Dianne Feinstein leads charge for keeping 49ers in S.F. (Article)

[ethanh]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/30/BAJDRRVKS.DTL
Channeling her inner linebacker coach, Sen. Dianne Feinstein stole the show Wednesday afternoon with an impassioned plea to accept San Francisco's plan for a new stadium and keep the 49ers' games within the city limits. Feinstein even finished up with a call and response cry, twice asking the sold-out crowd, "Where do you want the 49ers to continue to play?"
"San Francisco!" the fans roared.
The only person in the room who failed to get into the spirit was 49ers owner John York, who sat stone-faced at his table, just a few feet away, as Feinstein built to her conclusion.
"John York," she said, reaching toward his chair, which was directly in front of her podium, "it is all up to you. All you have to do is say, 'Yes.' "

Wiz, you said York should not be feeling any heat, although a sold out booster lunch yelling to keep them in SF does sound a little bit tense. I know you said it wont make a difference but the fact remains this is a mostly unpopular decision by an unpopular owner. Who knows maybe he will blaze his own trail and leave us all in years to come apologizing for ever saying SC is a bad move.

[Peter Proud]

You do know that was a San Francisco Chamber of Commerce Booster Luncheon don't you? What other response would be expected?

I like Dr. York's responses:

Stay tuned. The only thing we know is that York is likely to be answering more of those difficult questions.

"Well," he joked, when he spoke at the luncheon after Feinstein and Newsom, "the first thing I am going to do is call Dwight (Clark) and Joe (Montana) and see if "The Catch" was more difficult than following two politicians."

EXACTLY!!!

[49Faithful]

John York, who sat stone-faced at his table

Man I hate to play poker with this guy.:money:

"Oh please Dr. York dont make Newsom look bad please I love the 49ers but we wouldnt offer you shyt to stay except a bullshyt plan that will just piss off your fans.":nonono:

[Nevyn]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/30/BAJDRRVKS.DTL


Wiz, you said York should not be feeling any heat, although a sold out booster lunch yelling to keep them in SF does sound a little bit tense.

Does it? C.W. Nevius' choice of words was interesting anyway. Matt Maiocco's blog made the response to the question sound a fair bit more muted and on the polite side. So there's certainly a spin issue as to how tense things sounded.

Feinstein certainly tried to apply the pressure. But somehow I don't think Dr York was sweating it at all.

[49Faithful]

"We're working carefully with both cities to try to find a solution that is viable," Lang said. "Our goal is not about one city or territory, it is to stay in the San Francisco Bay Area."

I like how they did that. If SC is considered the San Francisco Bay Area then no way then can stop us using the name.

[ethanh]

Does it? C.W. Nevius' choice of words was interesting anyway. Matt Maiocco's blog made the response to the question sound a fair bit more muted and on the polite side. So there's certainly a spin issue as to how tense things sounded.

Feinstein certainly tried to apply the pressure. But somehow I don't think Dr York was sweating it at all.
Yes I agree, I know it is a SF paper article so the wording did make it sound like everyone was in favor. Thanks for the Maiocco point. Here is the link to that. Fair and Balanced that is me.

http://www.49erswebzone.com/content/news/view.php?id=10815

[sandiegojoe]

I remember a democratic mayoral candidate in san diego was invited to do a live debate with the republican candidate down here on a republican radio talk show.

She sent out emails to her closest supporters, and when she spoke or made a good point the supporters cheered so loud that people on the radio would have thought the dems outnumbered the repubs in the crowd 2 to 1. They were in fact outnumbered, they just staged their support more effectively.

It's all about who is in attendance, and how well they've been coached.

[Giedi]

As much as I respect Wiz's opinions, here I think SF has more than an even shot at keeping the 49ers. Not 100% mind you, but as the plans progress and things keep going (toxic cleanups, change inowership from Navy to SF City for Hunters Point) San Francisco's chances will continue to increase.

But should SF falter, things slow down, and they let politics start getting in the way of the Stadium, that's when Santa Calra will steal the 49ers right out from under their nose.

Giedi

[sf9ergrl]

"San Francisco Chamber of Commerce Booster Luncheon don't you? What other response would be expected"

I hate it when people say things like this because too many people make it seem like STH=number of fans so there aren't many in SF yet people roar SF it's because their in SF so where's that other 91%?:tearup:
(meant no disrespect to Peter Proud :ok:)

[Nevyn]

"San Francisco Chamber of Commerce Booster Luncheon don't you? What other response would be expected"

I hate it when people say things like this because too many people make it seem like STH=number of fans so there aren't many in SF yet people roar SF it's because their in SF so where's that other 91%?:tearup:
(meant no disrespect to Peter Proud :ok:)

I think you missed the inflection there. The underline shouldn't be on "San Francisco", but on "Chamber of Commerce". The speech was in front of people with vested financial interest in keeping the 49ers within city limits, was the point I think Peter was trying to make.

