NFL Likes Both Stadium Locations Article:

[ethanh]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/20/SPG3AQI9LO1.DTL

The NFL trio reportedly was impressed with the Hunters Point site, not only by the amount of work the city has done, on paper and on the land, but with the scenic views. The three were impressed with the Santa Clara site's access to public transportation.
For what it might be worth, John York and his son Jed of the team's ruling family helped conduct the tour in Santa Clara but didn't make the tour at Hunters Point.
Santa Clara is still the Yorks' No. 1 choice, though much has changed since November when the 49ers announced they were abandoning most hope of a San Francisco stadium and that Santa Clara was their future home.
Stuff keeps happening. The company that owns Great America, Cedar Fair, recently expressed its opposition to a stadium in its parking lot. The 49ers say they easily and gladly would deal with Cedar's concerns, but that Cedar hasn't replied to 49ers e-mails for three months.
You might think if a company was threatening to block your new stadium and wasn't returning your e-mails, you would try a more advanced form of communication, like, I don't know, the telephone.
Meanwhile, communications remain open between the 49ers and San Francisco.
The city has two master plans for the 775 acres at Hunters Point. Plan A includes a football stadium with extensive grassy parking areas, and about $100 million worth of cash and goodies to help the 49ers build their home. Plan B is sans football.
The 49ers are asking Santa Clara for about $160 million, in addition to the land for the stadium, and that's no sure thing, especially now that Cedar is putting up a roadblock.

Wonder what pressure the NFL will put on the 49ers? Do you think Pelosi and Fieinstien will be pushing the NFL?

[Giant9erShark]

Thats cool I'm glad that the NFL people are pleased with both areas whats wrong with having to great options?

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Thats cool I'm glad that the NFL people are pleased with both areas whats wrong with having to great options?
Nothing at all.

Unfortunately, a close examination of these "options" would reveal that only one is "great".

The other does not exist.

The only people suggesting Hunter's Point is an viable option are the developers, Mayor Newsome and his staff and a few misguided fans who believe the team owes some loyalty to a city which has done little to deserve it.

SF has not presented the team with an actual proposal for Hunter's Point. Newsome just keeps waving his arms in that general direction, hoping it will distract people from noticing he was in charge when the team decided to abandon Candlestick.

Hmmm. Based on the number of fans who keep falling for it - his plan might actually be working...

[Tigger49]

Nothing at all.

Unfortunately, a close examination of these "options" would reveal that only one is "great".

The other does not exist.

The only people suggesting Hunter's Point is an viable option are the developers, Mayor Newsome and his staff and a few misguided fans who believe the team owes some loyalty to a city which has done little to deserve it.

SF has not presented the team with an actual proposal for Hunter's Point. Newsome just keeps waving his arms in that general direction, hoping it will distract people from noticing he was in charge when the team decided to abandon Candlestick.

Hmmm. Based on the number of fans who keep falling for it - his plan might actually be working...

I live on the other side of the country, but have always been a Niners fan. The overall outcome doesn't really affect me as I've never been to a 49ers home game and most likely won't anytime soon. Anyway, I'm not sure why but I find myself hoping that the organization will find a way to stay in San Francisco by the bay. For some reason Santa Clara just doesn't feel right to me, even if the team does retain the city title of the San Francisco 49ers. I'm sure the Santa Clara site is beautiful, but from what I've heard the Hunter's Point location is especially nice, or will be once the clean up has been completed. I also think that if the city officials in San Fran really put their minds to it, they can find a way to make the traffic situation work, which was one of the bigger obstacles they were facing. In addition, I feel like having their field next to an amusement park makes the team look adolescent some how.

[Roaring Back]

I live on the other side of the country, but have always been a Niners fan. The overall outcome doesn't really affect me as I've never been to a 49ers home game and most likely won't anytime soon. Anyway, I'm not sure why but I find myself hoping that the organization will find a way to stay in San Francisco by the bay. For some reason Santa Clara just doesn't feel right to me, even if the team does retain the city title of the San Francisco 49ers. I'm sure the Santa Clara site is beautiful, but from what I've heard the Hunter's Point location is especially nice, or will be once the clean up has been completed. I also think that if the city officials in San Fran really put their minds to it, they can find a way to make the traffic situation work, which was on of the bigger obstacles they were facing. In addition, I feel like having their field next to an amusement park makes the team look adolescent some how.

Don't worry, Santa Clara is just being used by the team to get SF's attention. The Giants did the same thing more than a decade ago. Santa Clara has a long history of getting baited into these tactics by local pro franchises. The franchise, the NFL, and most importantly the other owners, know that the 49ers belong in San Francisco proper. The strategy appears to be working, and bet on the 49ers stadium going up at Hunter's Point.

