San Francisco Files Papers for HP Vote

[ethanh]

http://www.examiner.com/a-1061285~Initiative_filed_seeking_approval_of_Bayvi ew_project.html
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - Proposed language for a ballot initiative that would seek city voter approval for the redevelopment of Candlestick Point and the Hunters Point Shipyard — which could include a new stadium for the
San Francisco 49ers — was filed Tuesday.

The ballot measure aims to repeal 1997’s Propositions D and F, which had authorized up to $100 million in publicly financed bonds for a new football stadium for the 49ers.

IMHO this proposition will pass because the city will make the vote about rebuilding a dead area which everyone in principal is in agreement on. Now if the 49ers decide not to get with this plan and are still messing around with buying an amusement park...well I guess it would just be par for the course with the team these days.

[Teke]

Does it mention the cost of SBLs? I'm itching to know how much they're going to cost.

[ethanh]

Does it mention the cost of SBLs? I'm itching to know how much they're going to cost.
Not even close to that, this vote which will probably be next year is just to give the city funds to rebuild the area. The 49ers would have to drop the Santa Clara idea and put all its focus back into SF before the stadium money could even be considered. By this summer a lot of things should be clear.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

I admire your persistance, but seriously dude.

My understanding of the article you posted is that the city has only filed "proposed language for a ballot initiative that would seek city voter approval". There is nothing in the article about an actual initiative reaching the ballot or any discussion of funding or anything more than a vague PR release suggesting that the city San Francisco is doing anything more than making empty gestures.

Yes, yes, we KNOW Lennar is already actively promoting their redevelopment of Hunter's Point. That give away of a Federal property has already taken place. But could someone please tell me whether or not construction has actually begun.?

I wonder since I'm constantly reading that the local housing market has been hit hard by the vast number of bad mortgages written during the past few years. Is Lennar starting to reconsider their position of "We will re-develope with or without the Niner's money"?

I know the expense of paying Eddie DeBartelo to represent the project can't be helping their bottom line. As every one knows Eddie Debartelo is certainly NOT CHEAP. Let's hope Lennar has really deep pockets or the whole Hunter's Point thing might just dry up and blow away.

One thing we can agree on - nothing is going to happen in regards to this filing for at least a year or two.

[ethanh]

I admire your persistance, but seriously dude.
My understanding of the article you posted is that the city has only filed "proposed language for a ballot initiative that would seek city voter approval". There is nothing in the article about an actual initiative reaching the ballot or any discussion of funding or anything more than a vague PR release suggesting that the city San Francisco is doing anything more than making empty gestures.

Yes this is the early phase of getting a proposition on the ballot. It will be on next years ballot, but it will be interesting to see how they word it. Not sure how they can ask for citizens to vote for parks, housing, retail and a stadium, or maybe not a stadium.
Carmen Policy has yet to make any waves with his new position so anticipate that coming soon. It also looks like they are trying to get this out there before Santa Clara decisions are made.

Sometimes continued PR can effect the reality, doing my part by posting these links. The SC deal has not had much to say since the super Great America purchase idea. :pigfly:

[ethanh]

Some more info on the filing.

The development plan also is billed as a means to encourage the San Francisco 49ers to abandon plans to move their team to a new stadium the team hopes to build in Santa Clara - but noticeably absent from the coalition to pass the measure is the 49ers organization.
Lisa Lang, the team's spokeswoman, said that she had not seen the proposed ballot measure, but that the 49ers still believe Santa Clara is the right location for the team.
"The 49ers think Santa Clara is the best opportunity for a new stadium because all of the infrastructure is already built - freeways, roads and public transportation," Lang said.
She said that Santa Clara was continuing to work on a feasibility plan for a new stadium and that the issue would not go to voters there until the study is complete.
Under the San Francisco development plan, the new stadium would be constructed at Hunters Point Shipyard, where Lennar Corp. already holds a contract with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency for the right to redevelop the 500-acre former shipyard, which closed in 1974 and is now a Superfund site.
In 2003, the commission approved plans for building 1,500 condos and townhouses on a 63-acre hilltop parcel at the shipyard. That land has been leveled and graded, and builders are in the process of laying the foundation for putting in electrical, gas and water lines. Lennar hopes the homes will be in place by the end of next year.
Other shipyard parcels are only in the preliminary planning stages. Some might feature light industry, and others could include parks.
Though the discussions that led to the drafting of the proposed ballot initiative were prompted in large part by the 49ers' November 2006 announcement that they would seek to leave San Francisco for the South Bay, the plan's chief backers say the remaking of Candlestick and Hunters Point Shipyard is by no means contingent on the team staying in the city of its birth.
"We are moving forward with this innovative plan with or without the 49ers," said Newsom spokesman Nate Ballard.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/21/BAJMTG5OC.DTL
LISA LANG, DONT GET CAUGHT WATCHING THE PAINT DRY!

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Some more info on the filing.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/21/BAJMTG5OC.DTL
LISA LANG, DONT GET CAUGHT WATCHING THE PAINT DRY!
Seriously, nothing new here. I just kept waiting for the voice over at the end - "This message brought to you by the good folks at Lennar."


Puhleaase - can we not post press releases and concentrate on actual new information? There's little of that as it is.

[AlexSmith5rings]

Seriously, nothing new here. I just kept waiting for the voice over at the end - "This message brought to you by the good folks at Lennar."


Puhleaase - can we not post press releases and concentrate on actual new information? There's little of that as it is.

you are just as biased in your posts as he is.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

you are just as biased in your posts as he is.
So, you have actual information to share?