[ManCans]

Honestly, I'm impartial to whether the team stays in SF or moves to SC. I just want a new stadium. Having said that, the SC site is going to be a nightmare when it comes to parking. Building the new stadium in the Great America parking lot is going to cause all kinds of problems, including clashing with amusement park-goers everytime there's an event at the stadium. Not to mention that parking spaces will be at a premium due to the already limited parking area, I get the feeling I'll be driving around on gameday trying to find a parking space when I should be in my seat watching the game. And that parking garage is going to be a nightmare.

I've got several reservations about the Hunter's Point proposal, but if they design the stadium access correctly, it could work. Arco Arena in Sacramento only has two-lane access which exits to a two-lane freeway, but it is designed so well that I've never spent more than thirty minutes getting to the freeway (something I can't say about Monster Park).

I've also wondered why they don't just build the new stadium further out on the Candlestick Point Peninsula (in an area that is currently unused), and use the Hunter's Point area as the supporting development site. The current parking areas run by the city could be redeveloped (with better drainage) and turned over to the team, with a portion of Hunter's Point used for overflow parking (with shuttle service). If the current Monster Park offramp were widened, with the addition of a parking lot loop, traffic should flow in and out of the stadium a lot easier.

Sorry, I'm probably making too much sense...

[fabie]

As much as I respect Wiz's opinions, here I think SF has more than an even shot at keeping the 49ers. Not 100% mind you, but as the plans progress and things keep going (toxic cleanups, change inowership from Navy to SF City for Hunters Point) San Francisco's chances will continue to increase.

But should SF falter, things slow down, and they let politics start getting in the way of the Stadium, that's when Santa Calra will steal the 49ers right out from under their nose.

GiediFor sentimental reasons...yes, I am with you. NINERS should stay.

[sf9ergrl]

yeah i'm sure he did :rolleyes2:

[Ness]

Did she also happen to mention how San Francisco hasn't done anything at all to help keep the 49ers within the city since pretty much forever?

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Honestly, I'm impartial to whether the team stays in SF or moves to SC. I just want a new stadium. Having said that, the SC site is going to be a nightmare when it comes to parking. Building the new stadium in the Great America parking lot is going to cause all kinds of problems, including clashing with amusement park-goers everytime there's an event at the stadium. Not to mention that parking spaces will be at a premium due to the already limited parking area, I get the feeling I'll be driving around on gameday trying to find a parking space when I should be in my seat watching the game. And that parking garage is going to be a nightmare.

I've got several reservations about the Hunter's Point proposal, but if they design the stadium access correctly, it could work. Arco Arena in Sacramento only has two-lane access which exits to a two-lane freeway, but it is designed so well that I've never spent more than thirty minutes getting to the freeway (something I can't say about Monster Park).

I've also wondered why they don't just build the new stadium further out on the Candlestick Point Peninsula (in an area that is currently unused), and use the Hunter's Point area as the supporting development site. The current parking areas run by the city could be redeveloped (with better drainage) and turned over to the team, with a portion of Hunter's Point used for overflow parking (with shuttle service). If the current Monster Park offramp were widened, with the addition of a parking lot loop, traffic should flow in and out of the stadium a lot easier.

Sorry, I'm probably making too much sense...No, I'm afraid not. You are not making any sense. Or, perhaps more accurately, you are repeating many of the same things and making about as much sense as those who have little knowledge of the actual plan.

The team did put together a thorough parking and transportation plan for the proposed stadium site. Try visiting www.supportourniners.com (http://www.supportourniners.com) There is more than ample parking, superior public transit and enough existing infrastructure to support a stadium. (Have you been to Candlestick recently? Try turning on a water faucet or flushing a toilet late in the game. Ever wonder why it's so dark around the concourse? It's called infrastructure!)

And there is NO conflict with the amusement park. The park is only open during the summer months. It closes in the fall. Hmmm. Guess when the Niners play football? Yep-in the fall - when the amusement park is closed.

Are you seriously trying to compare a 65,000 seat stadium to an arena? C'mon.

And again - the Candlestick point site is useless. There is no infrastructure to support a new stadium. Water, sewage, power, roadways - all must be rebuilt. The team and the city realize the new infrastructure will DOUBLE the cost of a stadium built there. And trying to push a stadium closer to the bay, building on top of landfill, in earthquake prone California!?! Sure, I guess it could be done, but at what cost? C'mon people - get over it. Candlestick Point is a dead site. And the toxic Superfund site at Hunter's point is not much healthier. No one's seriously gonna buy into that.

