November 2008 Stadium Vote

[estrine]

This is probrably about the time we will know what the citizens of Santa Clara think about our proprosed stadium. I will be one of the citizens voting for the proprosed stadium deal. I can only hope that the S.F. Forty Niner Organization are willing to wait a little bit longer. I am not sure how long it will take for the environmental study to be completed. I am not sure which which way Cedar Park Fair Park will go with their decision. We can only take this one step at a time. If everything falls in to place just wright. We should have our new Stadium a few years after the new N.Y. Giants/Jets stadium is completed.Ground breaking just recently started for the new N.Y. stadium.

[Kenage]

Why do they have to have a public vote?

[TheWiz]

You're timetable is completely off.

First of all, the feasibility study has yet to be completed and the council hasn't voted to do the environmental impact study. Should they vote to move forward, the impact study will go into December, it takes about 3 months to fact find, compile, and report.

Any vote will be long after November, that's why every news article mentions the State Primaries as the likely voting time or else the city must pay more money to hold a special election. Recently, as far away as next June has also been mentioned because the team wants to avoid the political nature of the primaries, which tends to draw staunch conservatives and heavy liberals, both of which either want no spending on such projects or spending only on social causes respectively.

[Hobbes2d]

Niners won't be moving here.

[SF_49ers_Kezar]

You're timetable is completely off

Well Novemer of 2008 is the expected date reported in the Mercury News.
http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_6814707

This is when the citizens of the City of Santa Clara will most likely vote on the 49ers' proposal.

:hide:

[GrandpaNiner]

Just gotta chime in on this one. A move to Santa Clara pretty much disses all the long time niner faithful in Marin,Sonoma and Napa counties don't ya think?

Lot's of Niner Faithful there over the years and now they have to drive all the way to Santa Clara? Geez Louise! You must be kidding! San Francisco can aacomodate all the vehicles passing through while Santa Clara uses the S.F. name and S.F. gets none of the goodies from the move.

Now there is some good,"Planning" for you. Leave it to the proffessional,"Planners" to come up with that sort of goofyness! "San Francisco Forty Niners" in Santa Clara? Yuk!

Why not create a new stadium (Like Texas Stadium with a retractable roof) and put it down by Chrissy Field. The background for the new stadium would be the Golden Gate Bridge and the Presidio grounds.

Now that sounds like a great venue for the SAN FRANCISCO FORTY NINERS! IMHO

Imagine THAT view on Monday night football or better yet, during our next Championship game!

[Coldrain85]

Just gotta chime in on this one. A move to Santa Clara pretty much disses all the long time niner faithful in Marin,Sonoma and Napa counties don't ya think?

Lot's of Niner Faithful there over the years and now they have to drive all the way to Santa Clara? Geez Louise! You must be kidding! San Francisco can aacomodate all the vehicles passing through while Santa Clara uses the S.F. name and S.F. gets none of the goodies from the move.

I drive 2.5 hours each way to attend games as it is. When the new stadium is built in SC, it will add an extra hour to my trip. I'm not complaining at all. North Bay 49er Faithful are not getting dissed in the slightest. They will just have to drive a little further to see games. Deal with it, or give up your season tickets to someone who who will drive a measely extra 45 minutes to see the game. Of all things to whine about. Geez.


Why not create a new stadium (Like Texas Stadium with a retractable roof) and put it down by Chrissy Field. The background for the new stadium would be the Golden Gate Bridge and the Presidio grounds.

Now that sounds like a great venue for the SAN FRANCISCO FORTY NINERS! IMHO

Imagine THAT view on Monday night football or better yet, during our next Championship game!

Yeah, great. And they can knock down the PFA and a bunch of historical Presidio buildings to build parking lots. Not to mention all of the ultra rich, and well connected San Franciscans who live on Bay Street etc. that surely don't want another 70K people inundating their neighborhood. That's also some of the most expensive land in the entire world. I totally agree, it would be a nice place for a stadium. But the space just isn't there.

Hunter's Point is out. It's a Super Fund site, and the city has already made it clear that they do not want to foot any of the bill for infrastructure improvements and environmental clean up.

Candlestick Point is a dead issue. Has been ever since it was first mentioned. There's a 0 probability of that happening.

Don't even bother to mention China Basin.

Santa Clara is the only plan that's feasible. The new stadium will be awesome, and once we actually see it being built none of this petty bs will matter anymore. It's going to happen in SC, and the fact that a bunch of us are going to have to drive a little further is just too friggin bad. :cry:

[ethanh]

Hunter's Point is out. It's a Super Fund site, and the city has already made it clear that they do not want to foot any of the bill for infrastructure improvements and environmental clean up.