I could tell you what I heard about the last Santa Clara city council meeting, but since I did not personally attend - it would only be me reciting someone else's opinion - so I wont. Hearing my opinion of someone else's opinion is just a waste of time.

Let's try sticking to the facts when we can.

[AlexSmith5rings]

So, you have actual information to share?

I believe stating you being just as biased as he is, is actual information. If you are referring to actual information about where the stadium will be, I have no idea what our incompetent and complete failure of a owner plans to do. I do know that York should sell the team to somebody that knows what they are doing however.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

I believe stating you being just as biased as he is, is actual information. If you are referring to actual information about where the stadium will be, I have no idea what our incompetent and complete failure of a owner plans to do. I do know that York should sell the team to somebody that knows what they are doing however.
So, in essence - all you got is your opinion.

Hey, me too! But I do my best to support it with a few facts here and there.:whistling:

[AlexSmith5rings]

So, in essence - all you got is your opinion.

Hey, me too! But I do my best to support it with a few facts here and there.:whistling:

i think that anyone with a brain would know that my opinion of you being just as biased as ethanh is indeed a "fact".

[Texicali blue]

I have to laugh at people who call Lennar's info biased while claiming the PR firm the team hired to set up their "informational site" is anything but biased, too.

Like most things, the truth is probably somewhere inbetween the 2.

[ethanh]

I agree I am biased towards the team staying in the San Francisco, but I'm not sure why there is a problem putting links to articles in reputable newspapers and then having an opinion on it. If there is a link to that recent Santa Clara town hall meeting please provide it. But do not give me the link to that propaganda web site Lisa Lang and the 49ers have put out.

IMHO the 49ers should attach themselves to the HP rebuilding vote just filed that will be on the June 2008 Ballot. It will be a lot easier to pass a stadium vote attached to, parks, housing and retail. If they wait for a Santa Clara vote that in many predictions is going to ask for a $1,500 tax per person, it may be too late. What will the 49ers do then if it does not pass, good luck going back to SF residents with a by-itself stadium proposition.
That is just my opinion I may be wrong.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

i think that anyone with a brain would know that my opinion of you being just as biased as ethanh is indeed a "fact".And as everyone knows - opinions can be wrong. That too is a fact.

[AlexSmith5rings]

And as everyone knows - opinions can be wrong. That too is a fact.

are you denying being biased towards the santa clara site?

[Fromthe3rdRow]

I have to laugh at people who call Lennar's info biased while claiming the PR firm the team hired to set up their "informational site" is anything but biased, too.

Like most things, the truth is probably somewhere inbetween the 2.
Facts are facts.

And I agree with Tex's point that one must also consider the source. That sure do make the sheeps' job a little more difficult, no?

[Fromthe3rdRow]

are you denying being biased towards the santa clara site?
I will not deny that I favor the plan my favorite team feels is best. They have chosen to pursue a stadium in Santa Clara, not me. In that, I support them - as I support so many things Niner Red and Gold. You forget - I am a serious, died in the wool, 'til the day I day FANatic about my team.

Next question.

(By the way - nice dodge. You failed to acknowledge that opinions can be wrong.)

[ethanh]

I will not deny that I favor the plan my favorite team feels is best. They have chosen to pursue a stadium in Santa Clara, not me. In that, I support them - as I support so many things Niner Red and Gold. You forget - I am a serious, died in the wool, 'til the day I day FANatic about my team.

Next question.

(By the way - nice dodge. You failed to acknowledge that opinions can be wrong.)
With that logic, Hoster is a great coach, Brandon Williams was a great draft pick, and Gore is having a great year.

Mistakes are and have been made, moving from SF may be one of them. It is ok to question it.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

With that logic, Hoster is a great coach, Brandon Williams was a great draft pick, and Gore is having a great year.

Mistakes are and have been made, moving from SF may be one of them. It is ok to question it.Hmmm. Close but not quite. You are welcome to use the Search feature, but I can assure you, I have never written any of the things you just posted. Thus, your logic is flawed.

In fact, each of the items you listed is actually an opinion. And you know where I stand on opinion.

But let's examine the last item you posted about Gore. While it is an opinion that some might say is wrong today, was it an incorrect opinion last year? And how do we know? Because of facts. You can examine statistics, objective measures to determine whether or not that opinion is valid yesterday or today.

There are many facts not yet in evidence regarding the stadium proposal for Santa Clara. Each of us must form our opinions based on the facts available.

Some might protest my opinion is biased. But I feel all I have done so far is to challenge opinions which are not supported by facts, as well as highlight the supposed citation of "fact" which is either false or totally fabricated.

And I will admit, the only facts I have available to me (Thus far the only quantifiable facts in evidence.) have been provided by the team and the city. While the team does have vested interests - I believe the city is acting in it's own best interests and feel their data is reliable. As opposed to data provided by the city of San Francisco and/or Lennar who also have vested interests.

And of course, if push came to shove, I would also have to admit that I've tweaked a few noses here and there - but that's all part of the fun of a message board.

After all, I really do like mice...
:cheshire:

[AlexSmith5rings]

Fromthe3rdrow, what would you think if the 49ers decided to move to LA? I am not trying to compare the move to SC to LA, as it is completely different. But I am curious on where you would lie on that.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Fromthe3rdrow, what would you think if the 49ers decided to move to LA? I am not trying to compare the move to SC to LA, as it is completely different. But I am curious on where you would lie on that.You're asking for my opinion?