[ethanh]

The 49ers are hardly in San Francisco "proper" now.
Santa Clara is the best option in every sense.
Now I know why Wiz snapped, "in every sense" :help:

[Giant9erShark]

The only people suggesting Hunter's Point is an viable option are the developers, Mayor Newsome and his staff and a few misguided fans who believe the team owes some loyalty to a city which has done little to deserve it.

And three NFL representatives

[Fromthe3rdRow]

And three NFL representatives
Pfft. Essentially all they really said was, "Hey, this place has a nice view of the bay." (While standing on top of the highest heap of toxic land fill.)

They very clearly, specifically and purposefully DID NOT express ANY preference for Hunter's Point over the Santa Clara site.

Let's not confuse the kiddies....

This is the truth of the matter:
"SF has not presented the team with an actual proposal for [building a stadium at] Hunter's Point".

And this is just my opinion:
"Newsome just keeps waving his arms in that general direction, hoping it will distract people from noticing he was in charge when the team decided to abandon Candlestick."

Bottom line - at this time - there is ONLY ONE option on the table.

[ethanh]

"SF has not presented the team with an actual proposal for [building a stadium at] Hunter's Point".

I am not sure what you mean because the city has put forth a plan. Maybe the 49ers have never seen it but this article suggests that SF is going to go forward with the HP plan with or without the stadium. The 49ers can take all the things that SF is offering and get on board or they can continue to work with Santa Clara. If you are talking about the building itself the 49ers are the ones who get to decide what it looks like, right. As far as paying for it, I agree the 49ers are only talking to SC

http://www.examiner.com/a-730792~Hunters_Point_plan_given_the_go_ahead.html

[TheWiz]

There was the same more or less baseless hype months ago over the Santa Clara site. Goodell and some other executives stood around and said it was a nice location to build and all was great. It matters very little what the view from Hunter's point is. The problem is that the site is not ready for football.

- Hunter's Point, the land on which the stadium and lots of infrastructure would be built, is a Super Fund Site. Despite years of working on it, I believe about 2 years ago when the team looked at it, the Navy said the site would be bad until 2015 or 2016. Newsome wants them to fast track and thinks more men will speed up nature. If the team commits to the site and delays hold it all up for even half a year, it costs millions more. You've got to pay penalties to contractors and they get paid for doing no work. Materials costs rise and so on. Not to mention, getting it clean by early 2010 is a longshot at best if lots of money were thrown at it. Unless the city wants to foot the possible cost overruns, which it never will.

-The site is a traffic problem. The site is nearly 1.5-2M from the nearest usable major highway. When the vast majority of fans come from outside the city and you're talking about 30k-40k cars per game, that's a problem. Leaving and entering that stadium would involve a LOT of cars on tight streets to be used for housing, not thru-ways. There are nearly no mass transportation methods. Near game times it will be so packed in that area even the idea of lots of buses become non-viable as they could never keep on schedule.

- There is no 100M on the table. The city has no more power to help us than it did when we barely got a bond measure. Newsome is pitching the idea that technically they could legally shortcut that money towards a new stadium. That's a maneuvre that will outrage most of the city which opposes giving a dime to the team in any way.

Hunter's Point is one thing only: Political Positioning. Newsome dropped the ball. The city was non-existant and un-interested in 2004 when the team was exploring sites, including Hunter's Point. He never made meetings or returned interest on the original deal.

He dropped the ball big time. He claimed the 49ers owners lied and cheated him and never mentioned Santa Clara. Local Newspapers laughed after having written about the teams interest since that summer. Now he is trying to pitch a site he knows is not viable for an NFL stadium. His timetable hangs by a breakable thread. All he needs to do is have the appearance of offering a decent site. You don't get re-elected by losing the cities best sports franchise. So he's trying to make it look even more as if the team is just ignoring him, blame the unpopular Yorks, that's his plan. If he makes the unpopular owners look like they just don't know what's best for them, he has his excuse come next election.

[sf9ergrl]

http://www.nbc11.com/slideshow/sports/10374686/detail.html

[Ness]

We need a new mayor. Seriously, is it a good idea to screw off the city's most popular team in America's most popular sport if you want to get re-elected?

[The Jerm!]

We need a new mayor. Seriously, is it a good idea to screw off the city's most popular team in America's most popular sport if you want to get re-elected?

