Not With My Money .Org

[estrine]

E-mail the supporters of notwithmymoney.org . Let them know that the Forty-Niners will be possibly paying for any future operating expenses for the stadium. Let them know "The Pedestrian Walk Way" with its restaurants, night clubs, sports & various celebrity gift stores could possibly help fund the City Of Santa Claras part for the new stadium. I would be a steady customer of this new Universal, Disney type walk way. Let the people at notwithmymoney.org know that you will also be a steady customer of this new venue if it comes to fruition.

[smoking_rubber]

Who said the 'pedestrian walkway" was going to have "night clubs, sports & various celebrity gift stores?" There is BARELY enough room for a stadium and a parking garage on the site. I'm sure there will be gift shops and food centers, but don't count on night clubs and Universal Studios type walkways.

PS. Punctuation Lesson 101: A space is appropriate after commas, two spaces (one is acceptable) after end of sentence punctuation like periods and question marks.

.

[Teke]

Do they rent that website out everytime there is a new public funding project being built somewhere?

[ninerjeff]

doesn't notwithmymoney.org really stand for pathetic whinny little losers who used to get beat up during recess?

[TheWiz]

This organization is not to be feared in the first place, writing letters is a waste of time. Based on their rhetoric, they won't care what you think because they have the right to have an opinion about how their cities money is spent. If you don't live in the city or pay taxes in it, they will dismiss your claim since you lose nothing from the construction.

This organization is nothing to worry about. Why? First of all, it's spearheaded by the citie's former planning comissioner, a guy who was previously voted out. He's using the stadium as a platform to get his name back in the news and in the process. At the same time, it's a grassroots political campaign. A lot of his closest supporters are not new, they support him more than the issue. In many months of trying, they've gotten together a whopping 500 supporters.

Now, I'm not politician but I do know that that is a joke. First of all, a good 10-20% of that are probably former political allies and campaign boosters for him. Secondly, even if the issue was 'no more taxes for eternity', you'd get a couple hundred people who would vote against it. Even in the biggest of landslides a small percentage is always against the issue or candidate. The fact that he is actively recruiting and can't do better than such a nominal number speaks volumes about the support among Santa Clara residents. While they may not be for the stadium, they're at least waiting and keeping their mind open to the ongoing analysis instead of jumping on the anti-stadium bandwagon with a closed mind.

Lastly, he has a lot of confidence because among those 500 are other former council members and local businessmen. But many of them are in on it for the same reasons as him, exposure. Not to mention a couple of former local politicians have nowhere the effect the opinion of the active council has and our own owners are getting more and more supporters through their living room sit down chats than anyone else.

Right now I'd be more worried about Santa Clara risking our chances by putting the issue on ballot during the primaries. Traditionally only the most ardent left and right wingers attend. The far right conservatives would vote against it if it involves any public money and the far left liberals would do the same because they'd rather see it spent on social programs or saving endangered owls. Local politicians will walk party lines to save their spot for the next election instead of supporting an idea they like.

[smoking_rubber]

Right now I'd be more worried about Santa Clara risking our chances by putting the issue on ballot during the primaries. Traditionally only the most ardent left and right wingers attend. The far right conservatives would vote against it if it involves any public money and the far left liberals would do the same because they'd rather see it spent on social programs or saving endangered owls. Local politicians will walk party lines to save their spot for the next election instead of supporting an idea they like.

What does it really matter WHO supports it and who doesn't? It's such a high-profile topic, most people already have an opinion of whether or not they want the 49ers and a new stadium in their city. "No new taxes" should negate any "not with our $" campaign. It's simply a matter of getting enough people to get out and vote. Hopefully, the critics will get loud enough to motivate the supporters.

[TheWiz]

What does it really matter WHO supports it and who doesn't? It's such a high-profile topic, most people already have an opinion of whether or not they want the 49ers and a new stadium in their city. "No new taxes" should negate any "not with our $" campaign. It's simply a matter of getting enough people to get out and vote. Hopefully, the critics will get loud enough to motivate the supporters.

Because if the people who support it are the ones who will not be voting. Who will be likely to be drawn to the polls are politically motivated people, ones who also probably follow party lines in these matters. Republicans are known to be smaller government, less spending proponents. Democrats will prefer almost any social or local cause to spending on entertainment. Also, people who are not politically interested may avoid the polling locations just to avoid the picketing supporters. History of primary polling shows you'll draw more extremists.

This isn't even my own original idea, there have several articles in the local papers on this concept lately. People in politics that were interviewed mention it's not a good idea for the team if want to get it passed.

[smoking_rubber]

Then why do it at all (put it on the ballot)? I thought they weren't raising taxes or sucking from the general fund, so there was no need to put it on the ballot? Is it just the politician's way of covering their butts?

Where is the Pro-Stadium campaign? Why are they half as loud and annoying as the opposition?

[TheWiz]

Then why do it at all (put it on the ballot)? I thought they weren't raising taxes or sucking from the general fund, so there was no need to put it on the ballot? Is it just the politician's way of covering their butts?

Where is the Pro-Stadium campaign? Why are they half as loud and annoying as the opposition?

- It's not a guarantee it will be on the ballot. I'm not personally aware of the details of the Santa Clara city charter as to what does or does not call for a ballot vote as a measure. But one thing must be understood and that is exactly how the city will pay their proposed end is unknown, they've been proposing a lot of ideas but nothing is set. The only certainty is that it will not involve tax dollars or impact their general operating fund. But if they want to spend electricity utility funds, use a surplus from other city accounts, or develop certain properties or make investments, it may require a vote.

But the city council can also call for any vote they wish most likely.Even if the majority of the council agrees and decides to move onward, politicians do answer to the public. If straw polls show enough of the public is against the stadium to make it a non-landslide, it will be put to a vote. Otherwise that council risks facing an automatic 20%+ loss of voters next time around. Not to mention, anyone can argue that such a big decision that impacts the city should be put to a public vote. Even if they can get around it, a council member risks ticking off even more voters by not even giving them the choice to vote yes, funny enough. It seems highly likely, I'd say about an 80% chance, that this will get put to a vote.

- The pro-stadium campaign? Mr. York and his son and assorted team officials have sitdowns with local groups in Santa Clara with questions about 2-4 times a week. They're going door to door practically and answering concerns which is the best way to kill any grassroots opposition. Not to mention one of the biggest supporters is on the Council himself and he's a fierce supporter of recruiting a pro sports team for over a decade now.

[frk49rs]

Who said the 'pedestrian walkway" was going to have "night clubs, sports & various celebrity gift stores?" There is BARELY enough room for a stadium and a parking garage on the site. I'm sure there will be gift shops and food centers, but don't count on night clubs and Universal Studios type walkways.

PS. Punctuation Lesson 101: A space is appropriate after commas, two spaces (one is acceptable) after end of sentence punctuation like periods and question marks.

.

When making correction so other peoples grammatical errors, should you verify that yours are correct as well???

Shouldn’t there be (“) before pedestrian???
I would not have said anything, Lord know I am horrible with grammatics and spelling, but since you felt compelled to correct someone, you should at least make sure you are right!

[Kenage]

If the City Council vote to pass/fail the measure why should it go to a general vote? Is that not the reason we have City Councils in the first place?

[smoking_rubber]

When making correction so other peoples grammatical errors, should you verify that yours are correct as well???

Shouldn’t there be (“) before pedestrian???
I would not have said anything, Lord know I am horrible with grammatics and spelling, but since you felt compelled to correct someone, you should at least make sure you are right!

But . . . I had a space after the period at the end of the sentence! My error was a typo, not a repeated and annoying error. Thanks for your input though. You're right.

[smoking_rubber]

If the City Council vote to pass/fail the measure why should it go to a general vote? Is that not the reason we have City Councils in the first place?


