hunters point

[BEAT LA]

this was a post i made on some thread i thought it desetved its own thread
what do you guys think..dont you agree that by building a stadium in hunters point it would revitalize the area?

the stadium sucks....
hopefully they throw all these plans in the trash and start a new design in hunters point

why?....think about it....the hunters point is an area that needs to change... this stadium would dramatically do that...think about it, if you build the stadium in SC then youre just helping out an already economical area...and if the stadium was built there then that would mean no stadium in hunters point which translates into the area staying crappy for maybe forever...what im trying to say is that by building the stadium in hunters point we would be revitalizing hunters point...

[The Jerm!]

this was a post i made on some thread i thought it desetved its own thread
what do you guys think..dont you agree that by building a stadium in hunters point it would revitalize the area?

the stadium sucks....
hopefully they throw all these plans in the trash and start a new design in hunters point

why?....think about it....the hunters point is an area that needs to change... this stadium would dramatically do that...think about it, if you build the stadium in SC then youre just helping out an already economical area...and if the stadium was built there then that would mean no stadium in hunters point which translates into the area staying crappy for maybe forever...what im trying to say is that by building the stadium in hunters point we would be revitalizing hunters point...

Not really a strong point.

[BEAT LA]

Not really a strong point.

how is it not a strong point? think about how it would hel the hunters point area:up:

[sdmvssp]

Your whole point is basically that the stadium should be built there because it is the worse site... that's not a strong point

[The Jerm!]

how is it not a strong point? think about how it would hel the hunters point area:up:

And ruin our current stadium future set up. You know WHY were choosing SC over HP in SF? Because of the qualities it brings up. You just want to keep the 49ers in SF so your trying to bring up anything you can to try to back that concept up but it just won't look good anywhere in SF.

[ThiZZ]

hunters point is ghetto as ****

[sandiegojoe]

i'd rather find my car with the stereo still in it after a game.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

First, I would ask you to clarify and substantiate your statement "the stadium sucks..." Which stadium? Candlestick? The proposed stadium in Santa Clara? You may receive some argument on the former - but I suspect others will agree. If you're speaking of the latter, I'd certainly like to hear more about how you arrived at such an extreme opinion.

As for Hunter's Point - you should know that the team studied that site and rejected it years ago for a variety of reasons. Yes, a stadium there would help revitalize the area - but the costs and logistics of building there are prohibitive.

You can find a number of arguments against Hunter's point by reading through some of the other threads in this section.

[BrentJones84]

Your whole point is basically that the stadium should be built there because it is the worse site... that's not a strong point

Hey, it's worked for the enitre history of the Raiders!!

Oh wait..... :hide:

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Hey, it's worked for the enitre history of the Raiders!!

Oh wait..... :hide::ohsnap: :laugh:

[The Jerm!]

Runnnnn away, run away from the painnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!

[BEAT LA]

i'd rather find my car with the stereo still in it after a game.

:down: thats messed up

[BEAT LA]

First, I would ask you to clarify and substantiate your statement "the stadium sucks..." Which stadium? Candlestick? The proposed stadium in Santa Clara? You may receive some argument on the former - but I suspect others will agree. If you're speaking of the latter, I'd certainly like to hear more about how you arrived at such an extreme opinion.

As for Hunter's Point - you should know that the team studied that site and rejected it years ago for a variety of reasons. Yes, a stadium there would help revitalize the area - but the costs and logistics of building there are prohibitive.

You can find a number of arguments against Hunter's point by reading through some of the other threads in this section.

i think the plans for our new stadium suck
it looks like a plain ol' stadium

[The Jerm!]

i think the plans for our new stadium suck
it looks like a plain ol' stadium

And how would it look if we did it at hunters point?

[Peter Proud]

i think the plans for our new stadium suck
it looks like a plain ol' stadium

Go to Office Depot, get your supplies, get to work.

Show us how it should look!

[BEAT LA]

And ruin our current stadium future set up. You know WHY were choosing SC over HP in SF? Because of the qualities it brings up. You just want to keep the 49ers in SF so your trying to bring up anything you can to try to back that concept up but it just won't look good anywhere in SF.

well yeah...i actuall want to keep the stadium here...and no im not just trying to bring up anything to back up my stuff...it would keep the stadium here which is good and on the side it would help out the community...and for the guy that said that he would rather still have his stereo still in after the game maybe if this stadium was built things would change around there and you wouldnt have to worry about your stereo being stolen

[BEAT LA]

Go to Office Depot, get your supplies, get to work.

Show us how it should look!

im actually thinking of doing that...and i will maybe a couple of drawings...ill post them up in a couple of weeks

[Peter Proud]

im actually thinking of doing that...and i will maybe a couple of drawings...ill post them up in a couple of weeks

Please do.

[BEAT LA]

Please do.

ok i will

[Peter Proud]

Get ready to get torn apart by the Wiz.

Be nice......or you'll have to go to 'the naughty place'!:flex:

[The Jerm!]

well yeah...i actuall want to keep the stadium here...and no im not just trying to bring up anything to back up my stuff...it would keep the stadium here which is good and on the side it would help out the community...and for the guy that said that he would rather still have his stereo still in after the game maybe if this stadium was built things would change around there and you wouldnt have to worry about your stereo being stolen

Show me proof you can prove that.

[fabie]

NOBODY PUTS BABY IN THE CORNER!
http://www.movieactors.com/freeseframes-1026/DirtyDancing28.jpeg:laugh::thud:

[arch]

What you don't realize, is that the Hunter's Point Shipyard, and the surrounding area, is going to be re-developed anyway, new stadium, or not.

If the 49ers move to Santa Clara (which is now more of a stretch than before), SF would clear the Stick with a wrecking ball furiously, and start developing there also.

SF wins.

yup, that's basically what's going to happen. development of the area as well as candlestick point will go forward no matter what happens with the niners

[Fromthe3rdRow]

What you don't realize, is that the Hunter's Point Shipyard, and the surrounding area, is going to be re-developed anyway, new stadium, or not.

If the 49ers move to Santa Clara (which is now more of a stretch than before), SF would clear the Stick with a wrecking ball furiously, and start developing there also.

SF wins.Actually, I have seen the pretty pictures Lennar corp has distributed regarding their proposed development on Hunters Point. I have not read any details regarding said proposal. For example:

I do not know who is going to pay the extra costs required to clean up the Hunter's Point site according to Mayor Newsome's time table.
I do know the Fed is still required to clean up this Toxic Waste Super fund Site, but will do so on their own time table, not Newsome's.
I do not know what percentage of retail/residential and recreational space will be provided for in the development.
I do know that if a Stadium were included, Lennar would earn less in the short term since residential space sells quickly at huge mark up, thus their motivation for helping build a stadium may not be at a fever pitch.
I do not know where I can find details on San Francisco's plan to redevelop Hunter's point, especially in regards to who will pay for all of the infrastructure needed to support that development.
I do know that the city expected the Niners to pay for new roads, power, sewars and intersections for the Candlestick Park site - which is a primary reason the team is now looking at Santa Clara.
How much of that infrastructure will still be required for a stadium at Hunter's Point is also a question to be answered.And so, I have shared what I do know and what I do not. Care to help fill in any of the gaps? And while you're at it - care to tell me how much you would be willing to pay for a town home built on top of a Toxic Waste dump? A former dump with excellent views of the bay, but a dump none the less.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

From what I've know and read:

The Shipyard is not a toxic waste dump....

.... But, in fairness, here is a report on the toxins, and cleanup:

Here (http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/overview.nsf/ef81e03b0f6bcdb28825650f005dc4c1/f8cdc641e5183f068825660b007ee684OpenDocument#threa ts) ...

How convenient - the link you provided which details the toxic contaminants at the site did not work. However, with a little digging, I reached this site.

Region 9 Superfund Site: Hunters Point (http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/vwsoalphabetic/Hunters+Point+Naval+Shipyard?OpenDocument#threats)

It contained the following text:

"Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, sediments, soil, and surface water are contaminated with fuels, pesticides, heavy metals, PCBs, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Soil also contains asbestos. A landfill located on Parcel E also contains radium dials. People who accidentally ingest or come in direct contact with contaminated soils, sediments, surface water, or groundwater may face a health risk. Potential threats may also be presented by off-gas from VOCs, particularly vinyl chloride, present in hot spots in soil and groundwater. Various radionuclides, primarily radium 226 and cesium 137, have also been found at the Shipyard. The Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory program operated at Hunters Point Shipyard from the 1940s to 1969."