And he cheated on his wife.....:laugh:

[arch]

And he cheated on his wife.....:laugh:

he was divorced already

[ethanh]

-The site is a traffic problem. The site is nearly 1.5-2M from the nearest usable major highway. When the vast majority of fans come from outside the city and you're talking about 30k-40k cars per game, that's a problem. Leaving and entering that stadium would involve a LOT of cars on tight streets to be used for housing, not thru-ways. There are nearly no mass transportation methods. Near game times it will be so packed in that area even the idea of lots of buses become non-viable as they could never keep on schedule.

- There is no 100M on the table. The city has no more power to help us than it did when we barely got a bond measure. Newsome is pitching the idea that technically they could legally shortcut that money towards a new stadium. That's a maneuvre that will outrage most of the city which opposes giving a dime to the team in any way.


Wiz I am not buying it that this is just a political save face deal. I believe the city of San Francisco has a hell of a lot more power then you give them credit for. More then SC for that matter. I have faith the Mayor, Senator and House speaker know the importance and I hope they will be doing their part to make it happen. (I have written them all.)

As voters I feel people will vote to turn a Abandon ship yard into a community with a stadium before turning a "needed" Great America parking lot into a stadium.

As for traffic, with a new exit on the north side of Hunters Point Hill, going directly to the 280 and the 101, Plus the same exits as Candlestick on the south side, I see no reason it would be any worse then todays traffic.

You are still probably right on with the time table not looking good for the clean up, But in the end it could be easier if SC keeps having issues. I would also bet the NFL wants them to stay in SF.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Pretty pictures published by a developer planning to make millions by selling residential property with or without a stadium - does not mean a proposal was ever written or submitted to the team. I also believe the cited newspaper article contains an error by stating the team is still negotiating with the city of San Francisco. As I understand it, the team is e currently negotiating with only ONE city and it is NOT SF. The team has stated they are still open to discussion with SF, but no one on the team has used the word "negotiation". Though Newsome and his croonies are happy to claim negotiations are still in progress. I'm guessing part of their strategy is to continue to pretend the Niners are not leaving. This will convince voters that they knew what they were doing all along.

The Hunter's Point "Plan" is a residential and commercial development plan prepared by the Lennar Corp. They are hoping to proceed with or without the stadium since they are expecting to make a bundle one way or the other. (I'd be willing to bet they'd make more without one and therefore aren't really that interested ... but then again, what do I know. I'm just a fan.)

[conqueso34]

it seems to me by reading most of the people posts who want a stadium in santa clara live close to it in vicinity and try to find other reasons to move the stadium there. but i see your true reasons

[Niner Jan]

I feel like having their field next to an amusement park makes the team look adolescent some how.

Did you know that the 49ers' Training Facility and Headquarters is across the street from that same parking lot that you say "makes the team look adolescent somehow." Now, don't you feel silly after such a comment, knowing the team is quartered there, too? And has been for almost 20 years.
You just didn't know that, all this time... :shades:

*********

[QUOTE)It seems to me by reading most of the posts people who want a stadium in santa clara live close to it in vicinity and try to find other reasons to move the stadium there.[/QUOTE]

Hey Cheese (queso),

I get nothing out of championing the stadium's being in Santa Clara because
I can't see the field because of my eyes, so I watch at home. But I've been talking up a storm in favor of the SC site because it is a MUCH BETTER SITE than the polluted site at Hunter's Point, which will have the same transportation/traffic problems that Candlestick has--and will not be cleaned up for another few years, any way. I'm not going into reasons all over again because I've done that thoroughly. Look up my posts, if you are interested in my reasons. Better yet, read WIZ's; his posts are superior.

I've been attending CC meetings in SC and spoke twice before the Council, but I have nothing to gain for myself. What I do, is out of love for the team and the organization because I know that SC is a better site for the team and the fans than crummy, stinky, polluted, crowded Hunter's Point.

NATHAN,

The City of SF has not given a written proposal to the 49ers for Hunter's Point. The City of SC has been working on a 6-month Feasibility Study and has presented a written proposal to the Team. So, don't say that SF has presented anything in writing. Right now, all the Mayor is doing is called political posturing, trying to save his neck from losing being re-elected.

Niner Mom :this:

[RaiderHater]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNojxyIYpdk

A segment on the local news about the NFL's visit to the Santa Clara Site.

[Peter Proud]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNojxyIYpdk

A segment on the local news about the NFL's visit to the Santa Clara Site.

Great find Alex! Thanks!