It's "Cover Your Butt Time" when almost 200 million of public money is involved. Some things never change.

[Niner Jan]

While they may not be for the stadium, they're at least waiting and keeping their mind open to the ongoing analysis instead of jumping on the anti-stadium bandwagon with a closed mind.

WIZ,

I wouldn't agree with your statement (above). I was at several of those City Council meetings when "Lord Byron" and his cronies (of the Notwithmy$.org website) were there presenting their arguments. They were definitely on the anti-stadium bandwagon, and were distributing flyers to force a VOTE.

I also went to one of the town hall gatherings where Jed York took on the whole bunch of anti-stadium agitators. I was definiitely outnumbered by the anti-stadium bandwagoners.

I also spoke twice before the SC CC (reading my thoughts aloud) and sent in a third piece of supporting email recently.

[DallasNiner]

But . . . I had a space after the period at the end of the sentance! My error was a typo, not a repeated and annoying error. Thanks for your input though. You're right.

You spelled sentence incorrectly. :dance2:

[Texicali blue]

I don't think the city or the state should give any money to the team unless the team is going to give them a percentage of ownership.

I mean, dang $200 million should give you about 25-30% ownership of the team at their current value shouldn't it?

If you want the city to invest, then provide a return, otherwise you're just a bunch of rich old dudes begging for a handout.

[TheWiz]

WIZ,

I wouldn't agree with your statement (above). I was at several of those City Council meetings when "Lord Byron" and his cronies (of the Notwithmy$.org website) were there presenting their arguments. They were definitely on the anti-stadium bandwagon, and were distributing flyers to force a VOTE.

I also went to one of the town hall gatherings where Jed York took on the whole bunch of anti-stadium agitators. I was definiitely outnumbered by the anti-stadium bandwagoners.

I also spoke twice before the SC CC (reading my thoughts aloud) and sent in a third piece of supporting email recently.

I wasn't talking abouty notwithmymoney.org. I was commenting on the fact that so few have joined the organization that it shows that people are at least waiting to make up their minds. If that organization were doing so well a lot more people would be involved already. So, their low numbers shows that people in general are willing to listen instead of jumping on that bandwagon.

I don't think the city or the state should give any money to the team unless the team is going to give them a percentage of ownership.

I mean, dang $200 million should give you about 25-30% ownership of the team at their current value shouldn't it?

If you want the city to invest, then provide a return, otherwise you're just a bunch of rich old dudes begging for a handout.

Have you followed this issue at ALL? First of all, it's 160M, not 200M. Secondly, even the "20M" needed to move the substation on the land is poorly quoted. The utility fund already had a future plan to replace most of the equipment at that location anyhow. They just need to redo their schedule and do it sooner rather than later. In the end, their costs are demolishing the site and building a new one down the road, with already allocated money paying for the new equipment. Even the costs of laying new electrical line down at the site will be mitigated by the team needing to split the line there anyhow to power the stadium. So, 160M it is.

Secondly, the city gets ownership of the stadium, period. The city gets a 1B stadium for only 160M? How is that not a rate of return? Last time I checked that's a return of over 600%. They get the stadium parking for their own use at the convention center. The city gets all of the profits if they rent the venue for a concert, non-49ers sporting event, outdoor show or convention or use it to host other pro sports games like soccer. The team is even putting itself on the line for any overruns on maintenance annually.

The ownership is putting up over 800M for something they won't even own and taking all of the risk of cost and maintenance overruns.

I'll tell you what. I'm going to buy a brand new sports car for $40k. Give me $7k now so I can buy it and I'll give you the deed to the car as long as I get to drive it 10 days a year. I'll even pay you to let me drive it, I'll give you money if you ever need it for more gas, and oh, I'll pay the monthly insurance bill too.

And you're calling that a bad deal?

[Nevyn]

I'll tell you what. I'm going to buy a brand new sports car for $40k. Give me $7k now so I can buy it and I'll give you the deed to the car as long as I get to drive it 10 days a year. I'll even pay you to let me drive it, I'll give you money if you ever need it for more gas, and oh, I'll pay the monthly insurance bill too.

And you're calling that a bad deal?


No deal, I want to own 20% of you, too.

[Texicali blue]

I wasn't talking abouty notwithmymoney.org. I was commenting on the fact that so few have joined the organization that it shows that people are at least waiting to make up their minds. If that organization were doing so well a lot more people would be involved already. So, their low numbers shows that people in general are willing to listen instead of jumping on that bandwagon.



Have you followed this issue at ALL? First of all, it's 160M, not 200M. Secondly, even the "20M" needed to move the substation on the land is poorly quoted. The utility fund already had a future plan to replace most of the equipment at that location anyhow. They just need to redo their schedule and do it sooner rather than later. In the end, their costs are demolishing the site and building a new one down the road, with already allocated money paying for the new equipment. Even the costs of laying new electrical line down at the site will be mitigated by the team needing to split the line there anyhow to power the stadium. So, 160M it is.

Secondly, the city gets ownership of the stadium, period. The city gets a 1B stadium for only 160M? How is that not a rate of return? Last time I checked that's a return of over 600%. They get the stadium parking for their own use at the convention center. The city gets all of the profits if they rent the venue for a concert, non-49ers sporting event, outdoor show or convention or use it to host other pro sports games like soccer. The team is even putting itself on the line for any overruns on maintenance annually.

The ownership is putting up over 800M for something they won't even own and taking all of the risk of cost and maintenance overruns.

I'll tell you what. I'm going to buy a brand new sports car for $40k. Give me $7k now so I can buy it and I'll give you the deed to the car as long as I get to drive it 10 days a year. I'll even pay you to let me drive it, I'll give you money if you ever need it for more gas, and oh, I'll pay the monthly insurance bill too.

And you're calling that a bad deal?

Yes, I am.

If you can purchase an entire team, stadium included for 800m, why spend 200m(or 160) on just the stadium?

Seems like the lesser of 2 investments.

Plus, you are making MASSIVE ASSUPMTIONS about potential revenue that I don't agree with.

Like events being held there during non-football season, I don't know if you've checked, but the music business is hurting, they aren't putting on "stadium tours" any more, and not multiple tours, enough so to depend on them for return of revenue, and furthermore, if they were, they would be doing them in San Francisco, or Oakland, like they traditionally have.

If the city is getting such a deal then why is it so hard for the team to come up with the cash themselves? If the team is merely giving away $850 million to the city why is it taking so long to get the deal done?

I think things are not so simple as you try to paint them.

hosting soccer games to make money?

dude, you're losing me bigtime with that comment.

[Nevyn]

Yes, I am.

If you can purchase an entire team, stadium included for 800m, why spend 200m(or 160) on just the stadium?


I'm sorry, but where are you getting the notion that you can purchase a pro football franchise and a brand new stadium for 800 million?


Plus, you are making MASSIVE ASSUPMTIONS about potential revenue that I don't agree with.

Like events being held there during non-football season, I don't know if you've checked, but the music business is hurting, they aren't putting on "stadium tours" any more, and not multiple tours, enough so to depend on them for return of revenue, and furthermore, if they were, they would be doing them in San Francisco, or Oakland, like they traditionally have.


So, just to be clear, no one books any sports stadiums for concerts anymore? The business may not be as reliable as it once was, but it is essentially found money when the stadium DOES get used for such a purpose.

After all, even if it gets used for nothing but football, and parking for neighbouring venues on off days, the city would still be collecting significant rent from the niners

If the city is getting such a deal then why is it so hard for the team to come up with the cash themselves?

Well, first, the York's don't have even the money they will be spending sitting in a bank account somewhere. They will be taking on loans for some of it, some from the NFL, and there are limits on what they can borrow.

Beyond that, this location is city land and because it would need to work with the neighbouring venues, the city council would probably be LESS likely to approve a plan that involved the city putting up no money, but the niners owning the land and the stadium.