Santa Clara - the best site. The best answer. No matter what kind of political grandstanding takes place. And I'm willing to bet Fienstein won't show her face in the new place once it get's built. It will be the future home of the San Francisco 49ers.

[ethanh]

And I'm willing to bet Fienstein won't show her face in the new place once it get's built. It will be the future home of the San Francisco 49ers.

Why would she? Who wants to go to Santa Clara? She is not 15 and likes to ride roller coasters. Its fly over country.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Why would she? Who wants to go to Santa Clara? She is not 15 and likes to ride roller coasters. Its fly over country.Once the stadium is built there - I'd say about 65,000 fans about 10 to 12 times per year. And once every 7 or 8 years, just about everyone in the entire country will want to go to Santa Clara to attend the Superbowl .....:D

[Fromthe3rdRow]

And let us not forget the last time Ms. Feinstein tried to get involved with the future of our favorite time.

Anyone remember this thread?

http://forums.49ers.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=11448

[ManCans]

No, I'm afraid not. You are not making any sense. Or, perhaps more accurately, you are repeating many of the same things and making about as much sense as those who have little knowledge of the actual plan.

The team did put together a thorough parking and transportation plan for the proposed stadium site. Try visiting www.supportourniners.com (http://www.supportourniners.com) There is more than ample parking, superior public transit and enough existing infrastructure to support a stadium. (Have you been to Candlestick recently? Try turning on a water faucet or flushing a toilet late in the game. Ever wonder why it's so dark around the concourse? It's called infrastructure!)I'm not really one to subscribe to other's political dogma, I'd much rather form my OWN opinion based on my OWN observations. The fact remains that the Santa Clara site will simply not be able to match the parking surface potential of Candlestick/Hunter's Point. The infrasture of the area will be upgraded by the city as part of the plan to redevelop the area regardless of whether the stadium is built there or not. So it's a moot point, as it has always been.
And there is NO conflict with the amusement park. The park is only open during the summer months. It closes in the fall. Hmmm. Guess when the Niners play football? Yep-in the fall - when the amusement park is closed.Great America stays open on the weekends through the end of October, which is about half the football season. Not to mention all the other events (concerts, festivals, ArenaCross...) held at the stadium, which will undoubtedly conflict with amusement park parking.

On a side note, if you're going to use sarcasm to emphasize your point, at least try to be correct and accurate.
Are you seriously trying to compare a 65,000 seat stadium to an arena? C'mon.Ok, I've been to numerous events at both Arco Arena AND HP Pavilion (very similar venues). AA, despite having access to only one two-lane freeway as compared to 2 major multi-lane freeways and a highway available to HPP, is FAR easier to exit that HPP. AA also has dedicated parking, as opposed to HPP, which seems to have a parking plan VERY similar to the proposed SC stadium. I believe, with very simple and practical planning, Candlestick Point could easily be setup similar to Arco Arena.
And again - the Candlestick point site is useless. There is no infrastructure to support a new stadium. Water, sewage, power, roadways - all must be rebuilt. The team and the city realize the new infrastructure will DOUBLE the cost of a stadium built there. And trying to push a stadium closer to the bay, building on top of landfill, in earthquake prone California!?! Sure, I guess it could be done, but at what cost? C'mon people - get over it. Candlestick Point is a dead site. And the toxic Superfund site at Hunter's point is not much healthier. No one's seriously gonna buy into that.So, I guess building AT&T Park on the waterfront was a.......bad idea?
Santa Clara - the best site. The best answer. No matter what kind of political grandstanding takes place. And I'm willing to bet Fienstein won't show her face in the new place once it get's built. It will be the future home of the San Francisco 49ers.Wow, talk about political dogma. Thanks for the slogan. Now that we've established the political grandstander in this thread, let me state my position.

I'm not a politician, nor am I particularly political. I'm simply a STH who wants the best gameday experience possible. I don't care where the stadium is built, as long as it's easy to get to, easy to park, and easy to enjoy the game. If you want to get into a political argument about infrastructure, you've got the wrong guy. Large cities upgrade infrastucture all the time. I see a potential parking nightmare at the SC site, which may cause a lot of STH's like myself to let their season tickets lapse.

[Nevyn]

The fact remains that the Santa Clara site will simply not be able to match the parking surface potential of Candlestick/Hunter's Point.

Really? How much parking surface does the Hunter's Point plan allow for? Do you know? The Candlestick plan?

[ManCans]

Really? How much parking surface does the Hunter's Point plan allow for? Do you know? The Candlestick plan?Look at the satellite pictures I posted in this forum. It's pretty obvious that Candlestick and Hunter's Point will have more surface area available for dedicated parking.

http://forums.49ers.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=32062

[Nevyn]

Look at the satellite pictures I posted in this forum. It's pretty obvious that Candlestick and Hunter's Point will have more surface area available for dedicated parking.

http://forums.49ers.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=32062

I didnt ask how much room was on the point, I asked how many spaces were allocated in THE PLANS.