Well, for what it's worth - I would imagine such a move would have the same result as the one perpetrated by the the Prince of Polyester across the bay. Do you recall the results of that smooth move? If not, it is well documented, and I am confident the Niners would take that into account before making such a decision.

Which probably explains their emphatic statement earlier this year that they have no plans to move the team out of the SF Bay area.

[AlexSmith5rings]

You're asking for my opinion?

Well, for what it's worth - I would imagine such a move would have the same result as the one perpetrated by the the Prince of Polyester across the bay. Do you recall the results of that smooth move? If not, it is well documented, and I am confident the Niners would take that into account before making such a decision.

Which probably explains their emphatic statement earlier this year that they have no plans to move the team out of the SF Bay area.

My question was actually meant to ask whether you would still be a fan of the 49ers if they moved to LA, was always curious if you would be a fan or not after I saw your partner in crime NinerJan say she'd still be a fan if they went to LA, or anywhere else, in the "what if the team moved to LA" thread a while back.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

My question was actually meant to ask whether you would still be a fan of the 49ers if they moved to LA, was always curious if you would be a fan or not after I saw your partner in crime NinerJan say she'd still be a fan if they went to LA, or anywhere else, in the "what if the team moved to LA" thread a while back.
Rather than attempt to steer me into giving you an answer you want to hear, perhaps you should reconsider my earlier post. Do you recall what happened the last time a Bay Area NFL team was moved?

I think taking all of that into account helps me with my opinion that I really don't have to worry about it. Why? Well, first because I doubt the Niners would repeat an Al Davis type mistake and second - since no such plans have been announced - why the heck should I worry about it? As I've grown older, I've learned not to get excited about stuff I can't control.

Lastly, your ability to suggest that there would be any circumstances which would cause me to be less of a fan tells me exactly what kind of fan YOU are. There are no conceivable circumstances in my mind. It's a shame there are in yours.

[AlexSmith5rings]

Lastly, your ability to suggest that there would be any circumstances which would cause me to be less of a fan tells me exactly what kind of fan YOU are. There are no conceivable circumstances in my mind. It's a shame there are in yours.
:laugh: I don't think I or any reasonable person should bother arguing with you anymore, you really think you are perfect and right every time. I am less of a fan then you are because I asked a question? Go ask all the die hard cleveland brown fans if they followed the Ravens, I guess they are all bad fans because they didn't follow them to Baltimore.

[Local49ersFan]

I think:

- The people of Santa Clara will not support the stadium once they find out the real cost.

- The Yorks will move the team to LA.

- Being die hard fans, ethanh and Fromthe3rdrow will car pool to LA for home games 10+ times a year.

[AlexSmith5rings]

I think:

- The people of Santa Clara will not support the stadium once they find out the real cost.

- The Yorks will move the team to LA.

- Being die hard fans, ethanh and Fromthe3rdrow will car pool to LA for home games 10+ times a year.
Nah, me and ethanh along with most sf bay area fans would be a fan of the new expansion San Francisco 49er team run by Steve Young's group that would keep all of our history like the Cleveland Browns did, while the yorks rot in LA. :laugh: I bet we would get superbowl #6 faster that way then with this incompetent ownership.

[ethanh]

In fact, each of the items you listed is actually an opinion. And you know where I stand on opinion.

There are many facts not yet in evidence regarding the stadium proposal for Santa Clara. Each of us must form our opinions based on the facts available.
Fact: The 49ers have chosen Santa Clara as their first choice to build a new stadium.
Your Opinion: It is a good idea because York has come up with a great idea to move the franchise 50 miles away to a San Jose suburb and SF could not get it done.

Fact: The city of San Francisco is trying to get the team to stay in SF by offering land in Hunter Point to build on.
Your Opinion: San Francisco really does not care and they are just paying lip service making it seem like they are fighting to keep the team.

Our opinions are opposite. Our facts are the same.
I think:

- The people of Santa Clara will not support the stadium once they find out the real cost.

- The Yorks will move the team to LA.

- Being die hard fans, ethanh and Fromthe3rdrow will car pool to LA for home games 10+ times a year.

No, the 49ers will be nothing but a memory if they leave the bay area.
If they move to SC I will just boo York every time he walks around his new stadium like the rest of the fans will.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

...Our opinions are opposite. Our facts are the same...
Yay! Somebody gets it. (But I already knew ethanh had a clue.)

And I will continue to respect opinions which have some basis in fact. Opinions based on the opinions expressed by others (As in "So & so" said it - so I got to be cool and agree.) are totally worthless to me.

But if you got facts to bring to the discussion - please do - Bring it!!!

We can use all the facts we can get.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Nah, me and ethanh along with most sf bay area fans would be a fan of the new expansion San Francisco 49er team run by Steve Young's group that would keep all of our history like the Cleveland Browns did, while the yorks rot in LA. :laugh: I bet we would get superbowl #6 faster that way then with this incompetent ownership.
There ya go.

A good example of an opinion based in fact.

Or not.....

But funny, I guess.

Or not.

Let's just leave it up to each reader to form their own opinion.:whistling:

[AlexSmith5rings]

There ya go.

A good example of an opinion based in fact.

Or not.....

But funny, I guess.

Or not.

Let's just leave it up to each reader to form their own opinion.:whistling:

:nolisten:

[Texicali blue]

Facts are facts.

And I agree with Tex's point that one must also consider the source. That sure do make the sheeps' job a little more difficult, no?

Is it not a fact that one of the reasons PR firms are hired is to spin opinions so they appear as facts?


Or to selectively omit unpleasant facts?

I'm still waiting to hear how much guaranteed money either city would pull in from "outside events" because I've heard you mention its existence as if it were fact several times.

Seems to me, it is not a fact that money could be made from outside events, and if so, the amount is in question.

Best to stick to the facts.

It is going to be very expensive, I think I can safely call that a fact.

The 49ers compared to our fierce rival the Cowboys wanting a new stadium move slower than moss growing, I think I can safely call that a fact, too.

[AlexSmith5rings]

Is it not a fact that one of the reasons PR firms are hired is to spin opinions so they appear as facts?


Or to selectively omit unpleasant facts?

I'm still waiting to hear how much guaranteed money either city would pull in from "outside events" because I've heard you mention its existence as if it were fact several times.

Seems to me, it is not a fact that money could be made from outside events, and if so, the amount is in question.

Best to stick to the facts.

It is going to be very expensive, I think I can safely call that a fact.

The 49ers compared to our fierce rival the Cowboys wanting a new stadium move slower than moss growing, I think I can safely call that a fact, too.
Don't tell him facts he doesn't want to hear.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Facts from the Economic Impact Study currently on file with the Santa Clara City council's website.

http://www.ci.santa-clara.ca.us/pdf/collateral/49ers-EFIR.pdf (See Page 7 of this report.)

Assumptions for Recurring Non-49ers Events

Event___________ Annual__Average ___Spending per
Type ____________Events__Attendance Capita(1)
-------------------------------------------
Concerts......... 3 ____ 37,500 ___ $100.00
Soccer .......... 2 ____ 50,000 ___ $ 52.00
College Football. 1 ____ 37,500 ___ $ 77.00
Bowl Game........ 1 ____ 45,000 ___ $114.00
Motor Sports..... 1 ____ 42,500 ___ $ 64.00
Festivals........ 3 ____ 55,000 ___ $ 52.00
PrkingLotEvents.. 3 _____ 5,000 ___ $ 31.00
Other Events..... 3 ____ 20,000 ___ $ 41.00
-------------------------------------------
(1) Represents in-stadium spending on tickets, concessions, merchandise and parking.

If you do the math - that's 17 events per year generating approx. $38.7M in annual revenue.

This information was provided by professional consultants hired by the 49ers to conduct a Financial Impact study on the proposal for a new stadium in Santa Clara.

Of course - some stadium opponants will quickly claim these numbers are totally false and quote invented numbers. Where they get their inventions from is anyone's guess.

However - these are the numbers we have available today. The city also hired their own consultants - You can find their information on the city's website regarding the proposed stadium. http://www.ci.santa-clara.ca.us/city_gov/49er_stadium_proposal.html (And if I recall correctly, their numbers are a bit higher.)


Enjoy!

[SC9erFan]

You'd have to be smoking something amazing to be able to make the argument that a new stadium in SC wouldn't generate revenue outside of niners games with a straight face on. The San Jose/Santa Clara area is extremely impacted for event facilities, and the newest large scale venue in the area is over 15 years old.

Football stadiums all over the country generate revenue aside from Football - there's no reason to believe that a new 49ers stadium couldn't do the same, particularly given the area's climate. I think the numbers from the City Council website are pretty conservative actually - I wouldn't be surprised if the new stadium earned a lot more than that.

[Texicali blue]

Facts from the Economic Impact Study currently on file with the Santa Clara City council's website.

http://www.ci.santa-clara.ca.us/pdf/collateral/49ers-EFIR.pdf (See Page 7 of this report.)

Assumptions for Recurring Non-49ers Events

Event___________ Annual__Average ___Spending per
Type ____________Events__Attendance Capita(1)
-------------------------------------------
Concerts......... 3 ____ 37,500 ___ $100.00
Soccer .......... 2 ____ 50,000 ___ $ 52.00
College Football. 1 ____ 37,500 ___ $ 77.00
Bowl Game........ 1 ____ 45,000 ___ $114.00
Motor Sports..... 1 ____ 42,500 ___ $ 64.00
Festivals........ 3 ____ 55,000 ___ $ 52.00
PrkingLotEvents.. 3 _____ 5,000 ___ $ 31.00
Other Events..... 3 ____ 20,000 ___ $ 41.00
-------------------------------------------
(1) Represents in-stadium spending on tickets, concessions, merchandise and parking.

If you do the math - that's 17 events per year generating approx. $38.7M in annual revenue.

This information was provided by professional consultants hired by the 49ers to conduct a Financial Impact study on the proposal for a new stadium in Santa Clara.

Of course - some stadium opponants will quickly claim these numbers are totally false and quote invented numbers. Where they get their inventions from is anyone's guess.

However - these are the numbers we have available today. The city also hired their own consultants - You can find their information on the city's website regarding the proposed stadium. http://www.ci.santa-clara.ca.us/city_gov/49er_stadium_proposal.html (And if I recall correctly, their numbers are a bit higher.)


Enjoy!

Of the existing stadiums in the cities of Oakland and SF, which one of them held 17 "outisde events" last year?

None of them.

In fact, name me one stadium in the country that actually held 17 "outside events" over the course of one year.

Especially one that during a non-world cup year held 2 soccer events bringing in 50,000 paying customers, even the Bechkam mini-tour didn't achieve that.

[ethanh]

What Bowl game were they going to get? The Emerald Bowl in SF? That Bowl has about 20,000 attend and it is in the heart of the city.

[SF_49ers_Kezar]

Facts from the Economic Impact Study currently on file with the Santa Clara City council's website.

http://www.ci.santa-clara.ca.us/pdf/collateral/49ers-EFIR.pdf (See Page 7 of this report.)

Assumptions for Recurring Non-49ers Events

Event___________ Annual__Average ___Spending per
Type ____________Events__Attendance Capita(1)
-------------------------------------------
Concerts......... 3 ____ 37,500 ___ $100.00
Soccer .......... 2 ____ 50,000 ___ $ 52.00
College Football. 1 ____ 37,500 ___ $ 77.00
Bowl Game........ 1 ____ 45,000 ___ $114.00
Motor Sports..... 1 ____ 42,500 ___ $ 64.00
Festivals........ 3 ____ 55,000 ___ $ 52.00
PrkingLotEvents.. 3 _____ 5,000 ___ $ 31.00
Other Events..... 3 ____ 20,000 ___ $ 41.00
-------------------------------------------
(1) Represents in-stadium spending on tickets, concessions, merchandise and parking.

If you do the math - that's 17 events per year generating approx. $38.7M in annual revenue.

This information was provided by professional consultants hired by the 49ers to conduct a Financial Impact study on the proposal for a new stadium in Santa Clara.

Of course - some stadium opponants will quickly claim these numbers are totally false and quote invented numbers. Where they get their inventions from is anyone's guess.

However - these are the numbers we have available today. The city also hired their own consultants - You can find their information on the city's website regarding the proposed stadium. http://www.ci.santa-clara.ca.us/city_gov/49er_stadium_proposal.html (And if I recall correctly, their numbers are a bit higher.)


Enjoy!

Well some Facts:

As Noted at the top, these are ASSumptions; so it is a Fact that assumptions where made and submitted to the City of Santa Clara
There are zero extra events at Monster Park
Any possible profit has to be shared with the 49ers; even though they lease only 10 days a year.
The example number of $38.7M is a revenue only number

There is no guarantee of profit from the $38.7M; does it cover costs?
How much of a $100 ticket goes to the Performers?
How much are the extra expenses for Police, Stadium clean-up, Utilities?


This is the important question that needs to be answered:
How much money actually flows to the Citizens of Santa Clara??

[Niner Jan]

Ethan,

But do not give me the link to that propaganda web site Lisa Lang and the 49ers have put out.

I would think that if anyone has the FACTS, it is the organization itself, the San Francisco 49ers. Lisa Lang is VP of Communications. She speaks on behalf of the Organization and is the best knowledgeable person to publish the facts on what's going on regarding the stadium. She is giving you the FACTS, sir.

If you don't want to hear what she is saying, methinks it is simply prejudice that is blocking your reception of the facts. I would go to the primary SOURCE before I accepted newspaper accounts from outsiders. It's hard to tell facts from bias, in those cases.

Why are you so biased against the team's organization that you claim to be a fan of? I don't understand your attitude. Anyone reading your posts would think you hated the team and its parent organization.

[Texicali blue]

Ethan,



I would think that if anyone has the FACTS, it is the organization itself, the San Francisco 49ers. Lisa Lang is VP of Communications. She speaks on behalf of the Organization and is the best knowledgeable person to publish the facts on what's going on regarding the stadium. She is giving you the FACTS, sir.

If you don't want to hear what she is saying, methinks it is simply prejudice that is blocking your reception of the facts. I would go to the primary SOURCE before I accepted newspaper accounts from outsiders. It's hard to tell facts from bias, in those cases.

Why are you so biased against the team's organization that you claim to be a fan of? I don't understand your attitude. Anyone reading your posts would think you hated the team and its parent organization.



I would trust the team with the facts about the football team, but you have to be completely ignorant to think their PR firm is about facts, and not about spinning SOME of the facts while omiting others.

Just as those who submit requests to have the team build elsewhere will spin their facts while omiting the unpleasant ones while trying to persuade people to back their plan.

Just look at that ridiculous list 3rd row linked from their page.

Tell me one stadium that actually did that kind of business over a given year.

In fact, I'll betcha that between the 2 stadiums in the bay area combined even on their best year they never did gather that kind of revenue from outside events.

As for me, I don't have a dog in this race, I don't care if the team gets a new stadium or continues to play at the Stick, which would be just fine with me, so long as they start winning, and I think once they do start winning, you will see the process move along much more quickly and smoothly.

Basically, the ownership has everything backwards, you don't need a new stadium to have a winning team, but it does help to have a winning team when attempting to get a new stadium.

So, in essence, they have poor timing.

[ethanh]

Ethan,



I would think that if anyone has the FACTS, it is the organization itself, the San Francisco 49ers. Lisa Lang is VP of Communications. She speaks on behalf of the Organization and is the best knowledgeable person to publish the facts on what's going on regarding the stadium. She is giving you the FACTS, sir.
Was the team giving us the facts when they unveiled the Candlestick Park stadium plans in 2006 a month before dumping it for Santa Clara? The stadium design still being used is open to the North so you can see the city skyline.

If you don't want to hear what she is saying, methinks it is simply prejudice that is blocking your reception of the facts. I would go to the primary SOURCE before I accepted newspaper accounts from outsiders. It's hard to tell facts from bias, in those cases.
I agree I do not like hearing her statements. Every time there is negative news she spins it off like it is not a big deal. When she talked about buying Great America I went into full prejudice if that is what you want to call it.

Why are you so biased against the team's organization that you claim to be a fan of? I don't understand your attitude. Anyone reading your posts would think you hated the team and its parent organization.
It is hard to love a team that has brought you so much joy, when you think the owner is running the team in the wrong direction. This is not uncommon in the NFL with many owners though.

[Roaring Back]

Why are you so biased against the team's organization that you claim to be a fan of? I don't understand your attitude. Anyone reading your posts would think you hated the team and its parent organization.

Criticism can be just as much -if not more- of an act of dedication, care, and passion for an organization than praise. Ethanh's posts that I've read, are always thoughtful, and indicate to me that he loves this team and it's city.

[AlexSmith5rings]

Ethan,



I would think that if anyone has the FACTS, it is the organization itself, the San Francisco 49ers. Lisa Lang is VP of Communications. She speaks on behalf of the Organization and is the best knowledgeable person to publish the facts on what's going on regarding the stadium. She is giving you the FACTS, sir.


:falldownlaugh: :laugh: :falldownlaugh:
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[AlexSmith5rings]

Basically, the ownership has everything backwards, you don't need a new stadium to have a winning team, but it does help to have a winning team when attempting to get a new stadium.

So, in essence, they have poor timing.

well of course, we have owners that no have idea how to run a football franchise

[AlexSmith5rings]

Criticism can be just as much -if not more- of an act of dedication, care, and passion for an organization than praise. Ethanh's posts that I've read, are always thoughtful, and indicate to me that he loves this team and it's city.

i agree

[AlexSmith5rings]

I agree I do not like hearing her statements. Every time there is negative news she spins it off like it is not a big deal. When she talked about buying Great America I went into full prejudice if that is what you want to call it.


lisa lang is a talking head for the yorks, anyone that takes her or her "facts" seriously is naive.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

lisa lang is a talking head for the yorks, anyone that takes her or her "facts" seriously is naive.And yet, there is a serious dearth of "facts" from the opposition. Lisa Lang and her team are the only ones providing real information.

All I've heard from the opponants so far is "We don't like the facts you've presented." Have any of them paid for an economic impact report showing the stadium is a bad idea? All I've really seen is a small group (allegedly receiving financial support from SF) displaying flash cards, construction paper charts and stomping their birkenstocks in petulent protest. When they present some real "facts" showing this to be a bad business deal for the city - then perhaps we can have an honest debate on the "facts".

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Of the existing stadiums in the cities of Oakland and SF, which one of them held 17 "outisde events" last year?

None of them.

In fact, name me one stadium in the country that actually held 17 "outside events" over the course of one year.

Especially one that during a non-world cup year held 2 soccer events bringing in 50,000 paying customers, even the Bechkam mini-tour didn't achieve that.
C'mon Tex. You asked for information, and I provided you with a table quoted from the Website maintained by the city of Santa Clara.
And the best you can do is - "I don't believe you!" And then you ask me to find information to prove your argument for you? You just gotta know that is lame. Can you produce a link?

And by the way, Lew Wolf SOLD OUT the Oakland Colosieum with a single Soccer Match in 2007. Two teams from Mexico traveled up the coast and filled the stadium for an exibition match. I heard it was standing room only. Does that count?

And yes please, let's talk about World Cup Soccer. Do you have any idea how much cash that little party brought to the city of Palo Alto when matches for two separate World Cup competitions were conducted Stanford?

Outside events DO happen. Just becuase they don't make it to the evening news in Texas does not mean they don't exist.

[Peter Proud]

Kind of hard to sell using Monster Park for an outside event when the condition of the stadium is a joke!

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Kind of hard to sell using Monster Park for an outside event when the condition of the stadium is a joke!Which explains why many of those other events end up in venues in Oakland, Santa Clara, San Jose, Palo Alto and of course the Giant's stadium in SF....

Good to see you Larry!

[Texicali blue]

C'mon Tex. You asked for information, and I provided you with a table quoted from the Website maintained by the city of Santa Clara.
And the best you can do is - "I don't believe you!" And then you ask me to find information to prove your argument for you? You just gotta know that is lame. Can you produce a link?

And by the way, Lew Wolf SOLD OUT the Oakland Colosieum with a single Soccer Match in 2007. Two teams from Mexico traveled up the coast and filled the stadium for an exibition match. I heard it was standing room only. Does that count?

And yes please, let's talk about World Cup Soccer. Do you have any idea how much cash that little party brought to the city of Palo Alto when matches for two separate World Cup competitions were conducted Stanford?

Outside events DO happen. Just becuase they don't make it to the evening news in Texas does not mean they don't exist.

you presented propaganda, I countered it, plain and simple.

Nobody believes(other than maybe you) that there are going to be 17 outside events held at ANY stadium.

And let's talk World Cup, do you know how often those come around?

It's very foolish to go banking on THAT event as a basis for how much outside event money you are going to SPECULATE will be brought in.

So, one soccer match that sold out, that's a start.

My point is simple, don't try to sell based on ridiculous unfounded speculation, sell the new stadium on its OWN merits.

I mean, my car can get 100 miles to the gallon if I roll it down a 100 mile hill, but I wouldn't use that "fact" to advertise it as getting 100 MPG when selling it, I'd find some other selling point to advertise.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

you presented propaganda, I countered it, plain and simple. Countered with what? You've provided no new information other than to say you don't believe the information presented. How about a link? You asked me to produce one. I did. Where's yours?
Nobody believes(other than maybe you) that there are going to be 17 outside events held at ANY stadium. Two groups of paid professional sports consults, one hired by the team, the other hired by the City of Santa Clara, came to agreement on those figures. But hey, that's just another fact you can chose to ignore ... or not.
And let's talk World Cup, do you know how often those come around? If I remember correctly, the next one that could possibly come to the US would be in 2018. The women's cup probably even sooner.

One event like that could bring in enough cash to build several stadiums. How many did they build in Korea?

But then again, a Superbowl might arrive even sooner. There was talk of placing a California stadium on the Superbowl site rotation list. Surely that little event might bring in a little cash.

It's very foolish to go banking on THAT event as a basis for how much outside event money you are going to SPECULATE will be brought in. But I thought you suggested there would be NO events?
So, one soccer match that sold out, that's a start. Yes, it certainly is more than NO events. And as proof of concept, it showed investors why Lew Wolfe made the decision to bring the Earthquakes back to San Jose. There is a fan base for the sport, and they could use a large stadium for some of the bigger events.
My point is simple, don't try to sell based on ridiculous unfounded speculation, sell the new stadium on its OWN merits. Nor should we decide not to build based on your unfounded speculation....

I think I've shown sufficient proof that outside events ARE possible. We could debate the number of events and attendance figures all night long - but me - I'd rather let the professionals do the work - which i've cited in an earlier post.

[Texicali blue]

Countered with what? You've provided no new information other than to say you don't believe the information presented. How about a link? You asked me to produce one. I did. Where's yours?
Two groups of paid professional sports consults, one hired by the team, the other hired by the City of Santa Clara, came to agreement on those figures. But hey, that's just another fact you can chose to ignore ... or not.
If I remember correctly, the next one that could possibly come to the US would be in 2018. The women's cup probably even sooner.

One event like that could bring in enough cash to build several stadiums. How many did they build in Korea?

But then again, a Superbowl might arrive even sooner. There was talk of placing a California stadium on the Superbowl site rotation list. Surely that little event might bring in a little cash.

But I thought you suggested there would be NO events?
Yes, it certainly is more than NO events. And as proof of concept, it showed investors why Lew Wolfe made the decision to bring the Earthquakes back to San Jose. There is a fan base for the sport, and they could use a large stadium for some of the bigger events.
Nor should we decide not to build based on your unfounded speculation....

I think I've shown sufficient proof that outside events ARE possible. We could debate the number of events and attendance figures all night long - but me - I'd rather let the professionals do the work - which i've cited in an earlier post.

I think you have a reading comprehension problem because you've attached to me several statments I never made.

1.)they will host ZERO outside events.

I never made that claim, I said don't trust the propaganda numbers provided by the team's PR firm.

Those are 2 different statements.

2.)they shouldn't build a new stadium.

Again, I never wrote the above sentence, I said deceptive advertising is a pisspoor replacement for an honest sales approach and that the stadium should be sold on its own merits, not off some ridiculous claim that they would make massive profits from it in the offseason.

I did ask you to provide any stadium in the nation that held that many events.

I did say that soccer is not a profitable business(in the sense that I wouldn't build a stadium because of soccer)in this country.

I did say that the south bay, and bay area, already have plenty of stages to host those "outside events" at making the chances of holding that many very less likely.

I did say that music artists are abandoning the stadium tours, for multiple nights in smaller venues because it is more cost effective (transportation and equipment) and the companies funding the tours look to increase revenue, not lose it.

I'll stand by those statements.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

I think you have a reading comprehension problem because you've attached to me several statments I never made..... Hmm. Lots about what you didn't say. Still no link, quote, reference in support of what you did.

Bottom line - three different studies, three paid professional consultanting firms versus what ... ?

[Texicali blue]

Hmm. Lots about what you didn't say. Still no link, quote, reference in support of what you did.

Bottom line - three different studies, three paid professional consultanting firms versus what ... ?

Versus the truth, duh.

What documentation do you want me to provide to prove my points?

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Versus the truth, duh.

What documentation do you want me to provide to prove my points?
More accurately, "Your version of" the truth.

And if you don't know where to find the proof, how do you know it exists? Can't you see that you have placed yourself in an unsupportable position?

[Texicali blue]

More accurately, "Your version of" the truth.

And if you don't know where to find the proof, how do you know it exists? Can't you see that you have placed yourself in an unsupportable position?

No, I am quite comfortable because I just want to know which statements you want "proven" which I can easily do.

You're not being specific, tell me what you think I was wrong about and I will show you where I got my impression that I was right from.

Truth is truth, it doesn't have versions, which is a common misperception.

[Fromthe3rdRow]

Truth is truth, it doesn't have versions, which is a common misperception. Ahhh. How nice to live in a world of absolutes.

Unfortunately, I look around a see a world closer to that described by Orwell. Go ask GWB what he thinks "truth" means...

[Texicali blue]

Ahhh. How nice to live in a world of absolutes.

Unfortunately, I look around a see a world closer to that described by Orwell. Go ask GWB what he thinks "truth" means...

I don't look to "Dubya" for truth.

But to act as if it doesn't exist or has versions is insane.

I think you are confusing truth with "truthiness."

[Fromthe3rdRow]

I don't look to "Dubya" for truth.

But to act as if it doesn't exist or has versions is insane.

I think you are confusing truth with "truthiness."
OK - I'll bite. What the heck is "truthiness"?

[jjbankhead]

i would like to chime in here:

1) i am biased towards the team moving from candlestick, i live in the central valley (about an hour south of Sacramento) and the majority of the fans who ARE SEASON TICKET HOLDERS are in similar situations to myself and live at least one to two hours from San Francisco. i could not find the evidence on line to back this up but i have heard it from several sources and happen to know far more season ticket holders in my area than those whom are from SF.