So I guess it was a DUMP (or landfill) after all, filled with toxic waste - but let's not play word games - lets consider the radioactivity at the site - so now we gots pretty views of the bay - which also glows in the dark? How convenient....:up:

[smoking_rubber]

You're both right, to a point. ANYTHING can be cleaned up. It's a matter of money and time. Who's money and how much time are seperate matters. It could be a beautiful site for a stadium, or it could be a 10 year project with 30 year reprocussions.

My opinion is, since it's going to get cleaned up and redeveloped anyway . . . why not sit back and wait till someone has a solid plan before you hitch your wagon to an iffy pony. The 49ers have several options and they honestly hold more cards in Santa Clara.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

As far as a stadium helping the nearby community...

well...

Candlestick sure has done wonders for THAT nearby community, hasn't it...

:crutch:

[Peter Proud]

As far as a stadium helping the nearby community...

well...

Candlestick sure has done wonders for THAT nearby community, hasn't it...

:crutch:

Rep!

[smoking_rubber]

As far as a stadium helping the nearby community...

well...

Candlestick sure has done wonders for THAT nearby community, hasn't it...

:crutch:

The neighborhoods surrounding candlestick are residential housing and commercial industry. A Monster stadium would do little to improve those two types of zones. Any business that requires foot traffic and/or drunk party seekers, would benefit. A Dave and Busters would do well on game day IMO. It's all about developing a master plan. The planners of Candlestick Point were shortsighted and the entire district has been neglected for many years. I would not place the blame solely on the stadium.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

:pigfly:

LOL, I guess a small landfill makes the whole shipyard a toxic dump, given you're reasoning? ....

I could care less about the whole ship yard. My only concern is the portion of land Lennar indicated might be used for a stadium.

As you know, the entire ship yard has been subdivided into various sections in order to prioritize clean up of areas with the highest levels of contaminants and to identify those portions which can be released to the city as quickly as possible. Each section has been given a letter designation.

Based on the maps of the area and Lennar's proposal, it appears the stadium and the surrounding parking lots will be placed almost entirely within Section E.

And the landfill you have been so busy attempting to minimize, is located within ..... wait for it.....

(one guess)

Bingo - your "little landfill" is located within Section E2 (A specially designated sub section of E which is so contaminated, no plan for mitigation has been released at this point.)

So, again. I ask - how much would you be willing to pay for a condo by the bay, built directly on top of radioactive toxic waste, which has been identified by your friendly federal government as a serious health risk? Hmmm? Maybe your buddies at Lennar will offer you a really good deal.

I'm just one happy Niner fan who knows the team has already examined the Hunter's Point site and decided there are better places availabvle. I don't want no deadly chemicals contaminating my tailgate.....

[sandiegojoe]

it can be cleaned up for sure, but it will take well over a decade. It is both a red tape issue and an engineering issue. Sampling and removal of contaminated land, groundwater, and soil gas mitigation is a time consuming process.

It can be made safe though. And it can also have restricted uses. Health risks on property are based on potential contact, so a residential land use assumes the worst. An old lady living at home 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week. Those standards are the most stringent, and would involve the most soil cleanup due to the possibility of a child digging in the dirt in a green area. A stadium would be seen as a commercial area similar to any other 40 hour workweek location, so exposure is reduced, soil levels would be less conservative since only landscapers would be occasionally exposed. A parking lot would be seen as the most lenient, since no soil exposure is expected. It would focus on an estimate of tailgaters being exposed to soil gas concentrations for maybe a maximum of 6 hours, one day a week, 8 times a year.

Basically by putting a stadium and parking lot in these areas, we reduce the level of cleanup that would be required if houses or a school were to be put there instead.

I really don't think any of it has to do with a "cheap and easy" solution. I just don't think waiting a dozen years fits the teams business model.

The city could clean it up and build a stadium, and by the time our lease is up at santa clara, Hunters point may be ready and we could consider moving there. That way everybody wins. :D

[Nevyn]

The Yorks have no vision.

Its easy to have vision when you aren't the one spending the money, isn't it?

[smoking_rubber]

Its easy to have vision when you aren't the one spending the money, isn't it?

So if you ARE the one spending money, blindness is acceptable and we're all supposed to accept whatever they provide? NO! We may have a small voice, but we'll be heard. Eventually we'll be heard by those with louder voices, and they'll be heard by those that make the decisions. One voice can make a difference.

[Nevyn]

So if you ARE the one spending money, blindness is acceptable and we're all supposed to accept whatever they provide? NO! We may have a small voice, but we'll be heard. Eventually we'll be heard by those with louder voices, and they'll be heard by those that make the decisions. One voice can make a difference.

Way to completely miss the point.

[smoking_rubber]

Its easy to have vision when you aren't the one spending the money, isn't it?

There was a point?

[Nevyn]

The point was that this is people with no financial stake in the venture judging someone for whom this stadium is a gigantic financial risk, and that I think their own "vision" on the issue might be significantly altered if they were the ones who were going to be ponying up the dough.

Specifically, that they may find the idea of committing to building on a site that requires substantial environmental cleanup a slightly more risky proposition, especially when they have to play in a dilapidated joke of a stadium until the new one is built, and even if cleanup goes smoothly it could significantly push back new stadium construction.

[Nevyn]

And again, the Yorks will prove shortsighted, because they could have thier version of AT&T Park,

Tell me how much more you think the Yorks would make from having "their own AT&T park" instead of a stadium in Santa Clara?

I think you are putting a lot of implied value which really is not there in the location of the stadium. AT&T park has to hold 81 baseball games, including weeknight games shortly after work concludes. As such, you want it to be close at hand to downtown SF and in a pleasant location. Going to a baseball game competes with going to the movies or to a show, and its location needs to be suited to that.

Football games happen once a week in the early afternoon, are preceding by hours of partying and are essentially day long events. Once inside, the action is fairly constantly moving and the atmosphere is electric. There is no gain from a picturesque location other than a nice overhead blimp shot for the TV.

If you look at other major football stadiums, they are FREQUENTLY built outside of the cities the teams are named after, often in locations that have ZERO appeal other than the stadium itself, and yet they flourish.

The only way the Yorks will ever end up kicking themselves and saying "we should have built in Hunter's Point" is if the SC deal falls through or is a financial failure, and I severely doubt either will be the case.

Now, do you really think that a stadium built in Santa Clara would not sell out? Do you really think that being next to a "crappy" amusement park will have any relevance at all to whether people show up?

Are you talking about the $160 million the 49ers are trying to hi-jack SC out of, by threatening to move thier HQ if they don't get it? Is that your money being spent there?

I think you should save your pennies in order to fund a clue there.

Actually I was talking about the hundreds of millions in spending and loans that the Yorks would have to personally commit to to build either stadium, and the lost revenue they would suffer if waiting on a stadium whose building was overdue because the Navy did not hold to its radiological cleanup timetable.

However, as to that 160 million, I don't live in Santa clara (or even California for that matter), but if I were a SC taxpayer, I'd be all over that deal and consider it a very good investment for the city.

[sandiegojoe]

It's not gonna take ten years to cleanup, .

Correct, it could easily take more than ten years to cleanup. Groundwater cleanups of this magnitude often take 10-20 years due to the need for constant pump n treat and vapor extraction methods.

That's not to say that it can't be cleaned up while operating as a stadium. There are mobile vapor extraction units that can run all week long and then shut down on game day. But having tens of thousands of fans potentially exposed to hazardous vapors in the meantime may not fit into the company's risk tolerance.

All you need is for some season ticket holder with lung cancer to find a scheister lawyer to hold the team responsible for his condition... factual or not.

[Nevyn]

Tell me how much they would lose building it in Hunter's Point.

Since I'm not a business analyst working the deal, I can't. Can you?

I don't know the relative cost or projected profitability of the two stadium proposals. I know that I consider a site which needs a radiological cleanup by the navy, THEN an environmental cleanup by the city before you can START building, as well as city commitments to make GETTING there convenient is a higher risk and far more likely to encounter significant delays than one build on an empty parking lot.

And delays mean not only costs and interest on loans, but also longer time before stadium revenues are realized.

Of course, we ALL know how many games are played in a baseball park, as opposed to a football stadium, so you pitch was a pure softball there.

What on earth does this have to do with anything? The point was that most baseball stadiums are located within the city the team is named for, while a great number of football stadiums are build outside city limits, and I was explaining a few of the reasons why. In short, your comparison to AT&T park is a load of bunk.