That is a distinction you have to learn to make if you're going to judge this fairly.

Both plans call for mixed development. Not just a stadium at all, but developping the point with the stadium as a feature of it. Which means that you don't get to use the whole point for parking. That is why the Candlestick plan involved making the worlds biggest parking garage. The same city that is fighting to keep the niners from leaving were also the ones squeezing them to give up more space on candlestick for mixed use development.

I don't know how much parking the Hunter's point plan calls for or if it includes a garage. I DO know that you can't tell which will have more parking by looking at Satellite photos, unless you have a copy of the proposal, with dimensions of the stadium, layout of the parking lot, and precise lat/longs for the boundaries so you can draw it on the sat photo.

Now if you can get the city of San Francisco to rebuild the infrastructure and access to Candlestick point, and replace the stadium funding the mixed use development would have provided to let the niners build there and keep all their current space for parking, then you've got something. But that isn't on the table.

[ManCans]

I didnt ask how much room was on the point, I asked how many spaces were allocated in THE PLANS.

That is a distinction you have to learn to make if you're going to judge this fairly.

Both plans call for mixed development. Not just a stadium at all, but developping the point with the stadium as a feature of it. Which means that you don't get to use the whole point for parking. That is why the Candlestick plan involved making the worst biggest parking garages. The same city that is fighting to keep the niners from leaving were also the ones squeezing them to give up more space on candlestick for mixed use development.

I don't know how much parking the Hunter's point plan calls for or if it includes a garage. I DO know that you can't tell which will have more parking by looking at Satellite photos.

Now if you can get the city of San Francisco to rebuild the infrastructure and access to Candlestick point, and replace the stadium funding the mixed use development would have provided to let the niners build there and keep all their current space for parking, then you've got something. But that isn't on the table.Very well, here's the plan put forth by Lennar:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=0&f=/c/a/2007/03/27/MNGQ5OSHBO1.DTL

As you can see there is still more dedicated parking area than the SC site. However, I think keeping the stadium on Candlestick Point, and moving the development and overflow parking to Hunter's Point is a better use of the space, IMO. None of these plans are set in stone, but I think the SF site has MUCH more potential than the SC site. There's also more developmental space available (790+ acres) to help support the stadium than SC can provide. Honestly, I don't know why the Yorks are choosing the SC site over Hunter's Point, which seems to be a much better business plan.

Not sure about the parking garage proposal. I haven't been able to find anything on that.

[ManCans]

Come to think of it, if the Yorks ARE good business execs, then the smart move would be to use Santa Clara as a bargaining chip to get a bigger piece of the development pie at Hunter's Point, which is a much better business proposal than SC. I wouldn't be surprised if the plan, all along, is to build the stadium at Hunter's Point.

[Nevyn]

Very well, here's the plan put forth by Lennar:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=0&f=/c/a/2007/03/27/MNGQ5OSHBO1.DTL

As you can see there is still more dedicated parking area than the SC site.

Thanks for the link, but by that picture I don't think the "more dedicated parking area" is clear at all.

However, I think keeping the stadium on Candlestick Point, and moving the development and overflow parking to Hunter's Point is a better use of the space, IMO.

That's great. Now run for city council and propose it. I'm sure the Yorks would love to rebuild on Candlestick if they could have the financing and infrastructure of the initial plan, as well as overflow parking at hunter's point, without having a mixed development taking up tons of space.

But that isn't what was proposed. Its not like the city proposals were arbitrarily rejected. This isn't a conspiracy to move the team. They just decided that what the city was offering did not meet their needs. If you think the city should put up a better offer, hey I'm all for it. Then again, I'm not a SF taxpayer.

[ManCans]

Thanks for the link, but by that picture I don't think the "more dedicated parking area" is clear at all.According to the article associated with the image, the plan calls for 19,500 parking spaces on site near the stadium. As opposed to about 6,000 near the SC site.
That's great. Now run for city council and propose it. I'm sure the Yorks would love to rebuild on Candlestick if they could have the financing and infrastructure of the initial plan, as well as overflow parking at hunter's point, without having a mixed development taking up tons of space.

But that isn't what was proposed. Its not like the city proposals were arbitrarily rejected. This isn't a conspiracy to move the team. They just decided that what the city was offering did not meet their needs. If you think the city should put up a better offer, hey I'm all for it.Meh. No thanks. I'm not political by nature. From a business perspective, the smart move would be to use Santa Clara to get what the York's want from the city, and Lennar (who offered up $100 million for infrastructure). However, I don't think the Yorks are that savvy (that's a DeBartolo move). I could be wrong, though.