If the team is merely giving away $850 million to the city why is it taking so long to get the deal done?


Because it is public money and a large project and there is a way things are done?

I'm not saying this stadium plan is perfect, but the notion that locals should oppose it because of what it will cost the city is a red herring, I think. And your idea that the niners should have to give over a portion of the franchise is frankly ridiculous.

[Texicali blue]

In 2003, according to a Forbes' magazine report, the average football franchise was worth $625 million, with the most valuable being the then recently purchased Washington Redskins franchise at $952 million.

How did the city of San Diego do while the Padres construction kept getting pushed back, and back and back.

Or, you can read this report (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2479).

And tell me again why U2 is going to try and sell out the 49ers stadium in Santa Clara when it is cheaper for them(more profitable) to hold their shows in San Francisco or Oakland?

That's assuming there's a demand for that product 6 years from now after it has been built, IF the deal gets done.

That's a whole lot of assumptions to go spending hundreds of millions of dollars on.

Don't forget, the tax incentives the team will demand(revenue the city will be missing out on) in exchange for footing PART of the bill, like has taken place with every other construction project like the one being proposed.

I say, it's your team, negotiate a price for the land, get some investors and build your stadium.

What's wrong with paying for your own structure that you plan to make lots of profit from?

[Nevyn]

In 2003, according to a Forbes' magazine report, the average football franchise was worth $625 million, with the most valuable being the then recently purchased Washington Redskins franchise at $952 million.


Cute, but the average football franchise is not for sale, and if you wanted to buy it would thus cost more than Forbes says they are worth. Then you need to figure out if any of these figures include the stadium and if the stadium is brand new.

As for the study you quoted, it does not really apply in this situation at all. A lot of the criticism of the deal for the Washington Nationals is of the specific structure of their lease (and I didn't think much of that criticism). One would have to do a similar study on the niners' proposed lease to compare that point.

As for the economic benefit of stadiums, the thesis is that the revenue brought in is just revenue that people would have spent in that city anyway. That may apply for baseball in D.C., but a football team in Santa Clara will be bringing in income and business to Santa Clara from neighbouring municipalities that would not be coming to Santa Clara if the franchise were not there.

I also don't know the details on the cost of the Washington stadium, the land used for it, or the other options for the use of that land, but I know that Santa Clara isn't getting a big return right now out of the land where the stadium would be built. I also know (because it is stated in the report) that the Nationals did not pay a dime beyond their lease and taxes to help build that stadium in Washington. The niners, on the other hand, are paying a lot more than the city is. THEN paying rent. and taxes.

Poor Santa Clara, getting jobbed like that.


And tell me again why U2 is going to try and sell out the 49ers stadium in Santa Clara when it is cheaper for them(more profitable) to hold their shows in San Francisco or Oakland?


Why is it cheaper (more profitable) to have them in San Francisco or Oakland?
Done a feasibility study, have you? Compared the rents, and done market research on the expected ticket sales?

Don't forget, the tax incentives the team will demand(revenue the city will be missing out on) in exchange for footing PART of the bill, like has taken place with every other construction project like the one being proposed.


Tax incentives? How much tax will the 49ers do the 49ers pay the city of Santa Clara now? How much tax revenue does great america's parking lot generate? Even if the niners did get a break on local taxes they should incur for having a stadium there, it would be a discount on NEW REVENUE, wouldn't it?

I say, it's your team, negotiate a price for the land, get some investors and build your stadium.


So you think that private investors would find a stadium they have to pay taxes and buy the land for a good investment, but that it is a bad investment for a city that already owns the land, and is getting little to no revenue from it?

[smoking_rubber]

I say, it's your team, negotiate a price for the land, get some investors and build your stadium.

What's wrong with paying for your own structure that you plan to make lots of profit from?

1. The land is owned by the city and it's not for sale. It's currently leased to Great America. Why would the city consider developing that property unless they could use it for themselves?

2. What profit are the 49ers making from it? All of the profits go to the stadium authority (the city).

[Texicali blue]

Why is it cheaper (more profitable) to have them in San Francisco or Oakland?
Done a feasibility study, have you? Compared the rents, and done market research on the expected ticket sales?

For one, because they have the venues.

IF Santa Clara gets one, and IF they set a price, then you can do comparitive research, but my history with these things is that the price of a newer facility is rarely, if ever cheaper than an older facility.

Never mind the whole population center arguement, tell me, when was the last time an artist skipped to SF to perform in the more lucrative Santa Clara scenery?

Or, a conference passed up holding it in SF or Oakland to instead host their event in Santa Clara(an event that required a space as large as a stadium to hold it).

Oh wait, they've never happened because, so you're GUESSING and MAKING ASSUMPTIONS about what will happen.

Have you contacted other cities to see how they fared like the authors of the article did(you can brush off 37 CITIES, but I don't)?

On what grounds are you basing your ASSUMPTIONS about how good a deal this is supposed to be for the city of Santa Clara?





Tax incentives? How much tax will the 49ers do the 49ers pay the city of Santa Clara now? How much tax revenue does great america's parking lot generate? Even if the niners did get a break on local taxes they should incur for having a stadium there, it would be a discount on NEW REVENUE, wouldn't it?

So, what's your point, that the 49ers are the only people interested in the property? Hmmm.....something tells me that isn't true and the city has plenty of options, they don't have to give away anything.


So you think that private investors would find a stadium they have to pay taxes and buy the land for a good investment, but that it is a bad investment for a city that already owns the land, and is getting little to no revenue from it?

they might be getting no revenue now, but even if the stadium is built, they won't see a dime of revenue until AFTER its construction, while they will be spending massive amounts of money UNTIL that point.

And that's not accounting for your typical dishonest figures that teams float cities which don't account for the eventual cost overruns that almost always occur.

Let's admit some basic facts, the NFL is for rich people.

The cost of attending a game is so high and obtaining tickets so difficult that the average fan is already priced out of the equation.

So, why should a stadium for a bunch of rich folks be financed on the backs of a bunch of hardworking joes who will neve be able to afford to watch games there?

[Texicali blue]

1. The land is owned by the city and it's not for sale. It's currently leased to Great America. Why would the city consider developing that property unless they could use it for themselves?

2. What profit are the 49ers making from it? All of the profits go to the stadium authority (the city).

the 49ers won't profit from a new stadium?

So then, why are they building it and wasting all that money?

[Nevyn]

Or, a conference passed up holding it in SF or Oakland to instead host their event in Santa Clara(an event that required a space as large as a stadium to hold it).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Santa Clara have a convention centre RIGHT BESIDE the proposed stadium. Is that always empty?

On what grounds are you basing your ASSUMPTIONS about how good a deal this is supposed to be for the city of Santa Clara?


On the grounds that 160 or even 200 million really isn't that much for a new stadium and new parking structures that the city will own and can do with as it sees fit, and that instead of a couple thousand SC residents (guesstimate) spending their disposable income in SF to buy tickets, food, and merchandise, that money will be spend in SC, along with the disposable income of thousands more San Franciscans and North Bay residents.

Again, a typical sports city is the biggest city in the area. A sports stadium therefore mainly gets revenue only from those who would spend that money in that city anyway. But for SC and niner games, this would not be the case. This would be revenue that would otherwise go to other municipalities. This isn't "team or no team". This is "team in our municipality" or "team in the neighbours". There is a reason SF is making a stink. They don't want that money funnelling out of their city. From a SF municipal government perspective, it would be more appealing for the niners to move to L.A. than SC.

So, what's your point, that the 49ers are the only people interested in the property? Hmmm.....something tells me that isn't true and the city has plenty of options, they don't have to give away anything.


What are they giving away? THEY ARE GOING TO OWN IT STILL.

Let's admit some basic facts, the NFL is for rich people.


