely were against even a 100M bond measure for a new stadium in the 90s and fought even harder to keep in from being exercised recently. So, while the fans want the team to stay and the mayor needs the team to stay to save face, the average citizen clearly is against any city-based help to get a deal done.

I agree that many people in SF will not get behind putting money towards a stadium for sports when they look at all the other human needs in the world. The city is also filled with transplants who were not here in the 80's or ther loyalties lay elsewhere. This is why the city is packaging a community and not just trying to sell a stadium only.
Owning property in SOMA I have seen an entire area be reborn largely because of the Giants. I could see HP or Candlestick Point doing the same as the area is beautiful when peeled back of the blight.
I know you support the Santa Clara site and I understand the difficulties with SF. However I want the new stadium site to be as special and unique as I think the 49ers and SF are. I just do not see that yet in SC

[Peter Proud]

Thanks! I was beginning to believe that I couldn't get anyone to agree or at least recognize an opinion of mine anywhere on the board today.

Heck...I even ventured to the Town Hall Forum out of desperation of anything lacking rumors and reguritated speculation!

[Finer9rFan]

Just noticed this on Official Website, but don't know what date it was posted there...if it already has been diseminated, mea culpa...

Letter to the 49ers Faithful print



Dear Fellow 49ers Faithful,

This week the San Francisco 49ers moved a step closer to our goal of building a new world-class NFL stadium in the Bay Area by 2012.

Later tonight, we will present Santa Clara city leaders with a preliminary proposal for financing the stadium, which is expected to cost around $850 million. Our family and other team executives worked very hard to create a plan that funds the stadium and keeps our promises to Santa Clara to protect its general fund and create no new taxes for its citizens.

We’re proud to say that one result of our hard work is that the largest single source of funding for this new stadium would be up-front cash from the 49ers and the NFL – a total of more than $360 million. Not only that, but the team would assume the risks of inflation and cost overruns in construction as long as the project stays on track to open in time for the 2012 NFL season.

A second major source of funding, more than $330 million, would come from revenues generated by the stadium through the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, the public entity that would own and operate the facility. This revenue would include, among other things, the sale of naming rights and corporate sponsorships.

After the stadium opens, revenue from ongoing events, as well as rent and other payments by the 49ers, would cover the cost of operations, maintenance and ongoing improvements to the stadium every five-to-seven years to keep it on the cutting edge.

The 49ers Faithful also have a crucial role to play in building this project. Under the proposal, the Stadium Authority would sell Stadium Builders Licenses (SBLs) for a certain percentage of the seats. These transferable licenses would give their holders the right to buy 49ers season tickets every year over the entire life of the new stadium, along with rights to tickets for other stadium special events. Revenue from the licenses would be used exclusively to fund and maintain the stadium with no proceeds going to the team. Existing 49ers ticket holders would be given the first opportunity to participate in this program and help support the construction of this new venue.

When you add it all up, the team contribution and stadium funds raised through the Stadium Authority would cover more than 80 percent of the construction cost and all of the ongoing costs of operation. We would ask the City of Santa Clara to make an investment capped at $160 million for stadium construction (18.7% percent). In return, the city would own and derive the economic and social benefits from a state-of-the-art sports and entertainment facility.

As part of our proposal, we’ve worked with our traffic engineers and the city to come up with a plan that would enable everyone to exit the stadium 36 percent faster than at Monster Park. Part of the reason is that the roads near the proposed stadium are wide, close to several freeways and built to handle far more traffic than we expect on game days. Even better, the site of the new stadium is convenient to many public transportation options that can serve fans as close as San Francisco and San Jose, and as far away as Sacramento.

While there’s still a long way to go on this project, we’re optimistic about our progress. We’ve shown a great design for a stadium that would provide the best fan experience in the NFL; we’ve delivered an economic impact report showing how the stadium would create hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity and thousands of jobs along with millions in tax revenues every year to the region; and we’ve proposed a workable financing plan that sticks to our promises to the city.

We look forward to continuing to work with Santa Clara officials to finish the feasibility study and move onto the next phase of this project.

Thanks as always for your loyal support as we work to build the new home for your San Francisco 49ers.

Best,

Denise and John York

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Just noticed this on Official Website, but don't know what date it was posted there...if it already has been diseminated, mea culpa...

Letter to the 49ers Faithful print



Dear Fellow 49ers Faithful,

This week the San Francisco 49ers moved a step closer to our goal of building a new world-class NFL stadium in the Bay Area by 2012... {See above for full text - deleted to save space.}

Best,

Denise and John York

Yuck. SBL's - those three letters taste as nasty on the tongue as those other three letters.

But I'm interested to see that they would apply to only a "percentage" of the seats, and would also give the license holder additional rights to tickets for other events. Does this mean Niner Season Ticket holders would then be assured rights to buy tickets to, rock concerts, soccer matches, monster truck rallys and other events which will surely follow once the stadium is built? Hmm. It certainly looks a little different than the dish offered up in Oakland. I'm gonna hafta hear more about these SBL thingies....

Oh - and by the way - nice to see you Finer! It's been a while. Hope all is well with you and yours.

[Niner Jan]

What happened with the stadium plan in the 90's? You can blame SF but the facts remain.

(And what are they?)