The point is that the 49ers could attach themselves to a renaissance, which is gonna be a benchmark for the new "Green City", and that publicity and status alone would be worth more that attaching themselves to "Jed York Soak Zone". Being a representative of not only an environmentally concious effort, but a social, as well as cultural effort, rises them above the mere dollars and cents.

It is their team and their money. If they don't want to rise above dollars and cents, its their choice.

Having a Stadium there would help ease some of the blows the Yorks have taken PR wise, especially since the latest threat to SC.

I don't necessarily disagree. But again, you are assuming that they really care about the PR hit anyway. At this point, I think they only really care if it hurts their wallet.

It had a view of the City

Heck, they just copied and pasted that design right into a parking lot in SC. You know what? It looks like crap. What I find funny is that when I watch a television broadcast of a Raider game, they always cut to an exterior of SF. That maybe a little more attractive than say the "John York Food Court" shot over Great America.


And? I go to a football game a year at Ralph Wilson Stadium. Know what it has a view of from the stadium? Absolutely nothing. Doesn't hurt the experience at all. Turns out I go to watch football, not for a panoramic view.

I thinl you need to keep that bench warm a little longer there bubba.


I love people who can be so simultaneously stupid and condescending.

A few of the Stadiums in outlying areas aren't an hour away from the City the teams named after either. I know how everybody pulls the "New York Giants, Arizona Cards, Dallas Cowboys" card, but they are less that 15 minitues away from the City the team are named after.

The Meadowlands is 15 minutes from Manhattan? Also, the Cardinals aren't named after a city. Or are they 15 minutes from Arizona, Arizona?

Fair enough, but SC doesn't have near the tourist attraction of SF, not anything near the history, architecture, culture, landmarks.....

Know a lot of football fans that stop off on their road trip to see history, architecture, culture and landmarks do you? Know a lot of tourists who would be willing to spend a day of their holiday at a football game but unwilling to take a "1 hour" (this is the highest estimate I've heard, btw, but im not a local so whatever).

The irony is, the Yorks need the SF name more the SF needs to build them a Stadium.

What's in a name, you ask?

The niners need the name, but there is no way the city/state legislature are going to win a fight to say they can't use it in Santa Clara.


Maybe the Yorks should just call the team the San Jose 49ers.

After all, by your reasoning, it wouldn't matter much if they did. I guess branding is a concept that failed you.


Are there any more words you want to put into my mouth? I guess reading is an ability that failed you. I asked you what financial consequences there would be for SC instead of Hunters and you didn't arrive at one until now, near the end of your post. And this is it? That the niners would be forced to change their name and lose their branding?

Someone I don't think Dr John is losing sleep.

Hold on there slappy, it's getting close to the 7th inning stretch here, Go get me some water and a Hot Dog, will ya?


You're the one who tried to use a baseball stadium as a model.

The Yorka are already spending money to try to convince the SC City Council for something they thought was a sure slam dunk, only to have thier proposal stalled.

You mean a major development proposal involving city land and city money didn't get immediately rubber stamped? I am shocked.

So far, I see a lot of opposition towards it.


Support is quiet. Opposition is loud. It's the way of the world. And in this case a lot of that opposition is just looking for a handout to go away.


Hey, it may not be your $160 mil you would have to contribute in taxes, because you don't live there.

On the downside, it also won't be my city getting the extra jobs and revenue that having a stadium there would provide, nor proceeds from the lease.

But hey, there is some swamp land I could sell you.

Is your swampland on Hunter's Point? If so, I think I'll pass until the navy cleans up the radioactive waste.

Basically you've said that the Yorks lack vision because building in SF would help their PR and the city's PR and everyone would think he's a wonderful guy. Well, even were that true and a slam dunk, it doesn't mean he lacks vision unless those are his primary goals.

[TheWiz]

Tell me how much they would lose building it in Hunter's Point.

Just a couple hundred million. I think you need to realize that you can't just fast track mother nature. You can double or triple manpower, which is still NOT being done at Hunter's Point, and yet not finish in time. The develop of the region is going forward with or without a stadium, that's true. But most of the develop is being done off the point and involves renovating and rebuilding existing structures. Meanwhile, the renovation of the actual shipyard only calls for a scenic park if the stadium is not built there. Something which doesn't warrant tripling cleanup costs for since it will be built whenever cleanup finishes.

All it takes is one bad groundwater test on the site or a bad soil sample in what will later be a vast parking lot and it delays construction. Crews need to place massive sewage and water piping under that soil. If a single bad test shows up anywhere in the process do you know what happens? More costs for cleanup. Quadruple the safety checks. Construction is delayed. Inflation in construction prices for materials comes to account. Not to mention all of those firms we hire to build it all? They get delayed so the team pay millions in salaries for workers who aren't even on the site. All you're paying for with a stadium is parts and labor. If that alone takes 2 years and 900M+ dollars, consider that even a delay of 6 months can cost 2%+ in interest and a LOT more in penalties on the construction contracts.


I mean, your trying to split a watermelon with a hammer here. Your comparison between the Stadium and the baseball park is a swing and a miss. Of course, we ALL know how many games are played in a baseball park, as opposed to a football stadium, so you pitch was a pure softball there. The point is that the 49ers could attach themselves to a renaissance, which is gonna be a benchmark for the new "Green City", and that publicity and status alone would be worth more that attaching themselves to "Jed York Soak Zone". Being a representative of not only an environmentally concious effort, but a social, as well as cultural effort, rises them above the mere dollars and cents.

I'm sorry, did you just suggest that the team should build at Hunter's Point to be environmentally friendly and the vast risk involved is going to be warranted by a moral victory? I'm sorry, if I offered you 100M in cash tomorrow but said you could risk it on a coin flip in order to achieve a feeling of 'moral goodness' if you lost, I doubt you'd take the risk and run with the cash. It's easy suggesting someone else sell their millions when you don't have any yourself.


Having a Stadium there would help ease some of the blows the Yorks have taken PR wise, especially since the latest threat to SC. Newsome has already shown the proposal to the League, and they liked it, even though they don't have any say into where the Yorks can build the Stadium, just on how they can help fund it.

Funny, the league 'officials' also like the Santa Clara site. The commissioner himself said it looked like a good site in almost those exact words and no hype. Meanwhile, the stunning endorsement of one league executive saying that Hunter's Point 'has a nice view' is worth more? Since when? What's next, a league secretary saying "Hunter's Point is a cute name" as a reason to endorse it?

You know what would ease the blows the ownership has taken? How about a brand new stadium in Santa Clara and a winning football team? They could take a lot less risk and donate 100k to Green Peace at halftime in the first game at the stadium and get the same PR influx for a fraction of the price.


Keep swingin there butchie. You forgot one thing here, and it concerns the original design of the Staduim, before the Yorks got cold feet:

It had a view of the City.

Heck, they just copied and pasted that design right into a parking lot in SC. You know what? It looks like crap. What I find funny is that when I watch a television broadcast of a Raider game, they always cut to an exterior of SF. That maybe a little more attractive than say the "John York Food Court" shot over Great America.

I'm sorry, so you want fans to pay for tickets and parking and go to a stadium and you think they give a darn about the skyline? Last time I checked, people go to see what happens on the field. If you won't go to a stadium because you don't think it has a nice view looking outside the stadium then you're not there to watch football in the first place. Besides, at what point did a view of the city become that invaluable?


You know they still send a blimp out for games in domes, don't you?

I don't see where anything he said suggested otherwise.


I dunno how you doubt how the SC deal can fall through, when it hasn't even started yet, and even still, the Yorks had to threaten SC for $$.

Hasn't even started yet? What part of the city paying hundreds of thousands just to look into the possibility of a stadium is not a sign of a possible deal? Secondly, no one, including the city of Santa Clara sees that 'threat' as real and it was largely overplayed in the media. Obviously if the team moves to say, the north bay near Napa or Sonoma, they won't want their training facilities hours from the stadium they play in. But if the team is looking for 160M in investment from the city, they clearly don't have the 60M+ to spend to build their own new practice facility elsewhere. It wasn't a threat as much as it was a passive reminder.