I agreed with your post right up until this. Hello, check the link. I know it is an SF paper but I seems that it being "out" is a little bit wrong.
http://forums.49ers.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=32879

[Fromthe3rdRow]

I agreed with your post right up until this. Hello, check the link. I know it is an SF paper but I seems that it being "out" is a little bit wrong.
http://forums.49ers.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=32879
Well, not "out" exactly. It is certainly "in" if you ask Gavin Newsome or any of his croonies (including those who work for the local newspapers) about the issue.

Unfortunately, it's not his decision. What really matters is whether or not the Niners think Hunter's Point is "in" or "out".

Read their website at www.supportourniners.com (http://www.supportourniners.com) if you're not sure how they feel about Hunters Point.

And I'm still not convinced a vote is absolutely necessary. The council may have the power to negotiate the deal using their authority for City Redevelopment. Whether or not that is the politically correct thing to do - is perhaps a whole different story....

[Coldrain85]

What the city is saying about the proposed Hunter's Point site is just talk. They don't want to make it look like they just let the 49ers leave w/o even lifting a finger. What they are proposing is getting Federal money to clean up the Super Fund site while trying to stick to a 2012 timetable. Good luck with that. Fasttracking Federal money to clean up a Super Fund site is like getting Bush to admit that the polar ice caps are melting.

The city of SF is trying to figure out ways to keep the team in SF County w/o having to make any kind of financial contribution. To do otherwise will piss off the voters, the majority of whom will not support increased taxes, or whatever it takes to make a stadium in Hunter's Point a reality. The city may want it to happen, and I think they are sincere about it, but the voters are another story, and they will ultimately call the shots.

When it comes to what the city of SF is says, I'll believe it when they make a commitment to put their money where their mouth is. Until then it's all bs hype.

I also don't think it can be inferred from that SF Gate article that the Hunter's Point is closer to being a reality than SC. To think otherwise is pure speculation and has no basis in fact.

Like the last poster indicated as well, here's a link to what the team owners are saying about their feelings regarding Hunter's Point. http://www.supportourniners.com/letter.php In particular, notice the fact that the word "Hunter's Point" is never mentioned. The SC plan is the plan they want to implement, and they are the ones calling the shots.

The new stadium is going to be in Santa Clara.

[ethanh]

The city of SF will not have to vote on the stadium plan but rather vote to rebuild Hunters Point (Houses, parks, stores, stadium, arena, ext...) which everyone will be in favor of. The Land is free and not going to be used otherwise so the voters will vote on the package not the stadium. If the package is crap then there will be problems. The city can spin it so as to seem no money will be going to the stadium but rather the infustructure of the whole place. It wont look like the rich getting taxpayer money as much as SC will. That and the fact SF is trying to push this ahead of all the SC plans will put the team on the spot. Will the 49ers take a ready deal in SF or will they wait for SC when it could not pass?

The stadium will be in SF you can bank on it!:wink:

[Coldrain85]

Will the 49ers take a ready deal in SF or will they wait for SC when it could not pass?

What makes you think it won't pass? There is no way the city of SC is going to let this cash cow get away from them. Also, the timetable is not going to be such that the 49ers will be pressed to choose plan one over the other. If the Hunter's Point plan does get momentum behind it, it will be on the table in case the team decides they want to go that way. Meanwhile, they can wait for the SC plan to get approved, which will probably happen a little sooner than people think. Especially if the SC people think that they may lose the deal if they don't hurry up.


The stadium will be in SF you can bank on it!

Well, the team owners clearly want it in SC, and they are the ones calling the shots. Not you.

Regardless. As long as a new stadium gets built and I have an opportunity to purchase a couple of SBL's, I don't care where in the Bay Area I have to go to see games. Another thing about SC that appeals to me is the not-so-small number of STH's who will give up their tickets if the stadium is built in the south bay. IOW, better seats for me. I just don't want to end up with crap seats in the new stadium, and I will pay whatever I have to pay to make sure of that. $5,000 per seat. $8,000 per seat. Whatever. I don't care.

[TheWiz]

Well Novemer of 2008 is the expected date reported in the Mercury News.
http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_6814707

This is when the citizens of the City of Santa Clara will most likely vote on the 49ers' proposal.

:hide:

First off I could've sworn that I posted shortly after my first post that I had made a mistake. I didn't notice the 2008 date in the title when I wrote. If November 2008 is the projection then it just might be that long. But it would also likely be our last hurdle and ground breaking would easily follow the next spring. I had though the poster meant THIS upcoming November.

Just gotta chime in on this one. A move to Santa Clara pretty much disses all the long time niner faithful in Marin,Sonoma and Napa counties don't ya think?[/QUOTES]

A move in any direction is going to make it harder for someone. What makes the north bay so much more deserving? More of the STH's live in the south bay area than the city and north bay regions combined so if anything the move would please more diehard fans than displease them. Fans who aren't STH's are just that, fans. Stadiums are built for ticket holders, not people who only like the team. Thus in this business the team owes it to itself to move towards where the best ticket sales are.