[co2112]

it seems to me by reading most of the people posts who want a stadium in santa clara live close to it in vicinity and try to find other reasons to move the stadium there. but i see your true reasons

Are you kidding, I just want a place I can watch that is well built, has great traffic control, tailgating and can attract the NFL to host a Superbowl. If it has a mall attached or condos, aprtments or townhomes near by I won't matter to me because the property would be grossly overpriced.

I don't want to take my family and hangout on Sundays in the Fall that used to be radioactive. Regardless of if the city or government says its all cleaned up. I don't want to park in a parking garage and I would like to get to an from in a reasonable amount of time. Traffic was terrible after Family Day in San Francisco and the traffic after a Giants game trying to drive through downtown is even worse. We have been talking about a new stadium and for sometime. I grew up going to the Stick watching the Giants and 49ers would I hate to see it go ofcourse but its nearly 10 years too late and we (fans will have to wait another 5) to see something be completed.

I'd prefer playing at Standford or Berkley for a season or two while they demolished and rebuilt at Candlestick point because its familiar to me but change can be good and at this time we need change, direction and certainty that the team I grew up is only 40 minutes away from there current spot rather than in another state.

As far as your "insight" I drive from Sacramento to San Francisco to enjoy the teams I grew up watching so I will either be driving West or South West either way its gonna take the same amount of time. And as someone mentioned earlier 90% of season ticket holders drive from outside San Francisco.

[Stumpy]

90% of season ticket holders drive from outside San Francisco

:link:

[MarcusCA420]

KEEP OUR NINERS IN SAN FRANCISCO!:sflogo:

[arch]

with all the press Santa Clara and SF have had since November, it seems SC getting the stadium isn't such a slamdunk anymore. It may remain close between the two site for awhile, but in the end, I think the stadium will remain in San Francisco.

[co2112]

:link:



About 9 percent of 49ers season ticket holders live in San Francisco, while some 30 percent live in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties combined. (http://www.nbc11.com/news/10632086/detail.html)

That would leave me to beleive 91% are outside of San Francisco

[ethanh]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNojxyIYpdk

A segment on the local news about the NFL's visit to the Santa Clara Site.
Interesting piece and pretty fair if they did the same story the day before in HP following Newsom. My only problem is York's line, although he is selling so why not, but the part about it being "the perfect spot" and "like someone planned it 20yrs ago."
In my opinion the location is way too small. The fact they are needing a parking garage proves it to me. Also, the fact that they will have to lease corporate office parking spots to get enough room is also a warning sign.

Of course they always bring up the rail line that in my opinion does not go anywhere other than downtown San Jose. Does anyone use that thing?

[co2112]

I dont see that as a problem, to lease corporate parking spots. I think its lame but if you have ever been to Shoreline all the business parks around there have parking guys set up and charging $20-35 to leave your car somewhere Im sure they will be making most if not all money back.

[sf9ergrl]

My only problem is York's line, although he is selling so why not, but the part about it being "the perfect spot" and "like someone planned it 20yrs ago."
I also hated when Pat Mahan said that "the parents could go to the game and the kids could go to the park". i would aussume if the kids where old they would want to go to the game or if they where young you would want to go to the park with them (maybe thats just me) http://www.ktvu.com/news/13548463/detail.html

[Peter Proud]

I also hated when Pat Mahan said that "the parents could go to the game and the kids could go to the park". i would aussume if the kids where old they would want to go to the game or if they where young you would want to go to the park with them (maybe thats just me) http://www.ktvu.com/news/13548463/detail.html

Good observation!

Welcome to the board!

[TheWiz]

... In addition, I feel like having their field next to an amusement park makes the team look adolescent some how.

Don't get me started on adolescents in todays day and age. Oh...wait...

Wiz I am not buying it that this is just a political save face deal. I believe the city of San Francisco has a hell of a lot more power then you give them credit for. More then SC for that matter. I have faith the Mayor, Senator and House speaker know the importance and I hope they will be doing their part to make it happen. (I have written them all.)

As voters I feel people will vote to turn a Abandon ship yard into a community with a stadium before turning a "needed" Great America parking lot into a stadium.

As for traffic, with a new exit on the north side of Hunters Point Hill, going directly to the 280 and the 101, Plus the same exits as Candlestick on the south side, I see no reason it would be any worse then todays traffic.

You are still probably right on with the time table not looking good for the clean up, But in the end it could be easier if SC keeps having issues. I would also bet the NFL wants them to stay in SF.