A few of the Stadiums in outlying areas aren't an hour away from the City the teams named after either. I know how everybody pulls the "New York Giants, Arizona Cards, Dallas Cowboys" card, but they are less that 15 minitues away from the City the team are named after. Hell, the Cards played in Tempe for a long time. Oakland Coloseum is faster to get to from SF than SC is from either. A move is a move, slick. They want to move closer to San Jose. Sellout's don't happen because they are near an amusement park, or a Bay. They happen becuase of the teams playing. But, I foget that since the Yorks have took over, that a lot of the fanbase sold thier season tickets, and now you see more of the oppositions fans than you do the homers. Fair enough, but SC doesn't have near the tourist attraction of SF, not anything near the history, architecture, culture, landmarks.....[/QUOTE]

1) The Giants or Cowboys don't need to go far away to find a city with the capability of supporting them, that's why. Once you leave SF, there aren't many major cities directly next to it and given the CA freeways, nothing is 15 minutes away. TX is so sparsely populated that once you leave HOU, DAL, or San Antonio, the biggest cities around are around that city. In the Bay Area, it's not built the same way unless you want the team in Oakland.

2) So, fans won't go to see the bay or an amusement park but yet you think history, culture and landmarks will draw them? Anyone who drives to the stadium in the area has likely seen the city at some point. Anyone who travels from afar who come great distances will not be dissuaded by a simple 1 hour drive if culture and architecture is their true purpose. You contradicted yourself in any manner. An amusement park won't draw families and young adults but architecture and culture will? What kinds of football fans do you know? The architecturial sociologist type?

3) I'm sorry, but I thought you were debating the location of a stadium. What does that have to do with the performance of the team? What feelings you have for how the team has done has nothing to do with stadium location.


I dunno how SC is attractive in comparison to SF in any way. SF has the hotel rooms too, and the food.

I suppose being right next to San Jose Airport and a city even larger than San Francisco, San Jose, will not lead to a lack of hotels. If anything, there are more hotels right near the stadium. And the new stadium is being placed in the middle of an entertainment district, if patrons actually overwhelm supply then guess what, developers will scramble to put more eateries in.

The Yorka are already spending money to try to convince the SC City Council for something they thought was a sure slam dunk, only to have thier proposal stalled.

Stalled? Since when? This would be news to me! What exactly has stalled the stadium talks? At what point did the Yorks pay any cash to convince anyone in Santa Clara? You're just making things up now. Do you really think Cedar Fair would be waving a white flag and trying to influence the move if they thought it was unlikely? If anything the city is extremely impressed with the concept and working hard to work out financing ideas. If they hated it would they be proposing plans to raise the cash? The city is so in favor of the deal that only recently did they authorize even more spending for the feasibility study.

I still think we are waiting a a word that there might be an agreement on a Stadium in SC.

Still waiting.

So far, I see a lot of opposition towards it.

So far you see your own opposition towards it. Who is vehemently opposed? The city council is largely in favor of it. Again, if they weren't, they wouldn't be investing even more money to finish the study. The opposition is lead by a favor city planner and he has no momentum and is using it as a political campaign to get re-elected more than anything.

And by the way, you're holding a double standard. I'd like for you to find a stadium that was proposed, studied, and agreed to in less than 9 months. Because we only committed to Santa Clara last fall. The Giants and Jets, Cowboys, and Cardinals you mentioned earlier all spent a year or more just working out financing before signing a final deal with their city. Thus your whining is about as productive as a kid in a toy store stomping his feet and screaming. Guess what, people don't committ hundreds of millions of dollars and cities don't agree to possible traffic and resource demands without thinking about it for a while!


Hey, it may not be your $160 mil you would have to contribute in taxes, because you don't live there. But hey, there is some swamp land I could sell you.

Guess what, it's not 160M in taxes for the people that live in the city either! You only showed right there that you don't get this deal at all. The property taxes of the residents pay for the cities normal operating pool, the general operating fund, that's it. The city has NOT been asked for a penny in taxes nor has it been asked to create any new local taxes like hotel or restaurant taxes to support the deal, which many teams have in the past. Also, even the utility fund excess is not built from resident taxes! It was shown from 2 independant sources last January that even 100M from that surplus would at worse raise Santa Clara electric costs to an amount that would STILL be a vast savings versus the general PG&E rates everyone else pays. The city will suffer no risk of losing money due to construction or maintenance of the stadium. In fact, almost all of the ideas thus far have involved the city merely developing some of its land to create revenue.

[Jumiah]

Just poking in to say great thread :) Seemed to start off all innocent-like and I ended up getting a city planning degree.

As a Fillmore, SF native, of course I want the stadium in the city. But keeping the name is most important, and I can suppress a little emotion and accept Santa Clara as being "close enough".

[smoking_rubber]

Yeah, between all the fighting I've really learned a lot. Very informative. It's like a reality-Discovery channel show.

Will Drummer get voted off the island . . . will The Wiz whip out the calculator . . . will Green Peace get involved . . . stay tuned.

Jeeeezzzz

[Nevyn]

What part did you forget in the original design that had a view of the City as a selling point?

You missed that part.

you honestly can't read can you. THE VIEW DOES NOT MATTER.

AT ALL.

That was referring to a television broadcast. You know, when they have an overhead shot from a blimp.

You missed that part too.

No he didn't. You apparently misread it (shocking). I said that a picturesque surrounding only matter for a view from a blimp (ie, that it is not a relevant factor). And then you said they use blimps for domes. Not relevant at all. If the only factor you have to choose Hunters point is a better blimp shot, maybe you should stop talking now.

You also put way too much stock into a document intended to sell people on the Hunter's point project. Especially since it only states they THINK they can make the 49ers deadline IF THEY hurry. It then later says this assumes that the Navy will complete radiological cleanup by 2009, a process the Navy has no incentive to rush and which the city CANNOT do. Which also means that if its transferred and during cleanup construction that find unsafe radioactive levels anywhere, the Navy will have to come back in.

And from this you seem to be concluding that the project will definitely work and be on time.

[Nevyn]

In not one of any of your docs does it say that radiological cleanup is quick, easy, or guaranteed to work. And it certainly doesn't say that the Navy will do it on time for your construction deadline to be nice.

But then again, why would you start addressing the point now? You want the team in SF at all costs, hate the Santa Clara location, and really don't care what Hunters Point costs or how long it takes as long as you get what you want. Which is apparently a nice view of the city from the stadium.

Which is all very well, except it isn't your team, your real estate, or your money. So, um, tough luck, because in this case it appears to be you who does not matter.

[smoking_rubber]

They CAN clean it up and it WOULD make for a better site IMO. But since money and time DO matter. The timetable involved at hunters point pushes the real decisions out way too far. It would be years before the site could be cleaned AND tested. How could a reasonable business man place that much faith (and money) in a toxic superfund site? Especially a site with extremely poor access and infrastructure. How much money is the city of SF willing to invest in new freeways and widening surface roads? How much are the taxpayers of San Francisco willing to cough up? Building in SF would cost MUCH more than in SC. With the tab at almost 1 billion already . . . that would be one expensive project!

[Nevyn]

They CAN clean it up and it WOULD make for a better site IMO. But since money and time DO matter. The timetable involved at hunters point pushes the real decisions out way too far. It would be years before the site could be cleaned AND tested. How could a reasonable business man place that much faith (and money) in a toxic superfund site? Especially a site with extremely poor access and infrastructure. How much money is the city of SF willing to invest in new freeways and widening surface roads? How much are the taxpayers of San Francisco willing to cough up? Building in SF would cost MUCH more than in SC. With the tab at almost 1 billion already . . . that would be one expensive project!

But think of the goodwill !

[smoking_rubber]

But think of the goodwill !


Don't forget the view :wacko:

[Nevyn]

Of course it won't be easy, but it's gonna be done, and Treasure Island shows that you can re-use old Miltary sites, for housing and public uses.

No one is disputing that hunters point will be developped. Of course it will. just without a stadium. The other land uses proposed are nowhere near as time sensitive and are much easier to accomplish in stages. Making the stadium site a park instead of a stadium is not only probably a better use of the location, but also lets the navy and city take their sweet time and get it right.

But if York tried to put the stadium there and it went a YEAR or two long, it would cost him a FORTUNE. That is a fortune in addition to what it would already be costing to build there.

To be honest, I think the best site is right across from the Stick. The Yorks could have had that land for cheap years ago, but balked at the idea.

So you see how eel they've handeled this whole Stadium issue.

Oh you mean the site that had all the same access problems that the current stadium does, that the city would not build extra public transport or road infrastructure for, that parking was awful for, and that the 49ers would have had to try to play next to while it was being built?

There is a reason they balked. It was not a practical idea.

I dunno how you make your $$$, but, given your moronic, hysterical, quivering gibberishness, you are a darn sight far from being anything other than flipping burgers.