I won't admit that at all.

The cost of attending a game is so high and obtaining tickets so difficult that the average fan is already priced out of the equation.


Not really, no. I'm an average NFL fan and in no way rich and have no trouble or hardship getting tickets for and going to one game a year for the team closest to me, and that's not even my team. If it was my team, I could easily swing going to at least half their home games.

So, why should a stadium for a bunch of rich folks be financed on the backs of a bunch of hardworking joes who will neve be able to afford to watch games there?

Once again, this makes it sound like the niners are going door to door in a blue collar neighbourhood and saying "give me this money so I can build a stadium". The money in question is in a specific reserve fund, as I understand it. It is not coming out in your taxes, is not requiring new taxes, and is not something you would be getting a rebate from if there was no stadium. It is an investment by the city.

[Texicali blue]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Santa Clara have a convention centre RIGHT BESIDE the proposed stadium. Is that always empty?

So, you're trying to sell me on why I should fund your stadium with taxpayer money(or tax breaks) based on "you can use it for conventions" and then go and blow it by pointing out competition right next door?

And that's supposed to encourage me?

YIKES!!

I'll stop right there because you're clearly giving an emotional response and not a rational one.

You see, I don't care where the 49ers play, I don't have a dog in this race. So long as they remain the 49ers and in California and don't use taxpayer money to fund their private venture, all is good with me.

[Nevyn]

So, you're trying to sell me on why I should fund your stadium with taxpayer money(or tax breaks) based on "you can use it for conventions" and then go and blow it by pointing out competition right next door?

And that's supposed to encourage me?

YIKES!!


Where did I say you can use it for conventions? Who has a convention at a sports stadium?

YOU brought them up. YOU said that no one would have a convention in SC instead of SC. I said apparently people already do. And the same can apply to concerts and other events which ARE suited to a stadium. And stop mischaracterizing the argument. Using it for other events is not the BASIS for why it is a good investment, it is an added PERK of the deal for the city.

You see, I don't care where the 49ers play, I don't have a dog in this race. So long as they remain the 49ers and in California and don't use taxpayer money to fund their private venture, all is good with me.

I don't care where they play either. I also don't care how they pay for their stadium. Its for the residents of SC to vote on whether it is a good deal.

But you are rejecting the idea on principle instead of analysing the benefits of this deal for the city of Santa Clara and its residents.

[Texicali blue]

Where did I say you can use it for conventions? Who has a convention at a sports stadium?

YOU brought them up. YOU said that no one would have a convention in SC instead of SC. I said apparently people already do. And the same can apply to concerts and other events which ARE suited to a stadium. And stop mischaracterizing the argument. Using it for other events is not the BASIS for why it is a good investment, it is an added PERK of the deal for the city.


Well, it was actually the Wiz who mentioned conventions, and you just took up his arguement from there, so I made the mistake of assuming you were supporting what he wrote.

The city gets all of the profits if they rent the venue for a concert, non-49ers sporting event, outdoor show or convention or use it to host other pro sports games like soccer. (^^Wiz' quote.^^)


I don't care where they play either. I also don't care how they pay for their stadium. Its for the residents of SC to vote on whether it is a good deal.

But you are rejecting the idea on principle instead of analysing the benefits of this deal for the city of Santa Clara and its residents.

What benefits?

That's what I'm getting at, there are no benefits for the city.

Unless you're referring to temporary jobs in construction, seasonal jobs for vendors, these are the people I am referring to who the sports teams typically say are the ones they are helping(by creating jobs), but these people aren't attending the games and when you do studies on it what you find is...


After analyzing 37 metropolitan area economies boasting professional sports franchises, Coates and Humphreys came to the following conclusions:

No positive impact was seen to the growth rate of real per-capita incomes. But pro teams had a statistically significant negative impact on levels of real per-capita income.

Retail and service sectors were negatively affected, with the average net job loss in those sectors being 1,924 jobs.

Hotel wages tended to increase $10 yearly with the presence of pro sports, but restaurant and bar wages went down by $162 per year.

[smoking_rubber]

Never mind the whole population center arguement, tell me, when was the last time an artist skipped to SF to perform in the more lucrative Santa Clara scenery?

Or, a conference passed up holding it in SF or Oakland to instead host their event in Santa Clara(an event that required a space as large as a stadium to hold it).

Santa Clara currently hosts concerts at Great America's grandstand and they host numerous large conventions. The new stadium would provide a much larger venue for larger acts. Big bands don't currently "skip" down to SC because there are no current facilities to support them.

On what grounds are you basing your ASSUMPTIONS about how good a deal this is supposed to be for the city of Santa Clara?

http://www.svlg.net/press/press_releases/2007_0614.php


And the NFL is for rich people? Really? Granted, a game for two people and parking will run you $150. I am not rich! I can afford $150 to go see my team play. More accurately: the NFL is NOT for broke people. Santa Clara's rental rates are astronomical, so there are not many "broke" people living there. That's not a valid reason for not building it. The stadium brings in money to the surrounding businesses, therefore making them "rich". Maybe the NFL IS for rich people?

[Nevyn]

What benefits?


Rent from the team and anyone else using the stadium.

Taxes from the team

In short, it stands a good chance of being a good investment for the city on a purely monetary basis. I mean, if that reserve fund got put into a savings account, would you say "hey, we shouldn't prop up your bank with MY money!!".

Revenue coming into the community from outside the community. This is, as I explained and you ignored, a prime difference between this issue and the one in Washington and a lot of typical cities. what that study says is that when a new sports franchise comes to a city like Washington, yes it brings in revenue to the surrounding area, but that revenue is based on disposable income of the area's residents, and thus was likely going to be spent in the city ANYWAY (going to other events, out to dinner/shows/movies, ect).

In THIS case, residents from SC are taking their money out of town when they go to SF to watch a niners game. If the stadium is in SC, that money (tickets ,concessions, bars, restaurants, souvenirs) is spent in SC, including disposable income from SF and other areas WHICH WOULD NOT OTHERWISE BE SPENT IN SC.

In other words, above and beyond rent and taxes, the stadium would bring more money into the community.

I never claimed that it would create thousands of jobs or a golden economic era. Its just a good investment for the city, and it should be greatly preferrable to residents to have the stadium in their community than in a neighbouring one.

[DallasNiner]

:includeme:

[Texicali blue]

Santa Clara currently hosts concerts at Great America's grandstand and they host numerous large conventions. The new stadium would provide a much larger venue for larger acts. Big bands don't currently "skip" down to SC because there are no current facilities to support them.



http://www.svlg.net/press/press_releases/2007_0614.php


And the NFL is for rich people? Really? Granted, a game for two people and parking will run you $150. I am not rich! I can afford $150 to go see my team play. More accurately: the NFL is NOT for broke people. Santa Clara's rental rates are astronomical, so there are not many "broke" people living there. That's not a valid reason for not building it. The stadium brings in money to the surrounding businesses, therefore making them "rich". Maybe the NFL IS for rich people?

At $150.00 the average Joe can afford to go once every few years, assuming they can get the time off from work.

So why not get your corporate sponsors to pony up the dough instead of joe taxpayer?

[Texicali blue]

Rent from the team and anyone else using the stadium.

Taxes from the team

In short, it stands a good chance of being a good investment for the city on a purely monetary basis. I mean, if that reserve fund got put into a savings account, would you say "hey, we shouldn't prop up your bank with MY money!!".

Revenue coming into the community from outside the community. This is, as I explained and you ignored, a prime difference between this issue and the one in Washington and a lot of typical cities. what that study says is that when a new sports franchise comes to a city like Washington, yes it brings in revenue to the surrounding area, but that revenue is based on disposable income of the area's residents, and thus was likely going to be spent in the city ANYWAY (going to other events, out to dinner/shows/movies, ect).