[QUOTE=GrandpaNiner;978601]
Lot's of Niner Faithful there over the years and now they have to drive all the way to Santa Clara? Geez Louise! You must be kidding! San Francisco can aacomodate all the vehicles passing through while Santa Clara uses the S.F. name and S.F. gets none of the goodies from the move.[/QUOTES]

Are you seriously suggesting a whopping couple of thousands of cars that may go through the city on major highways at most 10-12 times per year is a huge burden? Last time I check, tens of thousands of people who don't live in the city or pay taxes in it drive through and into the city. Besides, the state pays for those highways, not the city.

[QUOTE=GrandpaNiner;978601]
Now there is some good,"Planning" for you. Leave it to the proffessional,"Planners" to come up with that sort of goofyness! "San Francisco Forty Niners" in Santa Clara? Yuk![/QUOTES]

Leave it to hometown fans to be ignorant to reality. Do you know that both New York teams don't even play in the state of New York? The Dallas Cowboys don't play in Dallas. In fact, MANY teams aren't even named after cities to avoid this. Carolina, New England, Arizona, Minnesota, and Tampa Bay to name the first ones I can think of. Not to mention most cities also aren't countered by the small land mass of San Francisco city on the Penninsula. Cities like Cleveland, Jacksonville, Detroit, Chicago, Kansas City, and San Diego to name a few have large spread and many neighborhoods full of dead and condemnable buildings. More than enough land to buy a broken down project, invest in new housing in the area and drop a stadium on a massive cleared land plot.

[QUOTE=GrandpaNiner;978601]
Why not create a new stadium (Like Texas Stadium with a retractable roof) and put it down by Chrissy Field.

Two things. First of all, construction costs alone are sky high in CA. Adding a retractable roof increase the cost by 200M-300M. They're custome made, it's not like adding a garage door opener. Each roof is built differently. But the bay area also has things called 'earthquakes'. Huge slabs of roofing aren't lightweight, they take power to move and that requires big, heavy gears and motors and it takes a long time to even move them to open or closed. If you've ever seen the inside of a retractable roof stadium, they need large structures of metal piping and supports to help hold up the roof. Now, do you really want an extra couple of hundred tons of weight above your head if a 7.0 strikes during a game?


The background for the new stadium would be the Golden Gate Bridge and the Presidio grounds.

Now that sounds like a great venue for the SAN FRANCISCO FORTY NINERS! IMHO

Imagine THAT view on Monday night football or better yet, during our next Championship game!

There you have it folks, case and point. Close the file. Yet another fan who actually thinks a great picture of how the stadium looks from the outside or the view of the stadium is high on his list. Here is my problem. If you're a ticket holder, who cares how great it looks from a blimp?! You'll be inside the stadium watching the game, not staring away from the turf looking for a 'nice view'. If you are, you're not there for the football anyhow. If you're not a ticket holder, why should the team bother? Stadiums are built for those to attend games, not make non-paying fans happy that their team has a pretty stadium location. I'd like to think that between comfortable seating, views of the field, parking, concessions and ticket prices, stadium amenities, traffic, and travel to a stadium would bve more important to fans than "But, we could have a nice view of the bridge!" It's a football stadium, not an office building.

The city of SF will not have to vote on the stadium plan but rather vote to rebuild Hunters Point (Houses, parks, stores, stadium, arena, ext...) which everyone will be in favor of. The Land is free and not going to be used otherwise so the voters will vote on the package not the stadium. If the package is crap then there will be problems. The city can spin it so as to seem no money will be going to the stadium but rather the infustructure of the whole place. It wont look like the rich getting taxpayer money as much as SC will. That and the fact SF is trying to push this ahead of all the SC plans will put the team on the spot. Will the 49ers take a ready deal in SF or will they wait for SC when it could not pass?

The stadium will be in SF you can bank on it!:wink:

Umm, not really. See, regardless of whether the city can hand over a 'clean plot' of land, it doesn't affect the plans. See, the plan still requires to start with infrastructure to be built and for the point area to be cleaned up, that goes forward regardless of what the team does. By summer 2009, the team will already have a deal done or not with Santa Clara, guaranteed. They can't break ground in 2010 without a year to set up contractors and financing details and a lot of other factors. Not to mention that late 2008 is by far the last date the city would get to vote on the matter or make up its mind. If the team stays with the Santa Clara option, everything goes the same in Hunter's Point but near the end of the project the stadium site would be converted to a public park. If Santa Clara falls through, the team would have months to evaluate hunter's Point themselves before choosing. Heck, chances are that if Santa Clara drags on at all, San Francisco will leave that plot open even longer hoping the team turns it around.