This is a difference of opinion. Look at everything involved. For example, the city was doing nothing about encouraging us to return. Newsome and the city was non-existant while the team had spent 2 years examining sites. We went to Hunter's Point and did studies on it. We hired Lennar to create a new overallconcept and an architectural firm just to design a stadium. The best we did was petition the Mayor who saw so much opposition to a revote on the 100M bond concept he spent more time exploring political shortcuts. There was no "Let's approve 200M to give to the team to keep them here!" before the team said they saw Santa Clara as a better site.

In fact, it wasn't even the city who initiated Hunter's Point revivals. It was Lennar corporation. As the initial backup site in the city, Lennar had developed a basic plan for Hunter's Point as well. When the team shot down their proposal they buffed up their backup idea and pitched it to the mayor. Otherwise choose to deny reality. Did the exact same corporation hired by the team, which took multiple months to come up with a Candlestick Park presentation suddenly get hired by the Mayor's office and spit out a Hunter's Point presentation almost overnight? It's called Lennar play their own political cards. They knew the mayor would need a backup plan and they offered a basic one of a silver platter. The mayor didn't realize he could produce a counter offer and hired oh say...Lennar and get them to produce an offer from scratch in half the time. The developer had a backup plan and spun it into an offer a politically maligned mayor couldn't turn down to counter offer then team, plain and simple.

The NFL could care less. It has plenty of teams outside of their 'host' cities across the league. Many sports do. All they care about is if the venue is great for sales and profits, will it be a good host city and site for a Super Bowl and playoff games, and if it has long-term stability at its site.

Here is exactly what the mayor SHOULD be doing. Of course I'm not politician but it only makes perfect sense in my brain. Why not take the "My eyes have opened and realized that Hunter's Point is a public health risk for my city. We will expedite all cleanup efforts to my full extent" Make it look like he's doing a favor and THEN wait before pulling out a Lennar deal. Removing one of the biggest doubts about the property would be a problem for the team. It would actually improve the chances of getting the land ready in time. Except he's not doing that. He's not pressuring for more Navy contractors. Months have gone by, no extra crews hired by the city to clean the site up. Even if Santa Clara falls through, at this rate, it won't ever be done by '10. Yet he's still pushing the idea that it can be cleaned up in time. Even if he started months ago, it was a risk. Something required to get the team onto the site on time and perhaps the biggest single problem, not even addressed. Without the stadium, the cleanup will just drag.

Pretty pictures published by a developer planning to make millions by selling residential property with or without a stadium - does not mean a proposal was ever written or submitted to the team. I also believe the cited newspaper article contains an error by stating the team is still negotiating with the city of San Francisco. As I understand it, the team is e currently negotiating with only ONE city and it is NOT SF. The team has stated they are still open to discussion with SF, but no one on the team has used the word "negotiation". Though Newsome and his croonies are happy to claim negotiations are still in progress. I'm guessing part of their strategy is to continue to pretend the Niners are not leaving. This will convince voters that they knew what they were doing all along.

The Hunter's Point "Plan" is a residential and commercial development plan prepared by the Lennar Corp. They are hoping to proceed with or without the stadium since they are expecting to make a bundle one way or the other. (I'd be willing to bet they'd make more without one and therefore aren't really that interested ... but then again, what do I know. I'm just a fan.)

I'm beginning to think you're one fan that gets the big idea. The team is not negotiating with the city, it's a word the papers can print to make discussions seem more active on the team's behalf, they're not. The team is open to suggestions and discussing with the mayor's office and city. Nowhere has a 'deal' been offered. We've been into Santa Clara for months now, still no deals in place. We have pitched ideas, we have negotiated, but there is no deal. There is no Santa Clara saying "We offer you a contract saying we will give you....this" or anything such on our part.

I liken it to the following occurence. "I'll bet you $100 Barry hits a home run this at bat" "That's a great bet." *SMACK* "HAhhh. Home run, you owe me $100!" "We had no deal" "We were in negotiations, you said it looked good!" "Actually I said it was a great bet. I never said I accepted it." "We were in negitations! I need the money. At least give me $8" "No." "Fine....how about $40?" "No." "Darnit I already bet you $20 on the game and my wife will divorce me if I lose another dollar gambling! Give me $20...PLEASE!"

it seems to me by reading most of the people posts who want a stadium in santa clara live close to it in vicinity and try to find other reasons to move the stadium there. but i see your true reasons

I think you have no idea what you're talking about. I think the only thing true is that YOU are in fact in favor of ANY deal close to SF for exactly that reason. Besides, if a majority of fans are in favor of a SC deal due to better location...why wouldn't the team want that deal if everything else is so equal? What do you want for them to tell their fan base "NO! We will built it in a place where the largest proportion of you will be inconvenienced the most!" The lack of a non-toxic plot of land with great traffic at a spot that won't lead to 3 years of disrupted traffic for the current stadium doesn't occur to you?