However, I still believe the Hunter's Point plan has much more upside, and a better chance to succeed than Santa Clara.

[Nevyn]

However, I don't think the Yorks are that savvy (that's a DeBartolo move).

I don't think its a question of business savvy. I believe SC was a flirtation at first to get a better SF deal, then SF instead resorted to threats, and instead of sweetening the Candlestick deal offered up Hunters point, which I think is a very risky business proposition.

[Roaring Back]

Come to think of it, if the Yorks ARE good business execs, then the smart move would be to use Santa Clara as a bargaining chip to get a bigger piece of the development pie at Hunter's Point, which is a much better business proposal than SC. I wouldn't be surprised if the plan, all along, is to build the stadium at Hunter's Point.

Yep. Santa Clara is the chip. That's been it's traditional role.

[TheWiz]

However, I don't think the Yorks are that savvy (that's a DeBartolo move). I could be wrong, though.

A DeBartolo move is also associating yourself with known organized crime members and investing in illegal gambling schemes? Because THAT move actually caused the proposed Candelstick Renovation back in 1998 to fall apart at the seams. Also got him kicked out as team owner. What GREATbusiness savvy.

[TheWiz]

That aside, how exactly does Santa Clara as a bargaining chip work to the advantage of the team? Because spending evenings talking to Santa Clara residents to pitch the idea doesn't quite fit the mold. I suppose if you want to be a conspiracy theorist you'd think York would even hold public rally's each weekend to sell the act even more. When people pull power moves that are only to gain leverage like you propose, they usually don't follow through by investing personal time and interviews on it. They generally let it stew and after a few months the city caves in. Heck, when Kraft tried to move the Patriots to Connecticut he even had an escape clause built into the deal that made it clear he was leveraging Massachusettes into a better deal. I don't think he was going door to door to gain public support.

[9erMan]

Personally, I would choose the Candlestick and Hunters Point option over the Santa Clara option if I really thought it was possible to complete within a reasonable timeframe.

Both plans look workable but the new Hunters Point plan will take about 3-5 more years and even then, it will still require such a huge investment on the part of the City of SF that I doubt it would ever get approved on the ballot.

[TheWiz]

Personally, I would choose the Candlestick and Hunters Point option over the Santa Clara option if I really thought it was possible to complete within a reasonable timeframe.

Both plans look workable but the new Hunters Point plan will take about 3-5 more years and even then, it will still require such a huge investment on the part of the City of SF that I doubt it would ever get approved on the ballot.

Candlestick doesn't have a thing to do with any time frame. It's not a good site financially or logistically. You can't get any more out of that wreck of a stadium and it will cost too much and be too much of a mess to build elsewhere on the site.

Hunter's Point, meanwhile, is a LOT more about time and little about money. If the city actually spent its time with the Navy and cleaned the site thoroughly to the point where continued tests showed the site was clean, the team would have little to no argument against the site. Lennar is paying to build all of the housing, the city is just not charging them the money to renovate the projects there. So it's mostly Lennar's money doing the rebuilding and very little city money.

[9erMan]

Candlestick doesn't have a thing to do with any time frame. It's not a good site financially or logistically. You can't get any more out of that wreck of a stadium and it will cost too much and be too much of a mess to build elsewhere on the site.

Hunter's Point, meanwhile, is a LOT more about time and little about money. If the city actually spent its time with the Navy and cleaned the site thoroughly to the point where continued tests showed the site was clean, the team would have little to no argument against the site. Lennar is paying to build all of the housing, the city is just not charging them the money to renovate the projects there. So it's mostly Lennar's money doing the rebuilding and very little city money.

I when I mentioned Candlestick I was referring to the way it looks as though it is being combined with the Hunters Point deal. Maybe I'm mistaken but it sure looked to me like the proposal included Candlestick and a bridge to Hunters Point.

[Niner Jan]

9erMan,

I don't know where you heard such a thing. That's the first time I ever heard anything like that. LINK?

Feinstein leading the charge is like a child furiously beating a garbage lid to arouse everything's attention and ire. Neither Candlestick nor Hunters Point have anything to offer except what Diane wants: to keep the stadium in SF.
PERIOD. End of the charge!

I'm glad that I didn't go to the Kickoff Luncheon this year. I would have gone up to her and unloaded a piece of my mind for what she tried to get passed through Congress about our team's location. I'm disgusted with her! I won't vote for her any more after pulling that antic.

I love what Dr. York said in reply to both Kevin Nuisance and Diane Finklestein: You bet the 49ers are going to remain in the San Francisco Bay Area. You bet the team is going to remain the San Francisco 49ers!

(I don't know if he said ,"You bet," but you get my point. Those are his statements in my own words.)