There is nothing about the time scale of the Hunter's Point deal that will force the team to decide earlier (unless I'm confusing '08 and '09?).

What makes you think it won't pass? There is no way the city of SC is going to let this cash cow get away from them. Also, the timetable is not going to be such that the 49ers will be pressed to choose plan one over the other. If the Hunter's Point plan does get momentum behind it, it will be on the table in case the team decides they want to go that way. Meanwhile, they can wait for the SC plan to get approved, which will probably happen a little sooner than people think. Especially if the SC people think that they may lose the deal if they don't hurry up.



Well, the team owners clearly want it in SC, and they are the ones calling the shots. Not you.

Regardless. As long as a new stadium gets built and I have an opportunity to purchase a couple of SBL's, I don't care where in the Bay Area I have to go to see games. Another thing about SC that appeals to me is the not-so-small number of STH's who will give up their tickets if the stadium is built in the south bay. IOW, better seats for me. I just don't want to end up with crap seats in the new stadium, and I will pay whatever I have to pay to make sure of that. $5,000 per seat. $8,000 per seat. Whatever. I don't care.

I like your opinion Coldrain :cool2:

[TheWiz]

This is one of the most ignorant posts I have seen yet. For instance, the Cities you mention all have Stadiums within 15 minutes of the Cities they are named after. Go and look at a map sometime. Maybe facts would help you pull your underwear out of the crack of your rear end here. I just drove through AZ 3 times these past few weeks. The Stadium is closer to Phoenix now than it was when the Cards played in Tempe, which wasn't anywhere as far from the City as the new proposed location is for the 49ers, which is about as close to San Jose as the Cards stadium is to Phoenix. And you have the gall to call other fans "ignorant". It's you "rants" that show true ignorance here. I've driven past St. Louis also, and BOOM, the Ed Jones Domw is right there in downtown. Arrived in Chi-Town, and BOOM, went right past the legendary revamped Soldier Field. Irving, Texas is just a suburb of Dallas, and is about as far from Dallas as Glendale, AZ is from Phoenix. East Rutherford, NJ, is WAY closer to NY than SC is to SF. Even Arrowhead is way closer to KC than SC is to SF.

You really should stop trying to mislead people here, because it just makes you look bad.

Mislead, how in any way did I mislead? What did I write can be considered a prevarication? Everyone around is complaining about the idea of the team playing in a city that is NOT in San Francisco. Did I even once state that any of those teams play a long distance from their host cities? No. Did I once state that Santa Clara is closer to San Francisco? No.

My point is that people are whining over the fact that the stadium would not be within the city limits. Yet many teams actually don't have their stadiums within the city they are named after. I never said a single word about distance, you did! Is it in the city limits? No. There you go!

You're wasting time complaining that I made a false claim that I never made. The post is written above ifd you want to check. Find the line where I said anything about Santa Clara being close to San Francisco. The fact is several stadiums don't fall within their city limits. Period.

[NikeTalker23]

Bring the 49ers to Sac..

Sacramento 49ers. Lovely.

[Coldrain85]

Bring the 49ers to Sac..

Sacramento 49ers. Lovely.

Oh, god no. I work in Rocklin. I know all about Sacramento with it's blazing hot weather, lack of night life, and lack of good energy in general. It can still reach 90 degrees during the day through mid October. I'd rather drive for 3 hours to SC than drive for a little over 1 hour to Sac. The voters couldn't even pull their heads out long enough to approve a new basketball arena for the Kings on the site of the old rail yard. That would have done much to revitalize the downtown area, and draw people in. Face it. Sac is NOT a good sports town. It never has been, and moving the 49ers there would be a dumb idea. Most of the people who live in Sacramento are not big sports fans anyway, and a proposal would never get enough votes. They couldn't even do it for the Kings, and I think the Maloof's will move the team to Vegas at some point anyway.

[Niner Jan]

They couldn't build a stadium in the water, you imbecile.

It is against the MB policy to call other posters insulting names. :viking:

So, why did they name the team the TB Buccaneers, anyway? Surely they must have known that the team doesn't play in the water. Silly remark!

People refer to a region to indicate the LAND AREA around the body of water; for instance, "the South Bay" does not mean the WATER. It refers to all the towns surrounding SF Bay to the SOUTH of it. I should know; I live in the South Bay! And I am not a FISH! :blowakiss:

I can't believe you didn't know this! And you call an intelligent, informed poster by such an insulting name. Think about what you are saying before you point accusatory fingers at others...

:dance3:

[Fromthe3rdRow]

You didn't even know that the Stick was in San Francisco.
And you don't seem to understand what San Francisco Bay area means.

I'd call that even.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Coming from you, that gives me all the credibility in the world.

I know what The South Bay means.

It means San Jose.

Imbecile.

Hmmm. Is San Jose under water too?:question: