Concord Naval Weapons Station?

[Junior]

Not much further from SF that Santa Clara, not overcrowded, not bad. Throw in the Raiders and it could make some money.

http://www.49ersparadise.com/cgi-bin/news/news.cgi?action=display&num=12810

[grimlock49]

:mouthclosed: :yikes: :stirthepot:

umm...didn't see that one coming.

[TheWiz]

This is a ridiculous idea.

1) So, according the writer, we can't sell the deal to Santa Clara. Yet we can sell it to a smaller location with added taxes involved? That's like being turned down for $100 from a bank and then asking your broke friend for $200 instead. You can't just tax industries without painful consequences. When you choose to tax construction, they will respond with higher labor rates so that they make the same amount. That penny gets passed onto everyone else. Soon the local cost of homes increase, businesses build in the town next door instead of yours due to the costs, and it actually slows growth.

2) Somehow you can sell idea of "you need to invest to get a return" to a smaller city but yet asking for a little from Santa Clara is too much?

3) You don't build a stadium and hope for businesses to be built around it. You know what businesses see? They see about 20 days per year where the stadium does anything for them. Sure it's a slightly better location but businesses would now be under the strain of increased property value and hence higher taxes while facing increased construction costs. I don't think some slightly better weekends a third of the year will help that fact. Businesses in place like stadiums because it's only increased business in a spot where they already exist. But businesses almost never move to be near a stadium, especially under these conditions. Heck, the day we sign the deal to build there the local property value would increase and scare away almost all local businesses. Eventually businesses would move in only because the low number of competitors would be a bit mitigating factor.

if we:
1) Ask for no annual general tax committment
2) Give ownership of a stadium we largely pay for to the city
3) Give almost all on the non-ticket gameday profits to the city to maintain the stadium
4) Offer to cover all construction runovers
5) Offer to cover all maintenance deficits
6) Has a plan in place to devote stadium authority surpluses to future maintenance and improvements of the stadium instead of going back to the team
7) Are offering to build in an established entertainment district with impeccable transportation and infrastructure support.
8) We're asking for far less of a public committment percentage-wise and paying more out of the owners pocket than any previous NFL stadium.

And STILL cannot get a deal done in Santa Clara, I doubt any deal will get done anytime soon.

[co2112]

I just want a nice new convenient place to watch a game. I already commute from Sacramento to support my team so what’s a few more miles?

[Kenage]

Wiz - I read the article and feel the same way as you. What I really want to
is does he have some inside information that says the City of
of Santa Clara is going against the stadium? He makes it sound like
it is a slam dunk that Santa Clara is going to turn down the offer.

[TheWiz]

Wiz - I read the article and feel the same way as you. What I really want to
is does he have some inside information that says the City of
of Santa Clara is going against the stadium? He makes it sound like
it is a slam dunk that Santa Clara is going to turn down the offer.

That's why it's a rather propogandist blurb piece. It's short, doesn't have much logic to it and just throws a log onto the fire of opposition.

Santa Clara will never get a better deal than what we're offering once it's put in writing. They stand no risk of costs from construction. They stand no risk of costs from maintenance. They only stand to make guaranteed returns for the life of our lease which could be well over 20 years. The local businesses get to profit and build and even more attractive commercial area. They also get to reap the benefits of ticket sales for other events for the stadium. You can't tell me that it wouldn't become a very good location for dozens of events from professional soccer to monster trucks to concerts and outdoor exhibition fairs. It offers an outdoor open venue even the convention center cannot offer or could offer in addition to the convention center for some events like home shows. The city assumes no risk and only stands to profit at the cost of a one time up front payment.

When a city regularly spends millions on facilities like education, libraries, municipal buildings and utilities, and public safety departments, they only lose money. Almost no real facility finds a profit. Sure we may only be offering a modest portion of 1% of a tax increase but it's a guaranteed return annually. Meanwhile, if the city could so easily just pop in an office building and earn more money annually to the general fund and increase tax revenue, why haven't they?

That is what's driving me nuts. They're pitching the idea of millions in taxes for an office building. Yet the city assumes all of the risk of the construction. Not to mention they draw the duty of attracting and keeping businesses. A single economic downturn in the next 3-4 years could make such a venture a massive annual loss on the general fund. At least a stadium is a one-time investment for what could be a long, long term partnership.

[Niner Jan]

WIZ,

You make such a great case for the SC stadium that it's ridiculous to hear about opposition to it. Some people just have no VISION--unless it's TUNNEL vision.

The only thing I can think of to explain opposition is (1) people who create their own facts and fear risk, or (2) people who have no interest in sports, football in particular, or (3) Raiders' fans.

I can't imagine any intelligent person who understands the FACTS as reported by both the 49ers' consultants and the Santa Clara consultants.

Of course, when you have a lawyer running the opposition, there must be an ambulance on the loose nearby...

Niner Mom :shades: :tung: :redface: :thud:

[MtzNinersfan]

Ha, thatd be funny then id only have to drive like 5minutes to go to a game.

[pin0yb0i]

depending how far from the shore they would build it, i'd might be able to see it across suisun bay. but from an access stand point, i think it doesn't make that much sense. at the sc site, you have 101 to the south and 237 to the north. i don't spend much time down south so i'm not completely sure, but from aerial photos it looks like both hwys are 8-laners. at the concord site you only have one access point which is hwy4 to the south. i mean yeah you have easy access to 242 to take you south but how about for the people that need to go to the north bay. hwy4 turns into a two lane hwy just west of 242. the concord site actually reminds me of the current monster park site. surrounded by water on one side and only one freeway access point. but i guess the concord site is a little better because the close proximity of 242 and 680.

[TheWiz]

WIZ,

You make such a great case for the SC stadium that it's ridiculous to hear about opposition to it. Some people just have no VISION--unless it's TUNNEL vision.

The only thing I can think of to explain opposition is (1) people who create their own facts and fear risk, or (2) people who have no interest in sports, football in particular, or (3) Raiders' fans.

I can't imagine any intelligent person who understands the FACTS as reported by both the 49ers' consultants and the Santa Clara consultants.

Of course, when you have a lawyer running the opposition, there must be an ambulance on the loose nearby...

Niner Mom :shades: :tung: :redface: :thud:

That's a large reason why this deal is so important.

Getting this deal done is a lot like convincing people that a block of ice left on a nearby beach will melt. Some are worried because it might take too long or if it gets cold one day and some are thinking if eternal winter falls upon the west coast it will never happen.

I can actually envision Raider's fans supporting the stadium. After all, if it fails then the prospects of LA only grow bigger. While having the bay area to themselves, what fun would it be without the complete opposites across the bay? But I get your point.

There is nothing wrong with opposing the stadium as long as there is rational behind it. Some people will correctly argue that the city shouldn't consider spending huge amounts of money on a football team when half of that investment could vastly increase the quality of life. Some don't want the attention a big sports team will bring, it will make the city too commercial.

My view and my point is that you don't get a better deal, for the team or the city. The location is great for fans and transportation and it fits smack dab in an existing commercial and entertainment region. There are not many sports franchises out there and the NFL is the biggest sport out there right now. Major cities in the country's heartlands with much bigger bugets and populations would jump instantly at the chance to get the level of tourism an NFL team could bring. Yet we walked right into Santa Clara's lap. We love the site, we want our stadium there and we're willing to take on a lot of financial risk to make it happen.

Meanwhile, the city stands to lose nothing in reality. Any revenue shortages or cost overruns go to the owners, not the city. Any surpluses go to the city and future stadium upkeep, not the owners. All we're asking is a one time investment, smaller than any percentage investment ever asked for a publically assisted stadium in quite a while. The owners bear all of the risk of overruns and pay the most any NFL owner has ever paid out of their pockets for a stadium and yet the city gets the stadium. They get the profits of many events there.

