Council hears other costs to stadium: Article, 5/30/07

[ethanh]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/30/BAG7QQ3PLG1.DTL
The costs of the election and of moving the garage closer to the stadium site and the power substation away from it would be in addition to the $160 million the 49ers have asked the city to contribute toward an $854 million stadium built on a city-owned parking lot next to the Paramount's Great America amusement park.

Nothing really new, but I keep thinking. When will there be enough trouble in SC that the 49ers will drop them too like SF? I love that the parking garage argument used to leave the SF site is now an issue in SC.

[TheWiz]

I don't see what you're talking about? In SF a big method of parking would involve a massive parking garage. It would be a massive engineering feat in order to build it and it would largely destroy the local landscape and efforts to tailgate. The problem in SC is that their proposed public garage, which has run up a 500k bill in planning and other costs, seemingly won't hold the needs a new stadium proposes. It's a minor matter of the team reimbursing the city for the costs to redo the plan, possibly another 500k and 3 years to complete but it will still be done in time for a 2012 season opening.

[ethanh]

My point is that a parking garage, even a smaller one, will limit tailgating. So the argument the 49ers used, that they did not want the SF parking garage because it did not allow tailgating was infact not true. It was that the size of the SF parking garage was too big. A minor difference but one that was used extensively to reason why they were moving to SC. I personally do not care if there is a parking lot or not at either site. I would get there early enough to tailgate in the spots available. Let the late comers take the lot.

[Niner Jan]

Ethan,

I don't believe you are correctly quoting the reason about the parking garage as the MAIN reason that the 49ers didn't want to build their new stadium in SF. That was just ONE of the many reasons that SC was a better site than SF. But I don't want to get into that old argument all over again; it's been beaten to death by now.

Niner Mom :blowakiss:

[ethanh]

Ethan,

I don't believe you are correctly quoting the reason about the parking garage as the MAIN reason that the 49ers didn't want to build their new stadium in SF. That was just ONE of the many reasons that SC was a better site than SF. But I don't want to get into that old argument all over again; it's been beaten to death by now.

Niner Mom :blowakiss:

Agree, we all understand each others points of view. In the end I want the 49ers to get a new stadium deal and hope something works out. Hopefully this shows the 49es the difficulties in any city and would think twice about ever trying it in LA. It is crazy the red tape involved, dealing with the gov in any city has got to be :gunshoot: .

[BrielleSF]

Agree, we all understand each others points of view. In the end I want the 49ers to get a new stadium deal and hope something works out. Hopefully this shows the 49es the difficulties in any city and would think twice about ever trying it in LA. It is crazy the red tape involved, dealing with the gov in any city has got to be :gunshoot: .

Amen Ethan. I tried to warn everyone who was super gung ho about this stadium getting built without any hickups in a city whose residents have notoriousely voted down stadium proposals. Everyone was absolutely convinced that this time things would be different because the city and the team had formed such a 'partnership' to move on this proposal. But I kept saying, wait until the details come out because if the 49ers ask the city to spend ANY money and it goes to a citywide vote, it could be a problem and could slow down the process considerably...and look where we are now. The devil is in the details people...

The truth is that government is slow, no matter where you live. Regardless of where the 49ers finally decide to build a stadium, they will have to deal with local government. :laugh: :laugh: