Article:Citizens Want voters to have say on SC Stadium.

[ethanh]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/15/BAG4SPRE8714.DTL

A group of Santa Clara citizens is expected to ask the City Council tonight to get voter approval for any plan to build a publicly subsidized football stadium.
The council could vote on a petition that asks the city to guarantee voters get a say before any money is tied up in building a new stadium for the San Francisco 49ers, who have said they want to play in a new South Bay stadium by 2012. The petition asks for a February 2008 vote.

[Peter Proud]

So the projected cost of the stadium is approx. $854 million dollars, the City of Santa Clara would put in approx. $160 million (plus a few million more for odds and ends) and the City of Santa Clara would own a $854 million dollar stadium?

From a purely financial point of view...that looks like a pretty good return on investment. Am I missing something? Because there's no stock/mutual fund with that kind of return!

[TheWiz]

The minority is spooked, that's what it is.

Here's how democracy works. You have elections. People called representatives are chosen by the election. They in turn are given the power to make the decisions by the people that they represent. So, a council made up of people the public chose to make the decision is given the power to make the decision. This ticks somebody off? Someone then thinks the elected officials are not allowed to make a decision unless it gets put to a vote? What then, if anything, was the point of voting for elected officials if they must go back to a popular vote?

Isn't it more like the citizen should petition to change the town charter to require the laws to be rewritten? It sounds to me like the council has the power to make monetary decisions without need for expressed consent of the public. He should instead try to get the charter changed in November requiring the city to put to public vote any financial deal in comparison to some percentage of the city's general fund.

I'm wondering how much those 320 people would be willing to pay to hold that extraneous election. I want to see someone else create a notwithmymoneyeither organization that is against the how much it will cost to possibly hold a pointless vote on one matter. You know, someone who can show the cost of the election could a full time K9 unit for keeping the schools drug free and buy 6-smoke-vision masks for the fire department.

This is all hot air and this guy just got free publicity.

[ethanh]

I may be misunderstanding this, but if there is a special election for just the stadium, which costs a lot of money to put on, don't people hate special elections and typically vote no on them?

[TheWiz]

I may be misunderstanding this, but if there is a special election for just the stadium, which costs a lot of money to put on, don't people hate special elections and typically vote no on them?

I think it's more like people who are for an issue rarely are the ones who call the special election. It's the radicals and minority opinion who demand for such elections. People generally in favor of a topic will sit at home and do nothing but the eager opposition is so spooked they all flock to the polls. The popular choice usually sees more apathy and as a result about 30% of their side votes and 90% of the opposition votes and it doesn't actually reflect public opinion. An issue could be favorite by 5 people for every anti vote. But if out of every 10 pro votes only 1 person votes and each anti-person votes, the election is lost 2 to 1 in favor of the opposition.

[sandiegojoe]

I think it's more like people who are for an issue rarely are the ones who call the special election. It's the radicals and minority opinion who demand for such elections. People generally in favor of a topic will sit at home and do nothing but the eager opposition is so spooked they all flock to the polls. The popular choice usually sees more apathy and as a result about 30% of their side votes and 90% of the opposition votes and it doesn't actually reflect public opinion. An issue could be favorite by 5 people for every anti vote. But if out of every 10 pro votes only 1 person votes and each anti-person votes, the election is lost 2 to 1 in favor of the opposition.

true, but in order for the opposition to get people to the polls, don't they need funding to push voters into it? It just doesn't seem like there is enough anti-stadium support for a well-funded campaign against it. Is there some sort of taxpayer association or something that would pony up some attack ads on tv? I imagine Gavin Newsome might write a personal check, but who else?

In contrast, the niners have mailing lists, email lists, season ticket holders in the area, the media, and funding to support the measure if it was needed.

I just don't see how putting up to a vote would help the opposition other than just delaying things a bit.

[Niner Jan]

This one's for me--because I sat through the 4 hours of the Santa Clara City Council meeting last night! (There were 3 different issues, not just one.)

Lawyer Fleck and the band of opponents to the stadium from the website, "Not with MY money you don't" presented their argument for the vote after Fleck injected his venom against the 49ers and the Yorks. Then those from the website took the floor to push their agenda for a Feb. 8th election.

It is uncertain at this time if there will be a special election in February. The City Council's calendar was packed with meetings, so they had to put the request on hold until the 6 month Feasibility Study is finished being processed by the Council and the 49ers. The CC has to come up with its own counter-proposal after studying the proposal in detail with the help of its consultants.

This website has come up with its own ideas about the cost to taxpayers in Santa Clara and have been busy sending emails all over the city to negatively pursuade voters against the proposed stadium, making up their own statistics in the process and quoting them as gospel.

If you could have seen the smirking face of the lawyer, you would have felt the rage that I felt at watching him enjoy himself disseminating dissent and hoping to stir up trouble over this proposal STILL UNDER STUDY. One of my points is that the voters must be INFORMED before they make intelligent decisions, and the process of evaluation had not yet been completed.

I had been notified that this disturbance was going to take place, so during the day I prepared my rebuttal remarks which I delivered before the City Council to highlight the reasons why the stadium was a good investment and the plan that makes sense for the City, the 49ers, and the fans. For a 20% investment, the City will make out like bandits--owning the stadium as well as the land, and collecting RENT from the 49ers (and others which use the stadium) over the years.

I hate talking in public, but I squashed my nervousness and fear to speak up for our 49ers. When I was finished, Mayor Mahan asked if I wanted my words to become part of the Minutes, so I gave her a copy of my talk. I'll do anything to help publicize the truth to help our 49ers!

In the afternoon today, I dropped off some chocolate goodies and welcome notes to the 49ers Facility for our new rookies. On my way out, I happened to notice a small paper entitled, Santa Clara Weekly which I picked up and took with me.

I don't know what prompted me to peruse through it, but my eyes caught the words NEW ORLEANS at the top of an lengthy article, and being a native of that city, I started reading it. I couldn't help but compare the timeliness of the article, for it went on to speak of the Louisiana Purchase and the state of nervousness of President Jefferson over the Treasury way back then--similar to Santa Clara residents right now.

Next, the article moved on to speak of the Great America opportunity which the City of Santa Clara had judiciously voted to invest in back at its inception. My mind was amazed at how the article was leading down the same path my thoughts were running.

Finally, the author hit on the topic of the 49ers Stadium proposal which was under current scrutiny by the SC City Council. I couldn't believe how my ESP had drawn me like a magnet to the paper, and how my thoughts were spelled out in detail in that article. :wow:

I immediately contacted the writer of the article, who evidently is a regular contributor to the SC Weekly (because his email address was the name of the SCW), emailing him my thoughts from my talk the night before. I also gave a copy of my talk to the SF Chronicle and the Mercury News, which was scooping the story. My friend told me that she saw me on Ch. 2 TV this morning...

Incidentally, the meeting didn't let out until 10:45! I'm glad I swallowed my fears and spoke up for our 49ers against those who have a different agenda in mind and will pursue any falsifying measure to defeat the 49ers stadium.

Thanks, Wiz, for your rational comments, as usual, to the topic. :hatwave:

Niner Jan :blowakiss:

[rjk*49]

Here's how democracy works. You have elections. People called representatives are chosen by the election. They in turn are given the power to make the decisions by the people that they represent.

Um... I take it you meant, a Representative Republic. A democracy is three hungry wolves and one sheep at a table, deciding what's for dinner.

The problem with a democracy is that a person can be intelligent, but groups of people are stupid and easily swayed by rhetoric, lies, disinformation, and baseless passionate oratory. Democratic voting usually degenerates into frenzied, stupid decisions by unwittingly, or willfully uninformed masses. Representative government at least employs decision making by (hopefully) better informed representatives who can examine all the facts over time, rather than based on pure emotion.

This is why radicals like Fleck are pushing for a pure vote, and throwing out so much BS and disinformation. They're hoping for a "democratic" vote, wherein all the lies, half-truths, and BS they've thrown into the mix creates sufficient voter conflict, confusion, and doubt to reject such a huge financial commitment.

Further, there's rarely enough checks/balances or penalties imposed on the devious, lying scum once the truth(s) come out after the vote has been made. Most of the "duped" public is then too embarrassed and guilt-ridden to want to do anything about it which might implicate themselves. Think French Revolution and the guillotine.

Further, as the radicals who've instigated the lies and defeat are seemingly immunized from penalty, they become even more powerful and influential in the eyes of their supporters for the next fight.

Unfortunately, such tactics work unless the good guys become DEMONSTRABLY LOUDER and MORE EMPHATIC about the truth and facts than the devious radicals.

[sandiegojoe]

Um... I take it you meant, a Representative Republic.

FYI a representative republic is a form of democracy.

[ethanh]

the City will make out like bandits[/B]--owning the stadium as well as the land, and collecting RENT from the 49ers (and others which use the stadium) over the years.

Incidentally, the meeting didn't let out until 10:45! I'm glad I swallowed my fears and spoke up for our 49ers against those who have a different agenda in mind and will pursue any falsifying measure to defeat the 49ers stadium.

I can't believe the SC people are doing this, well if the city doesn't want them and treats them like this, then maybe York should just pull the plug.
:smile: Leaving SF logic?

Niner Jan I respect what you are doing you are a true soldier for the 49ers.

[rjk*49]

FYI a representative republic is a form of democracy.

Thanks. FYI, a democracy is a distinctly different form of government, regardless of the current vogue to muddle the definitions, and dissuade the use of the correct term, representative republic.

A democracy is, by definition, citizen vote (or mob rule) in ALL matters.

A representative republic employs the democratic voting process only to initially elect officials/representatives (president/leader/governor, mayor, etc., included). Once elected to a representative branch, votes are cast as representatives of the people wherein discussions and compromises may occur which may be contrary to the general goals of the citizenry. I.E., not as a democracy (non-elected citizens having a direct vote in all bills and proposals, etc.). Similarly, majority decisions at the judiciary level are simple votes, not democratic processes.