I want the best stadium that the 49ers can get--wherever! I'm not glued to any site--just as long as it's in the Bay Area and the team remains the SF 49ers. That's all I ask.

[9erMan]

9erMan,

I don't know where you heard such a thing. That's the first time I ever heard anything like that. LINK?

The article is located here:http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/27/MNGQ5OSHBO1.DTL

Here is a link to the image: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2007/03/27/MNGQ5OSHBO1.DTL&o=0

Feinstein leading the charge is like a child furiously beating a garbage lid to arouse everything's attention and ire. Neither Candlestick nor Hunters Point have anything to offer except what Diane wants: to keep the stadium in SF.
PERIOD. End of the charge!
I wouldn't say that they have nothing to offer. I don't think there is any way they could get a new stadium built there by 2012 but they have a lot more room for a stadium and parking immidiatly arround the stadium.

I fully support the 49ers efforts to build a stadium in Santa Clara or at Hunters Point.

[ManCans]

That aside, how exactly does Santa Clara as a bargaining chip work to the advantage of the team? Because spending evenings talking to Santa Clara residents to pitch the idea doesn't quite fit the mold. I suppose if you want to be a conspiracy theorist you'd think York would even hold public rally's each weekend to sell the act even more. When people pull power moves that are only to gain leverage like you propose, they usually don't follow through by investing personal time and interviews on it. They generally let it stew and after a few months the city caves in. Heck, when Kraft tried to move the Patriots to Connecticut he even had an escape clause built into the deal that made it clear he was leveraging Massachusettes into a better deal. I don't think he was going door to door to gain public support.Well, if I'm not mistaken, didn't Eddie DeBartolo use moving the team to Santa Clara as a bargaining chip to get what he wanted from San Francisco? I'd hardly call it a conspiracy theory if it's happened before. I wasn't aware that York was putting so much time and effort into convincing Santa Clara residents to build the stadium. IMO, that's a terrible move. If he fails to convince them, and the public votes down any funding (like they've done before), San Francisco will hold ALL the cards.

As far as what the team has to gain, look at the effects already since the team made SC it's primary target. The City has worked harder to accelerate the remaining toxic cleanup at Hunter's Point to meet the team's deadline. The planned stadium parking has improved. The financing has improved, and the chances for voter approval has dramatically increased because of the threat of moving. I'd say the team would benefit greatly by using Santa Clara as a bargaining chip (as it has done in the past).

[Teke]

I've heard a lot of talk about parking being one of the main reasons to move to Santa Clara. The plan to move to Santa Clara involves a parking garage. How will it be easier/faster to get out of a parking garage after a sold out game than it is to get out of Candlestick? I don't believe this has been addressed at all by the organization.

Also, there is the question of the gameday experience. Tailgating. This is a concern to many because you can't tailgate inside a garage. This hasn't been addressed either.

First of all, why hasn't it been addressed yet? If the 49ers are adament about gaining the confidence of the fans and making sure they give us the best gameday experience possible, why haven't they answered our questions? It gives off this feeling that the deal will be done despite what the fans care about. At least if the 49ers address it and let us know that they're taking these concerns into account I think a lot of the fans who are against the proposed SC stadium will move to the side of approval.

[ManCans]

Hunter's Point, meanwhile, is a LOT more about time and little about money. If the city actually spent its time with the Navy and cleaned the site thoroughly to the point where continued tests showed the site was clean, the team would have little to no argument against the site. Lennar is paying to build all of the housing, the city is just not charging them the money to renovate the projects there. So it's mostly Lennar's money doing the rebuilding and very little city money.

According to the article I posted a link to earlier (and reposted by 9erMan):

The 49ers are skeptical that the cleanup of the 500-acre former shipyard can be done expeditiously.

But Navy and Environmental Protection Agency officials say that much of the hardest work has already been done, and top Navy brass committed this month to trying to meet the city's schedule for a phased transfer of the shipyard, with the 27-acre parcel for the stadium conveyed first, by the summer of 2009, to allow for stadium construction.Given two years to cleanup a 27-acre parcel, I think it could be done.

[9erMan]

According to the article I posted a link to earlier (and reposted by 9erMan):

Given two years to cleanup a 27-acre parcel, I think it could be done.

I agree that the cleanup of the 27-acre parcel where the stadium will be built could be accomplished in that time frame but I still have serious doubts about getting the stadium and parking lots built by 2012.

I highly doubt Lennar is going to bankroll the construction prior to some of the other development that will actually fund the whole thing. I don’t know enough about where they are with the plans for the housing and retail that will pay for it all.

I work in Land Development and have dealt with some large-scale redevelopment projects but this one would be colossal. They would need to start building the backbone infrastructure for something like this by the beginning of 2008 imho. That isn’t going to be cheap.

After that Lennar would likely require that a phase or two of the residential and/or retail phases be built to reimburse them for expenses incurred during the backbone development and construction before they began construction of the stadium. Even then they would likely have phases of stadium construction that are contingent upon further development of the residential/retail phases that are actually financing the stadium.

In other words, Lennar isn’t going to just invest all of the money up front for the stadium contruction. They will certainly use the development of other areas to pay for the project as it proceeds. That means you aren’t just looking at the cleanup of a 27-acre parcel and you aren’t just looking at pushing the plans for the infrastructure and stadium through first and finishing up the rest afterward. Enough of it would have to be built as you go to finance the rest of it.

[ManCans]

I agree that the cleanup of the 27-acre parcel where the stadium will be built could be accomplished in that time frame but I still have serious doubts about getting the stadium and parking lots built by 2012.

I highly doubt Lennar is going to bankroll the construction prior to some of the other development that will actually fund the whole thing. I don’t know enough about where they are with the plans for the housing and retail that will pay for it all.

I work in Land Development and have dealt with some large-scale redevelopment projects but this one would be colossal. They would need to start building the backbone infrastructure for something like this by the beginning of 2008 imho. That isn’t going to be cheap.

After that Lennar would likely require that a phase or two of the residential and/or retail phases be built to reimburse them for expenses incurred during the backbone development and construction before they began construction of the stadium. Even then they would likely have phases of stadium construction that are contingent upon further development of the residential/retail phases that are actually financing the stadium.

In other words, Lennar isn’t going to just invest all of the money up front for the stadium contruction. They will certainly use the development of other areas to pay for the project as it proceeds. That means you aren’t just looking at the cleanup of a 27-acre parcel and you aren’t just looking at pushing the plans for the infrastructure and stadium through first and finishing up the rest afterward. Enough of it would have to be built as you go to finance the rest of it.I'm sure the reason Lennar agreed to bankroll the infrastructure is because it's the phase most easily reimbursed by the city. However, I'm not going to argue too much about it because they've already offered the money. If you doubt it, there's really nothing I can say.

Other than that, I believe the plan is to use the mixed use development to help pay for the project, because that's a lot easier to get voter approval for than a new stadium. Lennar would stand to make a lot more money over a longer period of time (I believe through 2021), which is why I believe they are willing to invest money up front. I'm sure they'll get reimbursed in a timely manner.

[TheWiz]

I've heard a lot of talk about parking being one of the main reasons to move to Santa Clara. The plan to move to Santa Clara involves a parking garage. How will it be easier/faster to get out of a parking garage after a sold out game than it is to get out of Candlestick? I don't believe this has been addressed at all by the organization.

First of all, I've addressed this fact earlier. Pay to enter garages empty much easier. Sure, you've got to wait in the line to get out as cars pull out of the garage. But fan already wait in line to pull out of the parking lot.


Also, there is the question of the gameday experience. Tailgating. This is a concern to many because you can't tailgate inside a garage. This hasn't been addressed either.

So? Not every fan wants to tailgate. Some will drive 2 hours just to the stadium and won't be there 3 hours before a 1pm kickoff to party. If you want to tailgate, don't park in the garage. If you want a short walk and covered parking, park in the garage.


First of all, why hasn't it been addressed yet? If the 49ers are adament about gaining the confidence of the fans and making sure they give us the best gameday experience possible, why haven't they answered our questions?

It's called an FAQ. There is a very extensive one on the stadium proposal website answering all manner of questions. So, your perception that the team isn't answering questions only exists because you're not even trying to look. The team also has its representatives at open, public forums regularly the past few months.


It gives off this feeling that the deal will be done despite what the fans care about. At least if the 49ers address it and let us know that they're taking these concerns into account I think a lot of the fans who are against the proposed SC stadium will move to the side of approval.

That's not how it's going to work. Fans can love the site to death but if Santa Clara doesn't like it, nothing gets built, period. Likewise, fans can love the Hunter's Point site to death but if the team has to be realistic and follow the demands of things like "money" and "economics" and they can move to Santa Clara, we will.

Well, if I'm not mistaken, didn't Eddie DeBartolo use moving the team to Santa Clara as a bargaining chip to get what he wanted from San Francisco? I'd hardly call it a conspiracy theory if it's happened before. I wasn't aware that York was putting so much time and effort into convincing Santa Clara residents to build the stadium. IMO, that's a terrible move. If he fails to convince them, and the public votes down any funding (like they've done before), San Francisco will hold ALL the cards.

Why does San Francisco hold the cards? Who is to say we couldn't then consider a site in San Jose or Sonoma? The owners and team officials have been doing regular 'sit downs' with groups of Santa Clara residents and community groups for months now answering their questions. You think it's a bad move for an owner to actually talk to the people who will possibly be voting on the stadium deal? I think it would be stupid for him to NOT do that if he actually wants it to pass.


As far as what the team has to gain, look at the effects already since the team made SC it's primary target. The City has worked harder to accelerate the remaining toxic cleanup at Hunter's Point to meet the team's deadline. The planned stadium parking has improved. The financing has improved, and the chances for voter approval has dramatically increased because of the threat of moving. I'd say the team would benefit greatly by using Santa Clara as a bargaining chip (as it has done in the past).

I've don't remember the team ever doing that. Eddie never said he was moving and spent months pitching the idea to Santa Clara and residents that I can recall.

I don't see how the team benefits, really. The Hunter's Point deal is no cheaper than the Santa Clara site. If Santa Clara approves our offer and we changed our minds, they could sue the team for the costs they've incurred. Chances are we'd also tick off that city and we'd lose our lovely lease and be forced into moving teams HQ. York has invested millions in that property from a weightroom to water filtering to a larger media room. Given the costs of some facilities in the league being built, that's like a 50M penalty. The only way the team breaks even cost-wise would be if the city throws money into their offer. Then we just draw the ire of city residents for accepting and blackmailing the city. Either way it either costs the owners MORE and makes them look like crooks on both ends.

According to the article I posted a link to earlier (and reposted by 9erMan):

Given two years to cleanup a 27-acre parcel, I think it could be done.

I honestly can't say, I'm no expert on the topic. But I also find it hard to believe anything the Navy says. They've made multiple revisions to their timelines on that exact cleanup in the past. Heck, before Newsome got involved, the Navy had the cleanup going up to 2014. Now suddenly they say it can be done in a quarter the time?

I agree that the cleanup of the 27-acre parcel where the stadium will be built could be accomplished in that time frame but I still have serious doubts about getting the stadium and parking lots built by 2012.

I highly doubt Lennar is going to bankroll the construction prior to some of the other development that will actually fund the whole thing. I don’t know enough about where they are with the plans for the housing and retail that will pay for it all.

I work in Land Development and have dealt with some large-scale redevelopment projects but this one would be colossal. They would need to start building the backbone infrastructure for something like this by the beginning of 2008 imho. That isn’t going to be cheap.

After that Lennar would likely require that a phase or two of the residential and/or retail phases be built to reimburse them for expenses incurred during the backbone development and construction before they began construction of the stadium. Even then they would likely have phases of stadium construction that are contingent upon further development of the residential/retail phases that are actually financing the stadium.

In other words, Lennar isn’t going to just invest all of the money up front for the stadium contruction. They will certainly use the development of other areas to pay for the project as it proceeds. That means you aren’t just looking at the cleanup of a 27-acre parcel and you aren’t just looking at pushing the plans for the infrastructure and stadium through first and finishing up the rest afterward. Enough of it would have to be built as you go to finance the rest of it.

Lennar really isn't a problem. Lennar never said they would fund the stadium. I'm fairly certain that Lennar agreed to pay for all of the infrastructure costs. Something that not only reduces our costs but make the deal attractive to the city to let Lennar build their complex. Even if I'm wrong, I think if they have the money to spend hundreds of millions in financing to build that housing, I think they have the bankroll to give us some money too.

[Teke]

First of all, I've addressed this fact earlier. Pay to enter garages empty much easier. Sure, you've got to wait in the line to get out as cars pull out of the garage. But fan already wait in line to pull out of the parking lot.

I wasn't talking about you addressing the issue, I was talking about the 49ers organization. I'd like to see them address it. Also, I notice you make this statement as a fact. Can you explain to me how a garage with 4-5 exits will clear out any faster than Candlestick? How many cars will there be in the proposed parking garage? You can be sure however many there are, all of them will be wanting to get out at the same time.

[The Vin]

Wiz,

I know I tickle your fancy but why am I quoted a million times in your latest response despite, you know, never participating in this thread?

:wub:

[Fromthe3rdRow]

I wasn't talking about you addressing the issue, I was talking about the 49ers organization. I'd like to see them address it. Also, I notice you make this statement as a fact. Can you explain to me how a garage with 4-5 exits will clear out any faster than Candlestick? How many cars will there be in the proposed parking garage? You can be sure however many there are, all of them will be wanting to get out at the same time.
Teke;

Have you even visited their website on the issue.

It can be found at www.supportourniners.com (http://www.supportourniners.com)

It offer's lots of information about their proposal and answers many o fthe question you and others have been asking.

By reading the information, you will be able to understand that not ALL of the parking will be in a parking garage. There will be plenty of parking for those of us who like to tailgate.

Try taking a look at the map I posted in the other threads.