In THIS case, residents from SC are taking their money out of town when they go to SF to watch a niners game. If the stadium is in SC, that money (tickets ,concessions, bars, restaurants, souvenirs) is spent in SC, including disposable income from SF and other areas WHICH WOULD NOT OTHERWISE BE SPENT IN SC.

In other words, above and beyond rent and taxes, the stadium would bring more money into the community.

I never claimed that it would create thousands of jobs or a golden economic era. Its just a good investment for the city, and it should be greatly preferrable to residents to have the stadium in their community than in a neighbouring one.

Got any actual numbers?

How much revenue is the city going to generate and how much are they going to spend?


How much money is the city losing out on in tax breaks?

Because they can always sell the land to someone else who doesn't ask for tax breaks.

[Nevyn]

At $150.00 the average Joe can afford to go once every few years, assuming they can get the time off from work.


That was 75 dollars each, and which average Joe can't pay that once a year?

And football games are on Sundays. Granted, some average have work on Sundays, but not nearly as many as don't.

[Texicali blue]

That was 75 dollars each, and which average Joe can't pay that once a year?

And football games are on Sundays. Granted, some average have work on Sundays, but not nearly as many as don't.

the 'average Joe' also has to take his wife and kids with him, the price just went up to $300.00, that's almost an entire week's takehome pay for him.

Certainly, he can't afford to go to games like his corporate neighbors who own a luxury box and multiple season tickets.

so why should he shell out anything for that stadium?

Sports stadiums are the biggest boondoggles in public spending, next to the DOD of course.

[TheWiz]

You know, there are things like "Boat Shows" that are held in outdoor areas, something for which the Convention Center may not be suited as opposed to maybe, an open air stadium? Not mention Landscaping Shows prefer to have an outdoor venue attached to it as well.

What astounds me is your disbelief. The city would have the full rights to rent out a brand new stadium over 350 days a year. You're telling me they can't book it for enough events to earn a couple million dollars to cover stadium costs? Between renting it for space, concerts, alternative sporting events and extra convention space the city couldn't earn enough rental money to make it worthwhile? Let's also just dismiss the millions the city could make by hosting a Superbowl, a near certainty a new stadium. But you have the vision to imagine dozens of uses for land that actually is not for sale?

Secondly, Nevyn never said the stadium would compete with the Convention center. How can a new city owned venue compete with a city owned venue? Either way the city gets the business! Secondly, a stadium next door might be attractive because of maybe extra parking space and an outdoor option for the convention center to use?


What benefits?

That's what I'm getting at, there are no benefits for the city.

I know, the city of San Francisco got completely wiped out by supporting that stupid football team, whomever they were! The influx of tourism, the world championships, what a disaster that was! I mean, even after we chose to leave the city they told us never to come back. It's not like they're so desparate that they've been lobbying the team to move onto a Super Fund site just to keep them in the city! All stadiums are terrible ideas that hurt the cities they are built in, that's why no city has a stadium or wants a stadium built in it.

You got offered the keys to a brand new Corvette for only $7k that you don't even have to pay gas or maintenance on and I'd even give you $300 each year to borrow it for 10 days. You're turning it down because you think it will be a nuisance to park.

[Nevyn]

so why should he shell out anything for that stadium?

Sports stadiums are the biggest boondoggles in public spending, next to the DOD of course.

Once again, you are hung up on the concept and not looking at the particulars.

HE ISN'T SHELLING OUT ANYTHING FOR THE STADIUM. The money has already been collected, and the city stands to make more back in revenue than it spends for the stadium.

Also, I don't know what NFL games you are going to, but I see a lot of average joes there, and almost none of them are bringing along the wife and kids.

[TheWiz]

the 'average Joe' also has to take his wife and kids with him, the price just went up to $300.00, that's almost an entire week's takehome pay for him.

Certainly, he can't afford to go to games like his corporate neighbors who own a luxury box and multiple season tickets.

so why should he shell out anything for that stadium?

Sports stadiums are the biggest boondoggles in public spending, next to the DOD of course.

Actually, according this 2002-2004 survey:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income04/statemhi.html

The "average" Joe (half will make more, half will make less) will makeover 49k in the state of California. Now, split them up by 52 weeks and you get a pay of over $942 per week. So, unless he's paying about 70% in taxes, he can afford it. Secondly, if you're a football fan, you don't cry about paying a couple hundreds of bucks twice a year to go see your team play.

And once again, none of his tax dollars paid for any of the stadium. His tax money goes into something called the 'general operating' fund, which pays the cities operating costs. The next time the city council give themselves a raise that costs the city $2k per year, they just cost the Santa Clara taxpayer more tax dollars than the stadium proposal.

[Texicali blue]

You know, there are things like "Boat Shows" that are held in outdoor areas, something for which the Convention Center may not be suited as opposed to maybe, an open air stadium? Not mention Landscaping Shows prefer to have an outdoor venue attached to it as well.

What astounds me is your disbelief. The city would have the full rights to rent out a brand new stadium over 350 days a year. You're telling me they can't book it for enough events to earn a couple million dollars to cover stadium costs? Between renting it for space, concerts, alternative sporting events and extra convention space the city couldn't earn enough rental money to make it worthwhile? Let's also just dismiss the millions the city could make by hosting a Superbowl, a near certainty a new stadium. But you have the vision to imagine dozens of uses for land that actually is not for sale?

My disbelief is based on experience.

Every time a team wants a new stadium they try and sell the public on financing part of it with the same sales pitch.

It just doesn't turn out to be true. But that a salesman would be dishonest in how he represents his product doesn't surprise me one bit.

If I wanted your money, I'd be onesided in my argumentation about it, too.



Secondly, Nevyn never said the stadium would compete with the Convention center. How can a new city owned venue compete with a city owned venue? Either way the city gets the business! Secondly, a stadium next door might be attractive because of maybe extra parking space and an outdoor option for the convention center to use?

So, now what do we need the second venue for if one will do?



I know, the city of San Francisco got completely wiped out by supporting that stupid football team, whomever they were! The influx of tourism, the world championships, what a disaster that was! I mean, even after we chose to leave the city they told us never to come back. It's not like they're so desparate that they've been lobbying the team to move onto a Super Fund site just to keep them in the city! All stadiums are terrible ideas that hurt the cities they are built in, that's why no city has a stadium or wants a stadium built in it.

Yes, sarcasm, the avoidance measure. Way to respect the "debate" going on.


You got offered the keys to a brand new Corvette for only $7k that you don't even have to pay gas or maintenance on and I'd even give you $300 each year to borrow it for 10 days. You're turning it down because you think it will be a nuisance to park.

Sarcastic and unrelated analogies don't help to further illustrate your point, they just lessen my opinion of you for resorting to them, just so you know.


Also, I found this but must let you know it was on wikipedia, so I don't wanna vouch for its accuracy, so I will attribute them as my source.

The per capita income for the city was $31,755.

[smoking_rubber]

At $150.00 the average Joe can afford to go once every few years, assuming they can get the time off from work.


If Joe can only afford to break off $150 EVERY FEW YEARS, he better stay home and get a better job. I AM an average Joe! I have season tickets. I pay more $ for car insurance than I do for my tickets. I spend more money on DOG FOOD than I do on season tickets every year. The point is: the NFL is not just for rich people.

So why not get your corporate sponsors to pony up the dough instead of joe taxpayer?

Joe Taxpayer doesn't have to pay ANYTHING!!!!! Nada - Zip - Zilcho! The money they might invest is already collected and ready to be invested somewhere. It won't cost you or any other resident one single extra penny. Cost overruns: not your problem or your bill.

Now, I will admit . . . the chances of Santa Clara getting a Superbowl are not very good. The economic study didn't include that though, so income from that or playoff games would be above all projections.

[Texicali blue]

If Joe can only afford to break off $150 EVERY FEW YEARS, he better stay home and get a better job. I AM an average Joe! I have season tickets. I pay more $ for car insurance than I do for my tickets. I spend more money on DOG FOOD than I do on season tickets every year. The point is: the NFL is not just for rich people.



Joe Taxpayer doesn't have to pay ANYTHING!!!!! Nada - Zip - Zilcho! The money they might invest is already collected and ready to be invested somewhere. It won't cost you or any other resident one single extra penny. Cost overruns: not your problem or your bill.

Now, I will admit . . . the chances of Santa Clara getting a Superbowl are not very good. The economic study didn't include that though, so income from that or playoff games would be above all projections.



And who was that money collected from?

Perhaps, the average joe taxpayer?

[smoking_rubber]

Yes it was collected from taxpayers or electricity users. Do you think they'll give it back if they don't build a stadium? What is your point? The fact remains, the citizens of Santa Clara will not be burdened with any extra costs or new taxes. It's the city making an investment. If your problem is with the city, you should take your opinions to THEM. I don't believe they read this forum.

[Nevyn]

And who was that money collected from?

Perhaps, the average joe taxpayer?

And what a boondoggle, that money is in a bank account!!! Taxpayers, propping up a bank with their money. And all they get is interest!

[DallasNiner]

Oy vey, this is still going. :thud:

[TheWiz]

My disbelief is based on experience.

Every time a team wants a new stadium they try and sell the public on financing part of it with the same sales pitch.

It just doesn't turn out to be true. But that a salesman would be dishonest in how he represents his product doesn't surprise me one bit.

If I wanted your money, I'd be onesided in my argumentation about it, too.


So your counterargument is that you've got a gut feeling that because some stadium deals have gone bad, this one must? Do you never buy a car because it could be a lemon? Do you not buy a home in fear that one day you may get flooding in the basement? A car or a home is an even bigger initial investment and have even more horror stories. Something tells me your gut just doesn't like big comittments, period.


So, now what do we need the second venue for if one will do?

Because you increase your attractiveness to potential renters by offering more parking and venues? It allows the convention center to host events it otherwise could not so by extension, the stadium already enhances the returns on a previous investment (i.e. the convention center). Not to mention, many corporations and businesses hold conventions in places with more attractive local offerings. Why hold the annual "NorthWest USA Dentist and Periodontist Convention" in Salem when you can do it in Santa Clara and catch a 49ers game the next day? It's called adding more potential customers and adding to the attractiveness of holding events at the convention center.


Yes, sarcasm, the avoidance measure. Way to respect the "debate" going on.

What exactly was I avoiding? If anything it was more mockery. You yourself directly implied that cities get no benefits from having an NFL stadium. I countered by showing you how ridiculous of a thought it was considering how much this team alone has done for San Francisco. Again, some bad stadium deals don't make the entire lot a nightmare. Just because Colisseum repairs went well over cost and left Oakland high and dry and Al Davis sues the city every other year over something ridiculous doesn't mean Santa Clara will be the same.


Sarcastic and unrelated analogies don't help to further illustrate your point, they just lessen my opinion of you for resorting to them, just so you know.

How is my analogy unrelated? I find it rather related.

- You pay about a 6th of the cost, I pay the rest (Team pays 950+, city offers 160M)
- I won't own it, you will (The city owns the stadium, not the team)
- I'd pay you $300 a year for using it for 10 days (Hmm, the team would need to pay a multi-million dollar per year lease just to use the stadium for, you got it, 10 games with guarantees of holding it for playoff games which the team pays extra to lease)
- You would get gas money and pay none of the maintenance on it (Let's see, the lease money almost entirely pays for maintenance itself up front, and the team pays the city if the city can't earn the remainder)

I'm not quite sure how it differs except it's a car versus a stadium. Same deal. You'd be getting a heck of a deal with no future uncovered costs and a 20+ year guarantee of the team playing there with a likely extension late ron.


Also, I found this but must let you know it was on wikipedia, so I don't wanna vouch for its accuracy, so I will attribute them as my source.

Fair enough.

Except people buying tickets won't be required to be Santa Clara residents. In fact, a vast majority of fans will not be from the city. Just like a huge portion of fans are not from San Francisco but other cities.

But the money for the stadium is not coming out of taxpayer pockets so I don't see what that has to do with anything.

[Texicali blue]

Yes it was collected from taxpayers or electricity users. Do you think they'll give it back if they don't build a stadium? What is your point? The fact remains, the citizens of Santa Clara will not be burdened with any extra costs or new taxes. It's the city making an investment. If your problem is with the city, you should take your opinions to THEM. I don't believe they read this forum.

that money could go towards a zoo, it could go towards a museum, it could go towards investment in alternate energy sources.

You know, something that benefits more than just the football fans, since the money wasn't collected solely from football fans.

simple concept, really.

[Texicali blue]

So your counterargument is that you've got a gut feeling that because some stadium deals have gone bad, this one must? Do you never buy a car because it could be a lemon? Do you not buy a home in fear that one day you may get flooding in the basement? A car or a home is an even bigger initial investment and have even more horror stories. Something tells me your gut just doesn't like big comittments, period.

I'm not Michael Chertoff so my opinion is not based on a "gut feeling."

Chew on these for a while (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=303106)

and I find comparing a $30,000 vehicle purchase with how to spend $160 million of taxpayer money silly.

[DallasNiner]

that money could go towards a zoo, it could go towards a museum, it could go towards investment in alternate energy sources.

You know, something that benefits more than just the football fans, since the money wasn't collected solely from football fans.

simple concept, really.

I see your point. I'm very glad that the new Cowboys Stadium didn't end up in Irving again(where I live) because I don't want to pay for it. I hate the freaking Cowboys...let Arlington pay for that crap.

As far as bringing jobs. I don't work in Irving, so whoopty doo.

[Nevyn]

Also, just a brief note, that you quote per capita income figures, but then say your average guy is married with kids.

Per capita is the average income of an individual. It is take the total employment income, and divide it by the people.

But a lot of the married people in the city will BOTH be working, so if he needs to spend 300 instead of 75, I guess his family income is over 60k

[smoking_rubber]

that money could go towards a zoo, it could go towards a museum, it could go towards investment in alternate energy sources.

You know, something that benefits more than just the football fans, since the money wasn't collected solely from football fans.

simple concept, really.

Yes it could go to a lot of things, but your whole argument has been about using YOUR money for something YOU don't like. I don't like zoos. BFD! It's an INVESTMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How many zoos worth 800 million are on the market for 160 million?

[DallasNiner]

Yes it could go to a lot of things, but your whole argument has been about using YOUR money for something YOU don't like. I don't like zoos. BFD! It's an INVESTMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How many zoos worth 800 million are on the market for 160 million?

What do you have against zoos? :laugh:

[TheWiz]

And who was that money collected from?

Perhaps, the average joe taxpayer?

Actually, umm, no.

It's called PG&E was stupid and through its collective ignorance got itself into some very big problems a few years back. But since Santa Clara runs its own power utility, which is paid and run through its own profits which get recycled into the utility again or to other city needs. Now, before you say it's run on tax payer money, it's no more supported by taxes than PG&E is and yet Santa Clara residents pay a lot less because the city utility is not in it for profit. And from what I have heard, the city has previously avoided a tax increase by instead raising electricity rates and then siphoning the profits into things like the police and fire departments and cutting general fund support to those departments. So the words 'tax increase' are never heard but yet they get more money for their side projects.

That aside, the city had lots of cheap energy and PG&E needed it badly so they paid a massive premium per megawatt to the city to get that extra output. As a result the city earned a big fat windfall of cash and has since for a few years been building a plan to pout it all back into new and more modern equipment to increase the efficiency and keep electricity ultra cheap for the city.

So no, it didn't come from taxpayer money. The fact that the utility is owned by the city has nothing to do with taxpayers. It's run entirely on what residents pay for electricity. It's all money the city more or less stumbled upon that's 100% corporate.

[Nevyn]

that money could go towards a zoo, it could go towards a museum, it could go towards investment in alternate energy sources.

You know, something that benefits more than just the football fans, since the money wasn't collected solely from football fans.

simple concept, really.

So the nfl is for rich people, but the museum is for everybody? Know a lot of blue collar construction workers who knock off early on a friday so they can go look at the new Van Gogh exhibit, do you?

And again, the money is not being given away. It is an investment. The city would be spending money to own something WORTH MORE THAN WHAT they spent, and getting a guaranteed source of income for use of the facility at the same time.

[Texicali blue]

Also, just a brief note, that you quote per capita income figures, but then say your average guy is married with kids.

Per capita is the average income of an individual. It is take the total employment income, and divide it by the people.

But a lot of the married people in the city will BOTH be working, so if he needs to spend 300 instead of 75, I guess his family income is over 60k

Here's some more numbers(from wikipedia I warn you)

About 4.5% of families and 7.8% of the population were below the poverty line, including 6.3% of those under age 18 and 8.2% of those age 65 or over.

take that for what it's worth.

I simply don't support public financing of PRIVATE enterprise.

Or tax incentives for companies to relocate, I know it's "business as usual" but that doesn't make it right and some cities are waking up to smell the(lack of) coffee, so to speak.

[Texicali blue]

Actually, umm, no.

It's called PG&E was stupid and through its collective ignorance got itself into some very big problems a few years back. But since Santa Clara runs its own power utility, which is paid and run through its own profits which get recycled into the utility again or to other city needs. Now, before you say it's run on tax payer money, it's no more supported by taxes than PG&E is and yet Santa Clara residents pay a lot less because the city utility is not in it for profit. And from what I have heard, the city has previously avoided a tax increase by instead raising electricity rates and then siphoning the profits into things like the police and fire departments and cutting general fund support to those departments. So the words 'tax increase' are never heard but yet they get more money for their side projects.

That aside, the city had lots of cheap energy and PG&E needed it badly so they paid a massive premium per megawatt to the city to get that extra output. As a result the city earned a big fat windfall of cash and has since for a few years been building a plan to pout it all back into new and more modern equipment to increase the efficiency and keep electricity ultra cheap for the city.

So no, it didn't come from taxpayer money. The fact that the utility is owned by the city has nothing to do with taxpayers. It's run entirely on what residents pay for electricity. It's all money the city more or less stumbled upon that's 100% corporate.

OK, so instead of limiting their pool to taxpayers, it is everybody who gets electricity in the city where the money got pooled from.

And that makes it less public money how?

[DallasNiner]

I simply don't support public financing of PRIVATE enterprise.

.

I can agree with that.

[smoking_rubber]

The fact that the utility is owned by the city has nothing to do with taxpayers. It's run entirely on what residents pay for electricity. It's all money the city more or less stumbled upon that's 100% corporate.

Amazingly, that's the same financial model that the new Stadium Authority will operate under. Money from the games and events will support the costs of operation. Extra money goes back into the general fund!

:stinker:

[Nevyn]

Here's some more numbers(from wikipedia I warn you)



take that for what it's worth.

I simply don't support public financing of PRIVATE enterprise.

Or tax incentives for companies to relocate, I know it's "business as usual" but that doesn't make it right and some cities are waking up to smell the(lack of) coffee, so to speak.

What does that data have to do with anything? You said games are only for the rich, now you're trying to say its not for families below the poverty line?

And this isn't public financing for private enterprise. That would be the city paying for a stadium the Yorks would own (and there used to be a lot of stadium deals like that, which is where the boondoggle reputation comes from).

The public money is building something that the public will then own. And generate revenue from.

[smoking_rubber]

"About 4.5% of families and 7.8% of the population were below the poverty line, including 6.3% of those under age 18 and 8.2% of those age 65 or over."

take that for what it's worth.


Do you mean to tell me that somewhere in the world, 7 and a half people out of 100 are poor? OMG! Wow, those 92 and a half other people should be tarred and made to watch cowgirl games. Those stats are amazing. I'm ashamed of myself for watching football when I should have been out throwing quarters at bums!

I guess you can take that for what it's worth also.

[TheWiz]

First of all, how are YOU, the individual, paying 160M? Everything is by scale. Heck, even if every taxpayer in Santa Clara directly paid to make up that 160M, it would be cheaper for you than the 7k for the car, so in fact, the car is an even bigger investment.

that money could go towards a zoo, it could go towards a museum, it could go towards investment in alternate energy sources.

You know, something that benefits more than just the football fans, since the money wasn't collected solely from football fans.

simple concept, really.

A Museum? You don't think there wouldn't be concerts held in Santa Clara because it's not San Francisco or Oakland but a MUSEUM would be a good investment? I'm sorry but I'm not lining up to go away from the cities where Galleries and Museums are aplenty to see just one in Santa Clara. Besides, how often do you see a "do not donate any money, we're flowing in it!" big as you walk into a public museum? Most of them are financial sieves that drain money from regular taxes and get closed 25 years later because no one wants to spend another 5M for refurbishing and new exhibits for a museum every 2nd grader visits once in the county and that's it.



I simply don't support public financing of PRIVATE enterprise.



See, THERE is what you should have said in the first place. Just say that you think the public should not in any way ever give a cent to encourage private growth in their area.

That's a political stance and a personal choice. By your statement you wouldn't let the city offer up $50k for some road widening to put in a new Walmart that will bring in 3 times that amount in the first year in taxes alone. Regardless of the size of the publicv investment versus the return, you don't support financing of private enterprise.

Lastly, I still don't get how you consider it private. The team won't even get to own the stadium, it will be PUBLIC property! You'd be spending only 160M to build a nearly 1B piece of publically owned property, plain and simple.


Or tax incentives for companies to relocate, I know it's "business as usual" but that doesn't make it right and some cities are waking up to smell the(lack of) coffee, so to speak.

You should really stop that because you're making up the entirety of 'tax incentives' in this thread. Neither the team nor the city has proposed anything of the sort. It seems rather stupid to offer 'incentives' to someone who will just be paying you back money anyhow. Just because some businesses use them it has never been brought up here so don't write as if it's actually on the table.

Besides, what tax breaks could even be given? The city keeps the property and owns the stadium so it's not like the team is paying property taxes. They can't offer income tax breaks to players. Heck, the city already leases the land the team practices on for only a little bit, there's a tax break for you. Although I'm sure the ten thousand dollars the team doesn't pay on that lease is more than made up for with the charitable causes them and their players uphold in the local area.

[TheWiz]

OK, so instead of limiting their pool to taxpayers, it is everybody who gets electricity in the city where the money got pooled from.

And that makes it less public money how?

I'm sorry, you just lept from tax money, money begotten by taxing private citizens, to money that happened to be owned by anyone who is a citizen without thinking twice? You're on a ridiculously slippery slope with that logic. By that logic I can quickly go on to show how this country has its hands in 'public money' in any evil act ever committed since its creation. Tax money is not the same as money a taxpayer happened to spend in something publically owned. Heck, taxes are enforced by law but not electricity. If you don't pay your bills they'll cut you off. No one forced a single taxpayer to pay for electricity against their own will, you can live without it.

The money never came from the people in the city, period. You're talking the money came from something the taxpayers provided. It came from PG&E! There isn't a single utility user in Santa Clara whose money, tax or otherwise, went into making that 200M+ windfall the utility received. 200M CAME FROM A PRIVATE, NON-PUBLIC COMPANY. The fact that it's 'public money' doesn't mean that it came out of the pockets of the taxpayers. The city is free to use it for whatever they see fit inside of their own laws, which is exactly what is happening here. It's not money earned or begotten by any penny spent by taxpayers, it's money the city got lucky to earn because a private company screwed up and needed an expensive umbrella. If the city wants to amend their charter to spend it on a stadium, that's the citie's choice. They could also waste it on things like public safety or education if they want to, their choice.