And the new plan was cancelled by the 49ers, not SF.

(Where is your proof? You don't have any or you would have provided it.)

The City of SF was responsible for the upkeep of the stadium at Candlestick, but it dragged its feet and didn't make the necessary fixes needed to make the stadium decent for the fans, including road conditions, elevators, etc.

Now that the team is seriously trying to relocate elsewhere, the City is finally trying to make up for lost time and catch up on its responsibilities that it shirked for a decade.

Don't blame the 49ers unless you have PROOF...It's easy to cast stones, but better to move mountains.

Which is what the 49ers are trying to do now.

[Iamavictory]

I agree that many people in SF will not get behind putting money towards a stadium for sports when they look at all the other human needs in the world. The city is also filled with transplants who were not here in the 80's or ther loyalties lay elsewhere. This is why the city is packaging a community and not just trying to sell a stadium only.
Owning property in SOMA I have seen an entire area be reborn largely because of the Giants. I could see HP or Candlestick Point doing the same as the area is beautiful when peeled back of the blight.
I know you support the Santa Clara site and I understand the difficulties with SF. However I want the new stadium site to be as special and unique as I think the 49ers and SF are. I just do not see that yet in SC

I understand why some fans want to see the team stay in the city, all things being equal, I would too, but things are not equal. I am not trying to insult those fans that have that opinon. I am trying to explain why those fans should give up that pipe dream and support the team that you are fanatical about. I could turn out to change my opinon about the move, but I honestly don't see that happening. The bottom line is that it has been YEARS that the NINERS! have been trying to get this done. It breaks my heart to see the team struggle with it. This organization is better than that and deserves better than that. From its fans and the city of San Francixo. The only argument that fans have for staying in SF is tradition. It's a nice sentiment but there comes a time when things change. If the city cared about the organization so much the team would have had a new stadium by now. Whether those fans that are so dead set to stay in SF like it or not, it is looking more and more like we're in for a move. Are you going to abandon the team because you want to see it stay in SF? Do you honestly want to see the team being treated like a red-headed stepchild after everything it has done for that community? That relationship should be a partnership not a one sided affair because the city was gracious enough to let it reside in its borders, which it really doesn't anyways because the only thing the team does is play 8 games a year in the city, save the playoffs. The only thing in the life that omnipotent is GOD. NOT the city of San Francisco. If you really take a good hard look at the history and the facts of this situation, tradition is hardly a reason to allow yourself to be bullied, especially by soneone or something you have given so much to. My position is this has gone on long enough. The city apparently doesn't want us there. So why should the team capitulate to an entity it obviously doesn't give a fig about? WHY?

[ethanh]

(And what are they?)



(Where is your proof? You don't have any or you would have provided it.)

The City of SF was responsible for the upkeep of the stadium at Candlestick, but it dragged its feet and didn't make the necessary fixes needed to make the stadium decent for the fans, including road conditions, elevators, etc.
Don't blame the 49ers unless you have PROOF...It's easy to cast stones, but better to move mountains.

Which is what the 49ers are trying to do now.

Take it easy Niner Jan I know you were at a meeting and are tired so i will be brief.
My post said that after the the 1997 ballot measure Eddie got busted and the stadium plan wet on hold for 3 years as the team changed ownership and went through problems. When plans started back up it was clear that plan would not work. This was not SF fault.

The second plan was the olympic plan which the 49ers pulled out of.

Are those facts?

As for the stadium upkeep I agree the city dropped tha ball.

[matineematt]

Let's try and keep an open mind on this. I invested in a similar deal for the Giants, and when you compare the AT&T Park experience to the Candlestick experience it was money very well spent. Think of this as a user tax, like a bridge toll. We are among those with the most at stake in the building and use of a new stadium, and it seems fair to me that we pay for a bit of it.

[khanusma]

.. and would also give the license holder additional rights to tickets for other events. Does this mean Niner Season Ticket holders would then be assured rights to buy tickets to, rock concerts, soccer matches, monster truck rallys and other events which will surely follow once the stadium is built?

At Fenway(even though I dont pay PSL), I get first dibs at Rolling Stones, Jimmy Buffet, Police, etc... I would assume PSL peeps will get hooked up but they better not be REDICULOUS (like 10g's a seat)


But even then, in a capacity of 100,000 for a concert, I cant imagine tickets will be that hard to come by (although premium seat offers would be nice).

[Peter Proud]

At Fenway(even though I dont pay PSL), I get first dibs at Rolling Stones, Jimmy Buffet, Police, etc... I would assume PSL peeps will get hooked up but they better not be REDICULOUS (like 10g's a seat)


But even then, in a capacity of 100,000 for a concert, I cant imagine tickets will be that hard to come by (although premium seat offers would be nice).

I understand the 'benefit' idea they are selling, but why should a SBL seat holder have to pay for a benefit he doesn't want. Now if the Santa Clara Stadium Authority (SCSA) would kick back to the SBL holder a portion of the ticket fee I might see it as more fair. Because if someone chooses not to use the option, why should it go to the SCSA? The SCSA is going to charge a premium for the seat location, but it's not paying a premium to the SBL holder.

If the SBL holder does use the option (if he has funds), he either has to resell the ticket or use the ticket. He should have the ability to sell the ticket to the event promoter for a fee.