I'd prefer playing at Standford or Berkley for a season or two while they demolished and rebuilt at Candlestick point because its familiar to me but change can be good and at this time we need change, direction and certainty that the team I grew up is only 40 minutes away from there current spot rather than in another state.

Personally I think this is one of the actual best ideas I have heard. I'd actually prefer it over the Hunter's Point proposal! Here is why it has some problems though.
1) Monster Park is built on unstable land, in fact, it is sinking. Really it was first designed to only house baseball and a smaller crowd. Additions since then and bigger crowds and time have caused it to sink and become a bigger problem. Think about it, why build a baseball stadium so it gets damp and wet during high tide? To play baseball on a slippery infield? The Giants could've also chosen to renovate the park, even they abandoned it for a new one. Even Hunter's Point is designed to more inland by enough of a further distance to be able to build on some level of bedrock.
2) Cost! Ripping up a parking lot and even cleaning toxic soil (which takes time more than anything) is nothing compared to tearing down a stadium. If we leave at the end of a lease, the city is free to lease it cheap and run it into the ground and let it rip itself up before demolishing it. Hopefully the site will be so good a new developer will actually pay to demolish it to put in homes or businesses. To rip up a parking lot you need guys with jackhammers, bulldozers to pick up the slabs of asphalt, dump trucks, and even then a contractor can recycle it back for road and construction use or dump it into a disused quarry. A stadium? Wrecking balls, demolition crews, thousands if not millions of tons of concrete and iron to be dug out of the ground, non-seperable refuse, and it goes on. It could take millions to take out that stadium and millions more to remove old infrastructure and prepare the site to be as good as the Santa Clara site.

:link:

Provided on many of the threads in this section.

...
In my opinion the location is way too small. The fact they are needing a parking garage proves it to me. Also, the fact that they will have to lease corporate office parking spots to get enough room is also a warning sign.


Why is it too small? A parking garage, given the same land space, can house more parking spaces because it builds vertically. Also, just because it is a parking garage in no way does that guarantee traffic flow. Assuming it fills for a full game, a small handful of fans even leave by halftime for one reason or another. A much bigger amount may leave when victory or defeat are imminent. Some people wait until a while after the game, some leave with 3 minutes on the clock. Even another handful may need to leave for personal reasons after halftime. Even packed to the brim, a parking garage could be a third empty by the time a flood of fans leaves in the last few minutes of a contest. The fact is that if you allow for 70k fans, you need to arrange for about 40-55% of them to each have vehicles. Not everyone carpools, has a family of 4, and plenty who arrive come in single or two person cars. You can also count on people actually arriving via public transportation or being dropped off by someone. That's a LOT of spots and many which will never be used on many games. Fans who pay for the parking garage pay for the shorter walk and accessibility. Not to mention freedom from the elements and parking garage security.

Any stadium of the size of an NFL stadium needs massive parking space and uses parking garages a lot of the time. I honestly don't see the problem with off-site parking. Some fans hate paying any parking costs so much they get dropped off by friends or family or park a mall miles away and ride the bus over. Does Candlestick have great parking? Even the last project on that site needed a 10k car garage, a sheer feat of engineering and a big project risk, to happen. The Santa Clara site calls for a long garage only 5 stories high that can house a few thousand, a realistic option, and right in front of the stadium. Even a Hunter's Point deal looks to likely require something like parking at old Candlestick and commuting on a public bus route. That just hasn't been discussed because the city just claims the land is there for the stadium, they have yet to pitch an offer with parking proposals and traffic proposals involved.


Of course they always bring up the rail line that in my opinion does not go anywhere other than downtown San Jose. Does anyone use that thing?

So are you suggesting that a city as big as San Jose doesn't have ticket purchasers who would like to attend games? You're writing with the tone that a public transport facility is actually not that impressive. Which sounds better, a parking garage, some inner-city bus routes, and large parking lot or a parking garage, a large parking lot, inner city bus routes, and a light railway?

I also hated when Pat Mahan said that "the parents could go to the game and the kids could go to the park". i would aussume if the kids where old they would want to go to the game or if they where young you would want to go to the park with them (maybe thats just me) http://www.ktvu.com/news/13548463/detail.html

What should she say? Assume dad doesn't go to the game and mom does? Insinuate that mom doesn't like football or that women only care about watching the kids? Or perhaps that there is no such thing as teenagers who cannot behave themselves in a theme park? Why can't 16 year old girls go to the park with their friends? MUST a teenaged boy prefer football over thrilling rides and video games? The better point is that children can blackmail their parents into letting them go into the park since Mom and/or Dad are going there already.