Somehow the personal attack does nothing to distract from how completely wrong you are. I'm a computer programmer by the way.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Drummer;

I must confess I was beginning to have a little respect for your abilities. Seriously. You were spinning a toxic Superfund site so quickly, it almost resembled a pristine green pretty little park sitting smack dab in the middle of a SF renaissance. You know, if you aren't already working for Lennar, or Mayor Newsome - you should be. You were doing better than some of the hacks on their respective staffs.

You were also espousing your opinions on the Yorks and the Santa Clara site with such vehemence and conviction that I was beginning to think you might be a worthy opponent on this topic.

But then, you cited Ann Killion as an authority on the stadium issue and claimed progress on this the issue has stalled due to resident opposition. Dang. You blew it! And after all that hard work too.

Listen, as someone who has been reading the Merc for decades, I can asure you, Ann Killion can not be considered an authority on this topic. She's a columnist, paid to write opinion pieces on sports. I've noticed her writings on this topic contain much more opinion than fact, but that's how columnists work. They are not paid to inform, but to entertain.

As for a "stalled process" - well, if you were actually following this issue properly, you would know the Santa Clara city council is right on schedule with their deliberations. Everyone knew a decision of this magnitude would require lots of study and careful deliberation. Nothing regarding the stadium issue is "stalled" so please kindly refrain from issuing un-truths in your attempt to unfairly influence the opinions of our fellow message board members.

I am a great fan of "the Truth" and will continue to speak out against those who use deception, whether intentionally or not, in order to influence opinion.

Thank you.

[Niner Jan]

Fred,

Have you been to any recent CC meetings? I've been pretty tied up with Sunnyvale CC meetings to STOP the building of a Mary Avenue Extension (Bridge) at the end of North Mary where it meets Mathilda Avenue. (Have you heard anything about it?) So, I haven't been to any Santa Clara CC meetings lately...too busy putting out fires in Sunnyvale...to my property area.

Have you signed up for any TC practices? I'm set to go to MOST of them, except on July 30 (doctor appt) and August 8 afternoon; (going in the morning with the Booster Club). Are you going that morning? They are feeding us breakfast...

Niner Mom :blowakiss: :go9ers: :dance3:

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Well, having a bias against Killion doesn't make what I say any lesser ....Actually, the lack of veracity has more to do with anything than my "bias" against Killian. I repeat, the process is not "stalled" in any way shape or form.

I must also note that I really don't have anything against Ann. Her articles can be entertaining - but like Murray, Ostler and your pal in Brisbane - none of them have any thing whatsoever to do with the Santa Clara proposal or the non-existant plan by the Niners to build anything at Hunter's Point.

As for your pot shots at York, I don't understand why you claim he needs patience. At this stage, the ball is in the city of Santa Clara's court. They are still examining the proposal and trying to identify appropriate sources of funding. (Preferably funds which won't cause stadium opponents to wet their panties in protest.)

Is your distrust based on some other unrealistic expectations of the owner of the 49ers? You do realize, he has no plans on giving up the team anytime soon, and when he does, it's likely going to end up in the hands of Jed. If your hatred of the York family is that strong, you should probably start thinking about supporting some other team. They are gonna be here a while.

But that's just my opinion.

[smoking_rubber]

I could respond to all this...
But the fact that you conveniently disregard the fact that the Original design of the Stadium at Stick Point had an open area for view of the City .....


The VIEW

That's what we've been missing! How many times I've sat in the stands and thought "gee I wish I could see the smoggy skyline." Opposing teams would have cringed at the sight of Alcatraz on the horizon. The gleaming spectacle of the Trans America building could have rescued Sammy Davis's career. How many times have we watched "the catch" and thought, "if only the bridge were in the background"? We COULD have been respectable! We COULD have won as many SuperBowls as Seattle! Oh . . . view . . . how we miss you so! That stupid GAME and those cute cheerleaders are just NO substitute.

R.I.P. VIEW

[ethanh]

The VIEW

That's what we've been missing! How many times I've sat in the stands and thought "gee I wish I could see the smoggy skyline." Opposing teams would have cringed at the sight of Alcatraz on the horizon. The gleaming spectacle of the Trans America building could have rescued Sammy Davis's career. How many times have we watched "the catch" and thought, "if only the bridge were in the background"? We COULD have been respectable! We COULD have won as many SuperBowls as Seattle! Oh . . . view . . . how we miss you so! That stupid GAME and those cute cheerleaders are just NO substitute.

R.I.P. VIEW
What is wrong with wanting a view? I thought the whole point of having a new stadium is to upgrade the entire game experience. The blimp overhead showing water front views, the Superbowl art with the SF skyline. The VIP sections and fan walkways. If all you want is a seat to watch the game then why do we even need a whole new stadium?

[Nevyn]

What is wrong with wanting a view? I thought the whole point of having a new stadium is to upgrade the entire game experience. The blimp overhead showing water front views, the Superbowl art with the SF skyline. The VIP sections and fan walkways. If all you want is a seat to watch the game then why do we even need a whole new stadium?

First of all, the biggest reason a new stadium is getting built is revenue. More boxes, more sponsors, more money. Even if the fans didnt think the niners needed one, the Yorks would want one.

Now, as for upgrading the game experience, here are the problems with the game experience at Monster Park, as I understand it: Lousy access to the stadium. Lousy parking and tailgating. A dilapidated stadium. Crappy seats and concessions. In short, a stadium that feels like it is going to fall down on you.

Highway and public transport access improves the game experience. Available parking and room to tailgate enhances the game experience. So does comfortable seating, good concessions, and modern stadium design. A nice view of the skyline? Not so much. This is a football game not a wine tasting. The ambience you want is tens of thousands of fans screaming their heads off with their eyes glued to the field.

And how does the views shown by an overhead blimp enhance the game experience, exactly?

[smoking_rubber]

. . . as for upgrading the game experience, here are the problems with the game experience at Monster Park, as I understand it: Lousy access to the stadium. Lousy parking and tailgating.

Available parking and room to tailgate enhances the game experience.

I agree. Unfortunately, the Santa Clara site has absolutely no room to park and tailgate. I've been over this topic, but clearly the reasons behind building a new stadium have nothing to do with providing better tailgating opportunities. If it does, the design has clearly missed the mark.

In my opinion, Monster Park CURRENTLY offers 10x better parking and tailgating opportunities than the future stadium will.

[Nevyn]

I agree. Unfortunately, the Santa Clara site has absolutely no room to park and tailgate. I've been over this topic, but clearly the reasons behind building a new stadium have nothing to do with providing better tailgating opportunities. If it does, the design has clearly missed the mark.

In my opinion, Monster Park CURRENTLY offers 10x better parking and tailgating opportunities than the future stadium will.

... and if they build the SC stadium and the parking and tailgating is as bad as you suspect, then that will be a very justifiable reason for *****ing about the stadium, particularly if the Hunter's point plan would have been better for it. I'm just saying that a good view should not be a factor in the decision.

[smoking_rubber]

... and if they build the SC stadium and the parking and tailgating is as bad as you suspect, then that will be a very justifiable reason for *****ing about the stadium, particularly if the Hunter's point plan would have been better for it. I'm just saying that a good view should not be a factor in the decision.

IF they build the stadium in SC, how can it NOT be as bad as predicted? Unless they pave over half of the country club, MOST surface parking will be located almost a mile from the stadium (Mission College lot). We'll be justified in complaining, but what can be done at that point?

It would be like attending a game at Monster Park, but the main parking lot would be reduced to 10% it's current size. There would be a small garage nearby and ALL the rest of the parking would be located on the other side of hwy 101. That would go over like a fart in church, I promise you.

The Hunter's Point plan would provide MUCH better surface parking opportunities, but that's about it. That plan has many other pitfalls and I wouldn't advocate it just to improve the parking. I also agree that a great view would be nice, but it can't be the primary factor in finding the perfect site.

[Nevyn]

IF they build the stadium in SC, how can it NOT be as bad as predicted?

As bad as you predicted?

You predicted that Monster park parking is 10x better than SC will be. Does Monster park have 60000 spots, and still no walks close to a mile? I am no expert on the area the stadium is going, but your worries seem greatly exagerrated, and don't seem to be shared by many others.

[ethanh]

The only pro's to the SC site are the 2 freeways and the light rail already in place. The players would probably like it too because it is close to where most of them live and practice. Also, possibly the weather but anyone who has been to games at Candlestick knows that the weather in the fall is terrific. The cons of SC are the size of the area (where the parking will have to be) and the fact it not being in SF or central to all fans.