And, most uniquely, a republic is characterized by an elected residing president/leader/minister with special powers NOT requiring direct vote or participation by ALL citizens.

[sandiegojoe]

Thanks. FYI, a democracy is a distinctly different form of government, regardless of the current vogue to muddle the definitions, and dissuade the use of the correct term, representative republic.

A democracy is, by definition, citizen vote (or mob rule) in ALL matters.
A "pure democracy" would be. But the term "democracy" has long been used as an umbrella term for all different types of representative forms of government. It's not a muddling term or a new trend. It's the norm, so you don't need to go correcting people for proper use of it.

Now you know.

[TheWiz]

First of all I'm definitely not fit to get into a debate over politics at this level but I did make one big mistake in my original post. Clearly the article and issue are at a municipal and state level, not a federal level. So debates over exactly what form of government the constitution details (republic, democracy, representative, etc) is a moot point. How each state and each city inside of its borders governs itself is entirely up to itself. The only guarantee is a pair of senators and a certain number of representatives in the federal government. There are towns out in the country where they are so small every vote is done by popularity. Nothing says a town can't decide to be a dictatorship or that a state could be run as a police-state and patrolled by a state military. Instead of a single governor there could be a state King, and so on.

So I suppose to make any sort of argument you'd need to get a copy of the city charter of Santa Clara, which I can see is actually fully published on the city's website. So you can take the debate there.

[Niner Jan]

Good "prestidigitating," WIZ--I still don't know what that term means! I got a kick out of your Politics 101 description. :laugh:

I think the lawyer wants to usurp the authority from the Council and make himself KING by decreeing a vote of the plebiscite--prematurely BEFORE the City Council is finished studying the proposal.

I was so pleased when the Council tabled the proposal until there was time to look into it further. The hungry cat didn't get to gobble up the birdie--YET!

Niner Mom :smile: :tossakiss: :towel: :ninercaphell:

[rjk*49]

A "pure democracy" would be. But the term "democracy" has long been used as an umbrella term for all different types of representative forms of government. It's not a muddling term or a new trend. It's the norm, so you don't need to go correcting people for proper use of it.

Now you know.

OK :smile: Only since FDR. Likewise, "ain't," ain't no," "ain't nobody," "got no," slang, and a whole host of double negative, vacuous terms have become lazy, common-place substitutes for proper English. Commonly accepted umbrella terms, or not, doesn't make them correct, it just makes them in common use.

Now you know :rolleyes2: :smile:

Regardless, Kudos to yourself and the Wiz for knowledge!

[TheWiz]

Good "prestidigitating," WIZ--I still don't know what that term means!

Prestidigitator: Magician, Con-Artist, Juggler, Slight Of Hand Artist, Conjuror as it were.

Derived from the french word prestidigiateur. Itself derived from the Italian Presto (nimble) and the latin digitus(finger). Hence presto-digitus which later evolved a little into the french form and then into prestidigitator in English in the 1800s.

[Niner Jan]

If you consider yourself a CON-ARTIST or Magician with words, then I will back up your nickname with my approval. You certainly have a WAY with words!

As a former sculptor of words in the classroom, I highly value how you use your talents to inform and persuade.

Keep up the good work, but don't hide your light under a bushel--let it dazzle the eyes of the Santa Clara City Council, who have the "humongous"--if that is acceptable parlance--task of selling the idea to the local electorate of SC.

Niner Mom :wub:

[sats0]

Prestidigitator: Magician, Con-Artist, Juggler, Slight Of Hand Artist, Conjuror as it were.

Oh, oh. And here I was believing everything you said! :ninercaphell:

[MadCardDisease]

When the Cardinals were trying to figure out where to build their new stadium it moved 5 times before finally finding a home.

Originally Tempe was choosen as the Stadium site and they even started to clear the site. However the FAA said that it was too close to Sky Harbor Airport. Note, this was only a month after 9/11 so everyone was uneasy with Airplanes and buildings. Thus Tempe lost out on the Stadium sweepstakes.

Then it was awarded to Mesa only 4 miles down the road from the Tempe Site. However an Old Lady who lived in a trailer park near the stadium site got enough signatures to get it on the next years ballot. She didn't want an ugly stadium next to her trailer park. That essentially killed the Mesa site because they needed to start building sooner than waiting 9 months for it to go to a vote.

Then the Indian Reservation was tops on the list. They had great plans to build the stadium next to one of their resorts. The stadium would have had strong Native American themes throughout. However the county attorney said it couldn't go on Indian land because it was partially paid for by county taxes.

Downtown phoenix was then the top of the list. However the mayor of Phoenix had other plans for extending the Convention center and essentially torpedoed the Stadium going downtown.

Finally the guy who built the NHL arena in Glendale offered land next to the arena and that is where it ended up.

It was a totally painful process and ultimately ended up in not the most ideal location. But hey at least we finally got our new stadium!