[ethanh]

Thanks for the reply Wiz, some good points to consider about the NFL not caring and how the city dropped the ball. I just got back from the Giants game where my second favorite team is garbage so I got little fight in me.
Can't wait for the season to start and by the end of the season the stadium deal should all be settled. So only another two months to care about it.

[Peter Proud]

Thanks for the reply Wiz, some good points to consider about the NFL not caring and how the city dropped the ball. I just got back from the Giants game where my second favorite team is garbage so I got little fight in me.
Can't wait for the season to start and by the end of the season the stadium deal should all be settled. So only another two months to care about it.

I think we can all agree that we want to know there's a deal in place with someone.

[sf9ergrl]

What should she say? Assume dad doesn't go to the game and mom does? Insinuate that mom doesn't like football or that women only care about watching the kids?

No, what i'm saying is that if the stadium is built next to a chuck e. cheese your not going to say dump your kids off there and go watch the game. If she wanted to make the case of both business helping each other she should have said i don't know something like Make Sunday a family day come to PGA than watch the 49ers game (or vice versa). I also said parents i never mention anything about mom vs dad or which sex prefers football over the other

Or perhaps that there is no such thing as teenagers who cannot behave themselves in a theme park? Why can't 16 year old girls go to the park with their friends? MUST a teenaged boy prefer football over thrilling rides and video games?

I said KIDS (boys and girls) would love to go to the theme park when they are younger over the game but when their older (BOYS AND GIRLS) might prefer to watch the 49ers game. Of course some teenagers can handle themselves, others can't (but i don't want to get you started on adolescents in todays day and age with their generations attentions span).


The better point is that children can blackmail their parents into letting them go into the park since Mom and/or Dad are going there already.

Yea i'm sure that will go over well why didn't Pat Mahan mention that?

[TheWiz]

Can't wait for the season to start and by the end of the season the stadium deal should all be settled. So only another two months to care about it.

Even more unlikely Ethanh. Around the start of the season the city of SDanta Clara will finally choose whether they like what they see or not in the overall investment and offer. A follow up environmental impact study will take until at least late december or until the probowl to complete. Then there is also the likelihood of a public vote on it in January too. Then after all is done, all that has been accomplished at best is that in February or March the city has agreed to the deal in principle. Then it's more weeks and months of lawyers and details like how much exactly the city will give up, how will we get funding, etc. It could easily be this time next year before it's written in stone and the team can start putting together a team to oversee everything.

No, what i'm saying is that if the stadium is built next to a chuck e. cheese your not going to say dump your kids off there and go watch the game. If she wanted to make the case of both business helping each other she should have said i don't know something like Make Sunday a family day come to PGA than watch the 49ers game (or vice versa). I also said parents i never mention anything about mom vs dad or which sex prefers football over the other

I never said that you did say one or another. The point is SHE doesn't have the luxury to say that, it's a trap. As I said, if she says "Dad goes to the game and Mom watches the kids" more or less feminists and empowered women would pounce on it. In politics if you do one interview where you say anything favoring a social agenda leaning in some direction it never leaves you.


Yea i'm sure that will go over well why didn't Pat Mahan mention that?

Because you never say something like that when you're the mayor? If anything making that obvious to the public would get more people against the stadium. Then dads across the region don't want the stadium there if they've got to pay to get his kids into the gates 3 times a season.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

...Of course they always bring up the rail line that in my opinion does not go anywhere other than downtown San Jose. Does anyone use that thing?Hmmm, sounds like another provincial SF resident looking down their nose at the farmers in south county.

You do realize San Jose is no longer an agricultural city of prune orchards right? You've heard of Silicon Valley?

Well the light rail system operated by the VTA (http://www.vta.org/) not only serves San Jose, it also reaches the following cities in Santa Clara County:

Mountain View
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
Campbell
MilpitasAnd I hope you realize the city of San Jose is significantly larger than San Francisco. There are nearly a quarter of a million more residents in this "suburb" than in SF. When you add in the cities above, we're talking nearly 2 million people, compared to 700 thousand in SF.

But don't mind me, I still got a few trees to trim......

[ethanh]

Hmmm, sounds like another provincial SF resident looking down their nose at the farmers in south county.

You do realize San Jose is no longer an agricultural city of prune orchards right? You've heard of Silicon Valley?