The fact remians that the 49ers look commited to the SC site and there is really no other area that they are considering unless the SC deal falls apart. The Hunters Point site could be better because of its large size, its location on the water, and in SF, but the timetable of cleaning the toxic waste and the construction needed to make traffic work are probably too massive for an owner who already had problems working with the city gov.

I guess if everything falls apart they could find a 3rd location or just play 2 years in the Raiders park and rebuild Candlestick point.

[smoking_rubber]

As bad as you predicted?

You predicted that Monster park parking is 10x better than SC will be. Does Monster park have 60000 spots, and still no walks close to a mile? I am no expert on the area the stadium is going, but your worries seem greatly exagerrated, and don't seem to be shared by many others.


I don't know how many spaces Monster has available. If you include all of the space in the same radius we're counting for the SC site, then I'm positive Monster has double SC's. I've put two sat shots of the sites over in the tailgating thread (since it has nothing to do with Hunters Point).

My concerns MAY be exaggerated, but I don't believe so. The fact that not many others share my concern, does not change the facts. After looking at the satellite shots, 10x was an exaggeration on my part. 2x worse is realistic though and I thought we were trying to IMPROVE things.

[arch]

"gee I wish I could see the smoggy skyline."
R.I.P. VIEW

you must be talking about the south bay because there's no smog in SF. :tung:

unless of course there's a heat wave, then the whole bay area has smog

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Dude, very kind of you to post those images. However, I think our dear readers might be interested in the actual proposal submitted by the team in regards to parking. (Click on thumbnail below to see the full picture.)
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y2/NinerTest/th_StadiumParking.jpg (http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y2/NinerTest/StadiumParking.jpg)

There are over 30,000 parking spaces in the areas highlighted in blue. All are within a short walk to the stadium. There are 6000 spaces in the area immediately surrounding the stadium. That will support one HUGE tailgate party. I really don't see what all the drama is about. The team has given this issue plenty of thought. They actually went out and counted parking spaces - they didn't just call up Yahoo-maps.

The complete parking and transportation plan can be viewed at the following link: Santa Clara Stadium Proposal (http://www.ci.santa-clara.ca.us/pdf/collateral/49ers-20070424-stadium-proposal.pdf) (The transit and parking plan starts on page 5.)

But thanks for contributing to the discussion! Nice work!

[smoking_rubber]

6,000 On-Site parking spaces INCLUDES the parking garage. It also includes a bunch of parking space that Great America now wants for itself.

You don't see what the drama is about? For me, it's about the fans who want to tailgate being pushed out of the park.

1. The convention center wants more parking than they currently have.
2. Great America wants more parking than what the stadium plan proposes.

To accomplish these goals . . . GARAGES will be built. Great America will get their own, the convention center will get a new one, and the 49ers will have their primary garage right across the walkway. That's three new garages to go with the one already there.

What's left to tailgate on? The (currently) dirt lot between the stadium and the HQ is all that remains. How long will it take the city to figure out that that land makes them way more money as . . . (yep) . . . another parking garage? The city owns it. They also own the stadium. What do the 49ers have to say about it? Are they going to buy that land just for us to tailgate on? I doubt it. So the entire area will be converted to park and entertain as many people as possible, at $40 a car. Therefore the real goal is to make money, not provide the "BEST" fan experience possible.

So what about the tailgaters? We'll have to be bused in from Mission College? 20 year season ticket holders will have to park almost a MILE away from the stadium if they want to continue the tailgating tradition? This is their great plan to enhance the game-day experience? The garage at Candlestick would have been worse than this? With a billion dollars to spend and YEARS to find the perfect location . . . THIS IS THE BEST PLAN THEY COULD THINK OF? Best for who?

PLEASE look at the proposal above VERY carefully. It's all planned out in black and white.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

6,000 On-Site parking spaces INCLUDES the parking garage. It also includes a bunch of parking space that Great America now wants for itself.

You don't see what the drama is about? For me, it's about the fans who want to tailgate being pushed out of the park.....

.....PLEASE look at the proposal above VERY carefully. It's all planned out in black and white. OK, now you're just making stuff up. The only drama I see is in your fiction piece.

Three garages? Kindly reference the page in the current proposal which shows the plan will require construction of three new parking garages. Oh, that's just in your imagination. I see.

Oh, and where exactly is the "dirt lot" between the proposed stadium site and Niners HQ? During my last visit to training camp, I had the pleasure of parking in a PAVED lot directly across from HQ. That lot extends all of the way back to where the stadium should be built. Have you actually visited the site?

Clearly, your knowledge of this issue is questionable. Your statements lack factual basis as well as veracity. I'm beginning to wonder, are you one of the Fleckster's NIMBY's?

[smoking_rubber]

OK, now you're just making stuff up. The only drama I see is in your fiction piece.

Three garages? Kindly reference the page in the current proposal which shows the plan will require construction of three new parking garages. Oh, that's just in your imagination. I see.

Oh, and where exactly is the "dirt lot" between the proposed stadium site and Niners HQ? During my last visit to training camp, I had the pleasure of parking in a PAVED lot directly across from HQ. That lot extends all of the way back to where the stadium should be built. Have you actually visited the site?

Clearly, your knowledge of this issue is questionable. Your statements lack factual basis as well as veracity. I'm beginning to wonder, are you one of the Fleckster's NIMBY's?

Three garages will be built IMO.

One new garage is already designed and approved for the convention center. That design will have to be redone because it was designed for the spot SF wants, now the garage is going to have to move somewhere else. I'll do a little research and get back to you with the link to that information.

The second garage is the new one the 49ers want directly across from the stadium. See every rendering available.

The THIRD garage will be the solution to Cedar Fairs complaints. They've said they want 8,000 parking spaces. Where would you find 8,000 spaces in front of their entrance? The ONLY solution is to build UP. The 49ers will be glad to build them one if they withdraw their opposition. Amusement park patrons don't care about tailgating so . . . viola!

Then, in 5-10 years, when the city owns the stadium and ALL the lots surrounding it have garages EXCEPT the "dirt" lot . . . and they still need more parking . . . guess what I predict will happen. A FOURTH garage goes up!

The "dirt" lot I'm referring to may not be dirt any longer. The last time I was there was last year's training camp. I think you're right, it's paved. So what? That doesn't make it any bigger does it?

Who is Fleckster? I don't have any hidden agendas and I'll be glad to make my identity public knowledge. Who do you work for and what interest do you have in opposing free discussion of this topic?

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Three garages will be built IMO.

One new garage is already designed and approved for the convention center. That design will have to be redone because it was designed for the spot SF wants, now the garage is going to have to move somewhere else. I'll do a little research and get back to you with the link to that information.

The second garage is the new one the 49ers want directly across from the stadium. See every rendering available.

The THIRD garage will be the solution to Cedar Fairs complaints. They've said they want 8,000 parking spaces. Where would you find 8,000 spaces in front of their entrance? The ONLY solution is to build UP. The 49ers will be glad to build them one if they withdraw their opposition. Amusement park patrons don't care about tailgating so . . . viola!

Then, in 5-10 years, when the city owns the stadium and ALL the lots surrounding it have garages EXCEPT the "dirt" lot . . . and they still need more parking . . . guess what I predict will happen. A FOURTH garage goes up!

The "dirt" lot I'm referring to may not be dirt any longer. The last time I was there was last year's training camp. I think you're right, it's paved. So what? That doesn't make it any bigger does it?

Who is Fleckster? I don't have any hidden agendas and I'll be glad to make my identity public knowledge. Who do you work for and what interest do you have in opposing free discussion of this topic?
OK - YOUR opinion. I'm glad we clarified that. I wouldn't want people thinking it were fact. I know there are many who use these boards as a primary source of information about the team. I'd hate to steer them wrong or see them influenced unfairly.

By the way - you are correct - the City of Santa Clara has paid for a study and plans to build a new parking garage directly across the street from the convention center. The Niners propose that the garage be built in a slightly different place. The garage would STILL be used for the convention center AND the stadium AND the amusement park. It would be a very rare occurrence for ALL THREE to need the same parking spaces at the same time. So yes, we are taking about two garages. You are only PROPOSING a third garage. And I agree, if your proposal is accepted, it will impact the plan, perhaps negatively, perhaps not.