This deal has been continually leveraged in favor of the city. Personally, I can't imagine this deal ever being trumped. You don't get a better natural location on top of a financial offer with very little risk. Even form a financial standpoint, Santa Clara will be fools to ever turn it down.

Over what, a 180M investment? There is only loss by investing someplace like schools and public safety. Sure it raises school ratings and might save some lives but fire and police equipment and education is a 100% loss investment category. Meanwhile it only temporarily fixes problems because in 20-30 years most of that investment will be an out of date building, vehicle or bullet proof vest and will have vanished. Investing that in buildings like an office building assumes more risk for the city. A single recession and that building is then 80% empty and returning less than a stadium. Meanwhile, in 15 years, it needs improvements and that falls upon the city to pay for. An NFL team, past day 1 of this deal once the funds are transfered assumes no risk. The city will get a 20+ year guarantee of tenancy and an annual lease amount from the team. Unlike the other investments, it is a big positive impact for the cities economic intake.

Right now I'm beginning to even consider the possibility that in the next few months the county may even be willing to chip into any costs to make the deal happen. Think of the regional pressure? The county and local cities have so much interest that they offer up to 20M in bonds to help reduce the load on Santa Clara. Then you've got every city around you liking the potential impact so much that they're assuming some risk for you.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

...
Right now I'm beginning to even consider the possibility that in the next few months the county may even be willing to chip into any costs to make the deal happen. Think of the regional pressure? The county and local cities have so much interest that they offer up to 20M in bonds to help reduce the load on Santa Clara. Then you've got every city around you liking the potential impact so much that they're assuming some risk for you.
That is an excellent direction for this issue to take. If surrounding cities all chime in and state in unison - "This is a great deal! It benefits us all" The naysayers will have no where to hide.

In addition, if the county and surrounding cities toss a few bucks into the kitty - I suspect the city's vision will become much clearer. The fog of doubt spewed by stadium opponents will dissipate.

I suggest contributions from other cities be rewarded with a seat on the Santa Clara Stadium Authority board. This will allow them to have some say on how the contributions are spent as well as a voice in future management and operation of the stadium.

[Peter Proud]

That is an excellent direction for this issue to take. If surrounding cities all chime in and state in unison - "This is a great deal! It benefits us all" The naysayers will have no where to hide.

In addition, if the county and surrounding cities toss a few bucks into the kitty - I suspect the city's vision will become much clearer. The fog of doubt spewed by stadium opponents will dissipate.

I suggest contributions from other cities be rewarded with a seat on the Santa Clara Stadium Authority board. This will allow them to have some say on how the contributions are spent as well as a voice in future management and operation of the stadium.

There's my gunner...I knew he'd bring some wisdom to the table!:hatwave: :pirate2:

[Roaring Back]

Not much further from SF that Santa Clara, not overcrowded, not bad. Throw in the Raiders and it could make some money.

http://www.49ersparadise.com/cgi-bin/news/news.cgi?action=display&num=12810

Works for me. It's only ten minutes from where I live. I think it's a GREAT idea ...for ME.

Or, the 49ers can find a way --like the Giants -- to build a privately financed stadium in San Francisco, where they belong, and get off the suburban flight kick. That way, they'll have nothing to regret for the next half century.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Works for me. It's only ten minutes from where I live. I think it's a GREAT idea ...for ME.

Or, the 49ers can find a way --like the Giants -- to build a privately financed stadium in San Francisco, where they belong, and get off the suburban flight kick. That way, they'll have nothing to regret for the next half century.
Well, let us not forget that the Giants built a stadium which is only half the size of the facility the Niners are planning. And besides, PacBell park (Or what ever it's called these days) was built for baseball , which is an inferior sport compared to the NFL. :fishing:

Comparisions between the two are hardly valid.

Oh - and it's good to see you too Larry! Thanks for the props.