-I love the city but the stadium and the neighborhood are a dump, there is no quick fix to the extensive traffic jams leaving the stadium, nor to the socio economic situation of the people of hunter's point. Putting a new stadium there (as it seems to me) is simply going to chase people (much like what
took place in the mission district some time ago when the hipster started moving in) who rely low income living available there away, not fix their situation.

-the cost of building a new stadium in SF seems to me:a person who has no experience in building stadiums- to be far greater than moving to a near by area with more land and prevailing wages can be had at a lesser rate. if a house in the city can cost double what a house in the valley or east bay costs why would a stadium be any more affordable?

2) near where i live they recently built a new minor league ball park/ multi use arena. the events there draw a significant crowd if not sell out. whether the developmental hockey league, indoor soccer, arena foot ball, or concert events (which i don't think one has yet to NOT sell out), they have all have brought in significant revenue to what used to be a dumpy area in downtown Stockton. the city had to put up some money in the early days to draw big name acts but now there have been several big concerts and the attendance to the sporting events is high for minor league/ developmental level teams. they don't have the parking lot set up like that at the coliseum or candlestick so i don't know that there are any parking lot events happening in the parking structure. quite a few other attraction have since popped up like a multi-plex theater and shopping center within walking distance have also been constructed.

- i don't have the attendance figures or dollar amounts i just have the experience of attending games and seeing a revamped downtown area where people used to avoid spending time, unless they had a court date or jury duty. I know people will say this could turn around hunter's point but i think the fan base who for the most part are commuting from a distance greater than an hour deserve a place where the infrastructure can support these events and hunter's point/ candlestick point area doesn't seem to me to cater to that, and the cost of making it happen is far greater than what either the city or the franchise are willing o spend, just my opinion.

- none of the attractions that have been added to this downtown area are lucrative for the people who live/d in this once impoverished down town area. Most of the jobs avail pay minimum wage and are part time fast food type employment, the arena and ball park helped the city as a whole but the people who once inhabited this area are simply being driven to other parts of town, not having their living situation bettered.

3) as a fan/ season ticket holder i am all for the team moving from SF. i don't care if it is SC or somewhere else in NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. my hope would be SACRAMENTO as the land is cheaper there is more land and greater chance of infrastructure to support the influx of fans who would be attending the games from the surrounding areas. this is my biased choice because it is closer to home and will solve the problems i see with both the SF and SC locations: traffic and expenses of construction.

- if the team moves it doesn't matter what city hosts the team's stadium, teams moving to near by areas to develop better stadiums is happening all over and we would not be the first team to play in a near by location while keeping the city name of where the team originated.

- i am for the team building a stadium any place where it can maintain the ability to tail gate: no parking structure's please. i am all for being able to upgrade my seats and add the 3 more i will need to be able to bring my entire family to the game each week. I would be happy to not have to pay 4$ each time i cross the bridge on top of the 25$ for parking and my ticket costs. If the team moves to an area where no bridge need be crossed by me i am all for it. either way i will continue to drive to the games, get their at the butt crack of dawn to get my parking spot and watch my team regardless of how abysmal their performance.

- i don't believe anything the politicians or franchise put out as information towards getting this stadium accomplished, none of it makes me feel any better, none of it is without some form of spin to try and sell their position on the matter. As i have no real voice in the matter (really if give up my seats i do not believe some body else won't be waiting for them as an upgrade or as an opportunity to get in) as i don't live in any if the cities on the board as hopeful candidates, nor am i in the tax bracket for any of the potential listeners to care what i have to say about the matter. all i can do is sit back and hope something gets done to better my own personal experience.

this is a long winded blow hard post, most of you wont read it, i just think there is a faction of fans who are not represented in the discussion. those who make up the majority of the season ticket holding fan base who come from the central valley and are looking for a move that represents their interests. if the people of SF cared so much about the team more of them would come out to the games.

[Texicali blue]

OK - I'll bite. What the heck is "truthiness"?

It's a term coined by Stephen Colbert to describe how people sell spin as truth.

Basically, it's his way of mocking people who think truth has versions.

[Joe in Montana]

http://www.examiner.com/a-1061285~Initiative_filed_seeking_approval_of_Bayvi ew_project.html


IMHO this proposition will pass because the city will make the vote about rebuilding a dead area which everyone in principal is in agreement on. Now if the 49ers decide not to get with this plan and are still messing around with buying an amusement park...well I guess it would just be par for the course with the team these days.

IMHO this will NEVER pass....two reasons....one, the people of SF (as in the past) would never vote for this due to the funding they would rather see the money go to the homeless....(again) Second...the state of California is in for hard times due to the decline of realestate value.California could be looking at bankruptcy in 2008-2009.......

[ethanh]

IMHO this will NEVER pass....two reasons....one, the people of SF (as in the past) would never vote for this due to the funding they would rather see the money go to the homeless....(again) Second...the state of California is in for hard times due to the decline of realestate value.California could be looking at bankruptcy in 2008-2009.......

The vote will not be about a stadium it will basically state: should we rebuild the junk yard that is Hunters Point with parks, retail, housing, and private companies or should we leave it a junk yard? Basically make it an environmental choice. Well see in June once the proposition gets its run.

You are right about the real estate problems and the California budget, luckily SF has not been as badly effected as the rest of the counties and country.