As for who I work for - I don't believe that is relevant to this discussion. However, I will say that I live and maintain professional offices in the South bay but am responsible for delivering services to my client across the nation, if not the globe. (I am not employed by the Niners, nor do I work for a company that might benefit from stadium construction.)

Lastly, Mr. Fleck is a lawyer who heads up a small group which opposes the stadium. In my opinion, his favorite tactic is to use exaggeration, distortion and misinformation to sow confusion to build his opposition faction. But again - that's just my opinion.

Lastly, I do not oppose open free discussion of any topic. However, if I see comments which are factually incorrect in what could be an attempt to influence others - I am going to speak out. What was that old story about some guy with a lamp?....:rolleyes2:

[TheWiz]

IF they build the stadium in SC, how can it NOT be as bad as predicted? Unless they pave over half of the country club, MOST surface parking will be located almost a mile from the stadium (Mission College lot). We'll be justified in complaining, but what can be done at that point?

It would be like attending a game at Monster Park, but the main parking lot would be reduced to 10% it's current size. There would be a small garage nearby and ALL the rest of the parking would be located on the other side of hwy 101. That would go over like a fart in church, I promise you.

The Hunter's Point plan would provide MUCH better surface parking opportunities, but that's about it. That plan has many other pitfalls and I wouldn't advocate it just to improve the parking. I also agree that a great view would be nice, but it can't be the primary factor in finding the perfect site.

MOST of the spots would be a mile away? That's just a complete exxageration. The farthest corner of Mission College, the SW corner of its property, is about 1 mile away. So if anything ALL of the parking would be within a mile.

All the rest of the parking would be on the other side of 101? Since WHEN! Again, reactionary, ridiculous accusations! ALL of the proposed parking is on the stadium side of the highway! 6k spots would be in the parking garage and on-site parking. Another several thousand are easily accessible just across the canal to the east and room for a thousand or two across Tasman and south of the country club. All of which are less than a quarter mile from the stadium and aside from a canal and a single road, are as on-site as you will find.

You complain that it would be a reduction compared to the current site. Nevermind that the last proposal made at Candlestick involved building the stadium on top of the current parking lot. Meanwhile, a lot of the other spots were to be included in that disastrous 10k+ car garage which would eat up most of the parking space. That proposal had even fewer surface spaces and called for busing from off-site lots.

[Teke]

Hey Wiz, do you work for the 49ers?

[Teke]

At this point "TheWiz" seems like a total homer for anything the 49ers have proposed. He/She has vehemently talked down to any fan with a different opinion than the 49ers' management.

The main reason I asked is because I think the users of the message board ought to know. TheWiz has constantly ignored questions whether he/she is a member of the organization, but at this point we have to know whether TheWiz is an employee trying to sway the fans in the 49ers direction or just a fan with too much time on his/her hands. Can the director let us know if TheWiz is on the 49ers payroll; because it sure seems like he/she is.

[BrentJones84]

At this point "TheWiz" seems like a total homer for anything the 49ers have proposed. He/She has vehemently talked down to any fan with a different opinion than the 49ers' management.

The main reason I asked is because I think the users of the message board ought to know. TheWiz has constantly ignored questions whether he/she is a member of the organization, but at this point we have to know whether TheWiz is an employee trying to sway the fans in the 49ers direction or just a fan with too much time on his/her hands. Can the director let us know if TheWiz is on the 49ers payroll; because it sure seems like he/she is.

Why do the users have a right to know?

And what difference would it make if TheWiz was or wasn't??

[Peter Proud]

At this point "TheWiz" seems like a total homer for anything the 49ers have proposed. He/She has vehemently talked down to any fan with a different opinion than the 49ers' management.

The main reason I asked is because I think the users of the message board ought to know. TheWiz has constantly ignored questions whether he/she is a member of the organization, but at this point we have to know whether TheWiz is an employee trying to sway the fans in the 49ers direction or just a fan with too much time on his/her hands. Can the director let us know if TheWiz is on the 49ers payroll; because it sure seems like he/she is.

He hasn't been, nor is he now an employee of the San Francisco 49ers. Former and current employees (2 different employees in 2 different areas) have told me that in fact he has not and does not work for the San Francisco 49ers.

I will not reveal their names or titles. You'll just have to take my word for it. I have nothing to gain by lying about this.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Why do the users have a right to know?

And what difference would it make if TheWiz was or wasn't??I could not agree with you more Brent.

On the flip side - it appears there are some posters on here who may be working for Mayor Newsome, Lennar Corporation and/or the lawyer trying to organize opposition to the stadium.

It's no big deal if they are - as long as they are honest about it.:up:

[BrentJones84]

He hasn't been, nor is he now an employee of the San Francisco 49ers. Former and current employees (2 different employees in 2 different areas) have told me that in fact he has not and does not work for the San Francisco 49ers.

I will not reveal their names or titles. You'll just have to take my word for it. I have nothing to gain by lying about this.

I don't have such info.

But I did realize that after Erickson was fired, and Nolan was hired, there was close to a 100% turn over in the 49ers front office, and yet TheWiz is still here.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

I don't have such info.

But I did realize that after Erickson was fired, and Nolan was hired, there was close to a 100% turn over in the 49ers front office, and yet TheWiz is still here.
Yep. I've been on this board for quite a few years. And in my opinion, The Wiz is one of the most knowledgable fans who posts here - which apparently makes those with inferiour knowledge a little bit jealous.

Ain't human nature a pain....

[BrentJones84]

Yep. I've been on this board for quite a few years. And in my opinion, The Wiz is one of the most knowledgable fans who posts here - which apparently makes those with inferiour knowledge a little bit jealous.

Ain't human nature a pain....

So true, so true.

rep.

[Teke]

Yep. I've been on this board for quite a few years. And in my opinion, The Wiz is one of the most knowledgable fans who posts here - which apparently makes those with inferiour knowledge a little bit jealous.

Ain't human nature a bit-c-h?

My only beef is that I've seen countless people on the message board acknowledge him/her as an employee of the 49ers. I've also seen many members come straight out and ask him/her whether or not he/she is an employee only to be ignored 100% of the time. Never once has TheWiz come out and just answered the question. I've laid out a good argument for why he/she would do this in a different thread and I don't care to ellaborate on that.

I have no problem with TheWiz's opinions or the fact that he/she states them on this board. I do have a problem with TheWiz ignoring a fellow message board member asking him/her whether or not he/she is an employee of the 49ers.

He/she obviously knows that his/her status is in question. Why not answer the question instead of ignoring it.

Well, we all know TheWiz is watching this thread as he/she has posted a lengthy message in it. We'll see his/her response.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

My only beef is that I've seen countless people on the message board acknowledge him/her as an employee of the 49ers. ...

You know, I too have seen The Wiz speak about the team using the first person. Instead our "our team" he will say "we" or "us". This can lead to some confusion.

But he is not the only person who does so. I've seen a number of passionate fans who post language that indicates they have a very strong, personal attachment to the team. They speak as if they are a member of the very organization we all love.

Can we really say this is wrong? Aren't fans an integral part of the organization? I think a very good argument can be made in support of this idea.

However, I have never believed The Wiz to be a member of the Niner's organization. Believe it or not - he has been wrong in the past. While it is a VERY rare occurance - it has happended.

Let's just agree that he is VERY knowledgeable and does indeed tend to know more about the team than most.

I freely admit the depth of his knowledge is much greather than mine, but that's just my opinion - for what it's worth.:up:

[BEAT LA]

i work for the 49ers:ph34r:

[AlaskaNinersFan]

It seems to me, that most of the time when someone asks Wiz if he works for the organization it is in a playful,non direct way that doesn't really REQUIRE a response.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

i work for the 49ers:ph34r:

Me too!

I work hard so I can give them my money every season!:biggrin:

[Peter Proud]

I'm a part owner of the 49ers. I own LB7, row D, seats 5 and 6, row E, seats 7, 8, and 9.

TheWiz doesn't work for me.

[TheWiz]

I can't believe that this issue keeps cropping up. It's like a bad dream that just keeps coming back in the middle of a night that you really need a decent sleep.

- I have never claimed to be a part of the 49ers organization, period. All along I've along said that I want to be considered a regular and equal poster along with everyone else.

- If I am a member of the organization, I'd be stupid to admit it. Fans who demand inside info as proof need to realize two things. First of all, if I produced any form of 'proof' I'd get swarmed like a sugar cube on an ant farm on this messageboard. My ability to post anonymously would go down the drain. Secondly, like any large organization, actual employees are discouraged from actually participating in team controlled events likew a messageboard. Hence why you don't see players and coaches posting here even though they do glance once in a while. I'd lose any sense of anonymity and freedom to post on an equal level if I ever claimed such a thing, which is why I never will.