Well the light rail system operated by the VTA (http://www.vta.org/) not only serves San Jose, it also reaches the following cities in Santa Clara County:

Mountain View
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
Campbell
MilpitasAnd I hope you realize the city of San Jose is significantly larger than San Francisco. There are nearly a quarter of a million more residents in this "suburb" than in SF. When you add in the cities above, we're talking nearly 2 million people, compared to 700 thousand in SF.

But don't mind me, I still got a few trees to trim......

Well great, a suburb of SF gets large enough for a footabll team. It is that statement which makes people say call them the San Jose 49ers. You know LA is larger then the bay area too. SF is at the center of the bay area and no one would complain if thay stayed there. If Santa Clara is better then so be it, SF will continue to grow, it is a city not a suburb. You still have not said whether anyone would take that rail line or not.

[sf9ergrl]

I never said that you did say one or another. The point is SHE doesn't have the luxury to say that, it's a trap. As I said, if she says "Dad goes to the game and Mom watches the kids" more or less feminists and empowered women would pounce on it. In politics if you do one interview where you say anything favoring a social agenda leaning in some direction it never leaves you.

You didn't say i said but you implied that i did (kind of if i said why does it have to be the dads that pays to get the kids into the park and not the moms?). She doesn't have the luxury thats why she should have said make gameday "a family day" because she's pretty much saying leave your kids at the park and go catch the game.



Because you never say something like that when you're the mayor? If anything making that obvious to the public would get more people against the stadium. Then dads across the region don't want the stadium there if they've got to pay to get his kids into the gates 3 times a season.

If the public can't see that then the city might as well make them pay for everything since they won't even know anything is going on :lightning: .

[Roadhg67]

Let's just worry about getting a stadium built... at first I was a little disappointed about the Niners leaving San Fran, but I really could care less at this point. I know it's going to take a LOT more time to get this proposal approved anywhere, but I just want to see something finalized and get construction going A.S.A.P. so we can be done with this and get to watch the Niners in a REAL NFL venue.

[TheWiz]

Let's just worry about getting a stadium built... at first I was a little disappointed about the Niners leaving San Fran, but I really could care less at this point. I know it's going to take a LOT more time to get this proposal approved anywhere, but I just want to see something finalized and get construction going A.S.A.P. so we can be done with this and get to watch the Niners in a REAL NFL venue.

I commend you Roadhg67 for being a loyal fan. The team did not just decide to abandon San Francisco sites based on a whim. After all, the team does carry the name of the city. If there were a cost-worthy site in San Francisco that was realistically sized for a stadium and accompanying parking, the team would not be looking at Santa Clara. However, there are several big hurdles still in front of the team and it may easily be over 9 months before anything is final. So don't hold your breath.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Well great, a suburb of SF gets large enough for a footabll team. It is that statement which makes people say call them the San Jose 49ers. You know LA is larger then the bay area too. SF is at the center of the bay area and no one would complain if thay stayed there. If Santa Clara is better then so be it, SF will continue to grow, it is a city not a suburb. You still have not said whether anyone would take that rail line or not.Like I said - "provincial".

No one who has followed this subject would even suggest any thing other than "San Francisco 49ers." We know the team has taken the name issue off the table.

SF residents are welcome to continue THINKING they live at the center of the universe. However, think on this a bit. Which company made the computer you are probably using to post? How about the CPU chip? The memory device? The hard drive? Or even the basic integrated circuit? Lemme give you a hint - most of those companies do not have corporate headquarters located in SF. For the bonus round - wanna guess where they are located?

Oh, and by the way, you might want to look up the true figures on the SF population growth rate. You might be surprised to learn what their "actual" growth has been for the past five years. While you're at it. The stadium studies contain estimates on how many people will come to the stadium via public transit. It's part of their detailed transportation plan. My opinion regarding how many people will ride the light rail means little when you can consult an expert. I highly recommend it. The only thing I can say for certain. You were wrong to state the light rail station only served downtown San Jose. Way wrong.

[conqueso34]

a lot of you might of been pissed at my recent comment in this topic, and rightfully so (i was a little inebriated, sp?) to tell you the truth i dont care where they play(as long in west bay area) i just like going to games with the fam and have been doin it for 23 years. I just want to see games, tailgate and drink and win of course, but would prefer if they stayed in sf

[Local49ersFan]

I am not going to worry about this anymore.

- Santa Clara has to convince the owner of Great America that the stadium will not negatively affect their park.
- The team is saying it will move the headquarter wherever the stadium is built, that means they need even more money if the deal doesn't go through.

I bet you I will still be watching games in Candlestick in 2012. I hope we can win another SB by then. It will be the only stadium that has 6 SB seasons!