Amazingly, that's the same financial model that the new Stadium Authority will operate under. Money from the games and events will support the costs of operation. Extra money goes back into the general fund!

:stinker:

Almost, except for the first few million. The first million in overflow would go into a fund to cover possible underfunding in later years. The second million would be kept in a fund the team can only access to help improve the stadium down the line. So if the city is making out like a bandit and covering all costs and then some, at most 1M will be funneled back into the stadium. The team would have access to it but they'd only be able to use it to enhance a stadium the city owns, so in essence it let's the team force the city to pay for at least some minor upgrades if they earn tons of money. Everything else past that is money the stadium authority can do anything it wants with, including helping the general fund.

[Texicali blue]

1.)when did I say the money would come from ME, an individual?

Is it my writing that's so unclear?

2.)I didn't say it SHOULD be spent on a museum, I didn't say a museum was a good or bad idea.

I simply provided an example of something that money could be spent on that would appeal to a larger audience than football fans, I won't even bother responding to the "it's more than a football stadium, it's a concert hall/event center" argument because the numbers overall don't support that one bit.

3.)I have to laugh at the argument that "the team won't own the stadium, the city will."

Just what does a city do with an unoccuppied stadium? It's not like they can hold the stadium up for bidding between multiple teams, now that would imply ownership.

Man, the Coliseum is just bringing in big bucks for Inglewood and Los Angeles now, isn't it?

It's the land that's of value, negotiate a fair price, purchase it, build it our stadium, pretty simple concept.




And here you go getting all extreme again by making an analogy about road improvements and public financing.

Hey, those are public roads, anyone with a car can drive over them, you can even take the bus to Wal Mart and use those public roads.

The same can't be said of the stadium, unless you've got $75 to spare for a ticket on top of the public money spent on your behalf already.

See the difference?



You make it sound like the city could say 5 years after construction, "Nope, hasn't met any of the benchmarks, let's put 'er on the market folks."

[TheWiz]

1.)when did I say the money would come from ME, an individual?

Is it my writing that's so unclear?

No but you say comparing 40k(actually you said 30k I believe) to 160M you're talking about overall enormity of the investment. Sure, 160M is a lot more than a possible 7k investment but on one hand you were never paying 160M yourself, you'd just be a part of that amount. That's why scaling ~950M to 40k and 160M to 7k was done as part of my analogy. Either way you didn't like it so who cares!


2.)I didn't say it SHOULD be spent on a museum, I didn't say a museum was a good or bad idea.

I simply provided an example of something that money could be spent on that would appeal to a larger audience than football fans, I won't even bother responding to the "it's more than a football stadium, it's a concert hall/event center" argument because the numbers overall don't support that one bit.


1) Clearly you think it's a better investment, who throws out a worse idea as an alternative? You at least think it's as good if not a better investment and I would LOVE to know what museum could be built that would appeal to more than about 500k football fans attending games in the stadium per year. That Museum must have some amazing draw to be more popular than football.

2) What Numbers? The numbers don't support what one bit? Because you think fewer concerts are held and that no events take place in football stadiums not related to football? I don't care if the music industry is selling less CDs or records or BlueRays or whatever it is, music is no less popular. There are still summer tours and stadiums across the nation host them. Just because we won't have one every weekend doesn't mean it's not significant. Heck, when a single concert event can earn a tour 800k in ticket sales, they'll pay the city 100k to get the location. Do that every other month during the year and it's over half a million dollars the stadium authority earns. You don't need to earn tons of money. If you even only make 200k in a month, that's money that the city earns. Are you really that downcast? You think a promoter with a 70k outdoor stadium can't get the city a couple million in events and promotions each year? Heck, I know in some stadiums they just roll out a massive, 3 story high projection screen on weekend nights and charge people to see old movies at $5 a head with free popcorn. If you get 2,000 people to show up to see E.T. and Elliot fly across the moon at super-life size while sitting on the stadium grass in June, that's 10k. Do that every Friday night for 3 months and whammy, 120k for showing a big movie. You could even staff it with local high schoolers who do it for community service time the same way colleges get Fraternities and student groups to do concession at home games. Does it take THAT much imagination?


3.)I have to laugh at the argument that "the team won't own the stadium, the city will."

Just what does a city do with an unoccuppied stadium?

What does a city do with an unoccupied convention center? You find ways to get it occupied! Those are stadium seats and open space! You sell the space for rent. Just like ANY stadium in the nation does. They don't just build them only to host a few games for one sport, they max it out by selling it for just about anything they can.


It's not like they can hold the stadium up for bidding between multiple teams, now that would imply ownership.

Sure they can. Once the team's lease with the city is up the city can sell it or do whatever they want with it. What, you don't think the team is going to pay 800M+ to build something they might not even get to use? Now THAT is ridiculous.

Except, you realize that the city CAN sell the stadium. If they changed their minds they can sell it to any private investor if someone wanted it that badly. They can even sell it and the rights and land it's on for whatever they want. The only catch is that any new owner would still be legally bound to the terms of the lease.

That's exactly how Kraft weaseled his way into owning the Patriots. He bought the land that Foxboro (sp?) Stadium was on from the state for 140M he got from private loans and investors. Which is how he kept the Patriots in New England after it was bought by St.Louis real estate moguls. He refused to let them buy out the lease like they expected and their tentative deal to build a stadium in St.Louis fell apart and they had no choice but to sell and cut their losses quickly so they sold it to Kraft.

So if the city decides they don't want to keep doing the oversite, they can sell it to anyone willing to buy it and uphold the lease.


Man, the Coliseum is just bringing in big bucks for Inglewood and Los Angeles now, isn't it?

You're comparing a brand new stadium to the Coliseum? One which was hastily renovated just to bring the Raiders back to Oakland? One which the mayor was so anxious to get a team back into that he never agreed to a deal that protected the city? The city is losing millions due to overruns on that scrap heap. It was even abandoned for over a decade. You're comparing a motel 6 with a leaky roof to a luxury suite at the Hilton in this case. A brand new stadium is a LOT more attractive. Bands and entertainers don't want to stay in a place with bad plumbing and poorly lit hallways that feels like a dungeon.


And here you go getting all extreme again by making an analogy about road improvements and public financing.

Hey, those are public roads, anyone with a car can drive over them, you can even take the bus to Wal Mart and use those public roads.

The same can't be said of the stadium, unless you've got $75 to spare for a ticket on top of the public money spent on your behalf already.

See the difference?


Nope.

Who said the public can't ever enter the stadium? I mean, it's the stadium authority that will set the guidelines. I'm sure you could petition them to let you onto city owned land the same way you can go walk in a park. You can even take a public bus to the stadium and walk around the publically owned lots.

That can't be said of a stadium? Well you've got to pay money to get the product! You're not just allowed to walk into Walmart and take what you want for free because you got there on a public road now are you? That's because the city doesn't own the Walmart. And if they did, they'd still charge you to buy goods there.

But you skipped my point.

You said you did not support public financing. Well, what if that road widening was ONLY to build an exit lane to get to the Walmart? That was public money spent ONLY to suit Walmart. That was my point. It was my simple and far from extremist example of how a tiny public investment can reap very big return. Hence why as a whole, ruling out public investment for private ventures needs to be weighed against how the public stands to gain from that private venture.


You make it sound like the city could say 5 years after construction, "Nope, hasn't met any of the benchmarks, let's put 'er on the market folks."

Except, well, they can. Cities and state have sold land rights and stadium ownership to private owners.