- Why does it matter? If fans want to credit my opinion more than others, what difference does it make? I never asked them to give me special attention, I just posted.

Here is the record. I've never claimed to be part of the team organization and as such my reputation is built only on the quality and sincerety of my posts. Those who have assumed me to be with the team have done so of their own decision, not due to any proclamation I ever made. If I ever said I was part of the organization I'd be not only exposing myself but also exalting my place to the point where I could also no longer post on this messageboard. So what choice do I have but to simply tell everyone that it's none of their business, rate my posts as equally as everyone elses, and to not care about it? Either response either wrecks my credibility or removes my anonymity.

As for those who think my opinion biases the stadium idea, I've never posted an idea or fact that isn't attainable public knowledge. Besides, would a team messageboard necessarily have anti-stadium messages? I've never stepped past my bounds, I've merely defended the Santa Clara idea and refuted other proposals that have been made in this forum. Never did I do so while claiming to be a team official or organization member.

Lastly, no one is perfect. Of course I've been wrong in the past, an upcoming post by me will highlight that fact. I've never lied on this messageboard as well. I've never had to misrepresent myself and I prefer to keep it that way. I don't see why many other prominent board members can be peaceful and yet my identity is always in question. I don't ask for special treatment, I don't want it, and I just want to be treated on the same level as other board members, period!

[offtackle24]

i work for the 49ers:ph34r:

**** we are screwed then

[Nevyn]

i work for the 49ers:ph34r:

Well, recently cheering for them has FELT like work .....

[BrentJones84]

Well, recently cheering for them has FELT like work .....

Word!!!

:laugh:

[Omnipotent]

Yep. I've been on this board for quite a few years. And in my opinion, The Wiz is one of the most knowledgable fans who posts here - which apparently makes those with inferiour knowledge a little bit jealous.
Ain't human nature a pain....

The part in blue couldn't be closer to the truth.....

I often have the same problem around here.

It almost seems that people around here look down upon intelligent and well thought out posts....:unsure:

[Omnipotent]

My only beef is that I've seen countless people on the message board acknowledge him/her as an employee of the 49ers. I've also seen many members come straight out and ask him/her whether or not he/she is an employee only to be ignored 100% of the time. Never once has TheWiz come out and just answered the question. I've laid out a good argument for why he/she would do this in a different thread and I don't care to ellaborate on that.

I have no problem with TheWiz's opinions or the fact that he/she states them on this board. I do have a problem with TheWiz ignoring a fellow message board member asking him/her whether or not he/she is an employee of the 49ers.

He/she obviously knows that his/her status is in question. Why not answer the question instead of ignoring it.

Well, we all know TheWiz is watching this thread as he/she has posted a lengthy message in it. We'll see his/her response.


I've addressed you before on this topic......

The NFL has an employee clause that states any individual that is on any particular team's FO may not participate on NFL related message boards.........especially official ones.

Even the interns.....

I know someone that works as a paid intern for an NFL team and it was one of the guidelines he had to agree to when he was hired.

[fabie]

I've addressed you before on this topic......

The NFL has an employee clause that states any individual that is on any particular team's FO may not participate on NFL related message boards.........especially official ones.

Even the interns.....

I know someone that works as a paid intern for an NFL team and it was one of the guidelines he had to agree to when he was hired.Dang! I have to quit now then! :hide: :laugh::rolleyes2:

[smoking_rubber]

I just returned from San Jose. I went by the proposed site with an eye toward the future. I must say: There is a lot of parking in the area. I still feel the site is small, but maybe not too small.

MOST of the spots would be a mile away? That's just a complete exaggeration. The farthest corner of Mission College, the SW corner of its property, is about 1 mile away. So if anything ALL of the parking would be within a mile.

Ok, a mile away is a stretch. But I feel like a half mile walk is a long one. The fact that MOST of the available parking is at least a quarter mile away sucks. So I believe you're correct, ALL the parking will be within a mile.

All the rest of the parking would be on the other side of 101? Since WHEN! Again, reactionary, ridiculous accusations! ALL of the proposed parking is on the stadium side of the highway! 6k spots would be in the parking garage and on-site parking. Another several thousand are easily accessible just across the canal to the east and room for a thousand or two across Tasman and south of the country club. All of which are less than a quarter mile from the stadium and aside from a canal and a single road, are as on-site as you will find.

I never said there was a plan on the board that plans for parking on the opposite side of 101, at either site. I believe you misread my comment. I was comparing the CURRENT parking lot to the new one.

6k spots INCLUDES the space on the other side of the canal. That is not extra, according to the plan. Wait . . . does that mean you were wrong here? Maybe you don't work for Jed.

You complain that it would be a reduction compared to the current site. Nevermind that the last proposal made at Candlestick involved building the stadium on top of the current parking lot. Meanwhile, a lot of the other spots were to be included in that disastrous 10k+ car garage which would eat up most of the parking space. That proposal had even fewer surface spaces and called for busing from off-site lots.

I'm complaining it's a reduction of TODAY'S SITE. I'm comparing apples to apples here. This is the site we currently enjoy and party our jerseys off on. I'm comparing THAT to what they want to REPLACE THAT WITH. I don't really care about the plan that never got started or the one that glows. I want to talk about what we've already got, and what we're going to be left with. Let's compare TODAY to TOMORROW. That's all anybody cares about, what are they ACTUALLY doing to promote and improve the fan experience? That's all great that they picked this one plan over this other crappy plan, but if we're going to move let's spend some time and come up with a GREAT plan, not just one across the street and say it's great because it has better bus access.

Now, since this is the plan I'm stuck with . . . back to tailgating. Can you tell me what the Santa Clara ordinance says regarding gas grills on top of a parking structure? What has been or can be done to investigate an "open" structure that would allow tailgating on multiple levels? They said they scoured the earth looking at the best stadiums, does anyone know of an open parking structure already in existence? Would the 49ers champion the cause to fix the ordinance?

Quote: Fromthe3rdrow -

And what difference would it make if TheWiz was or wasn't?? . . .

On the flip side - it appears there are some posters on here who may be working for Mayor Newsome, Lennar Corporation and/or the lawyer trying to organize opposition to the stadium.

It's no big deal if they are - as long as they are honest about it.

How can you proclaim in the first sentence that HIS identity (motive) doesn't matter, but you require someone from Lennar to be forthcoming?

I personally don't care. As long as the information he proclaims to be fact is ultimately true, he's doing us all a service. It's nice to hear an educated opinion based on fact. It's when his words are taken as gospel with no curious eye that one can be taken advantage of. He has the power and reputation to sway some opinions. His loyalty comes into question, does he serve the greater community or is he a hired pen created to squash unflattering commentary? I guess you'll all have to make that decision for yourselves.

[sandiegojoe]

His loyalty comes into question, does he serve the greater community or is he a hired pen created to squash unflattering commentary?

seeing how he's spent countless hours over the years disecting draft picks, X's and O's, roster evaluations, etc.... it'd be a pretty huge conspiracy if that were the case. The guy has opinions and he talks about them, just like anyone else here. He just happens to have strong opinions on the stadium issue.

[sytrash]

I think the original post has some good points. The new stadium plan, IMHO, is really not quite up to the standard of some of the newest stadiums around...e.g. Eagles, NE, Cowboys...specially for the money and the longest time I ever heard to complete it.

However, keeping it in Hunter's Point is also quite impossible. First, helping Hunter's Point can't be the top concern of the 9ers. SF city don't even want to help the 9ers to help Hunter's Point. Second, no public transit is just not acceptable nowadays. Multiple freeways and Light rail in SC would really help. What do you think?

[ethanh]

Thought I would mention I got a call from a polling agency last night about how I would feel voting on proposition on the November ballot regarding the Candlestick/ Hunters Point redevelopment. Went through a bunch of questions about what things in the proposal would make me vote yes on it and what negative things about it would make me vote no.

Interesting questions about the 49ers came up and they asked if endorsments by Ronnie Lott and Joe Montana would make me vote yes for it. Also if an outdoor football and or small indoor stadium would make me more likely to vote yes on it.

Looks like the city is testing the waters for a vote on HP with and without the stadium, I wonder if getting something passed in November would put pressure on SC and the 49ers?

[smoking_rubber]

Gary Plummer called to tell me I could forward my tickets to Ronnie and Joe. Hmmmm