What's really funny to me as I sit in my office next door to Great America and look out at the potential site of the Niners stadium, is the lack of cars in the parking lot. And this isn't a one day thing, I never see alot of cars in the parking lot, and we're in the heart of their season, mid summer. The Niners wouldn't be playing until fall, when Great America's patronage goes down, not up.

It's all likely a moot point anyway. I can't see Santa Clara voting yes on this plan. Not when the financials are so precarious and reports like this come out today regarding the stadium's impact on the community.

http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_12946564

When the issue of traffic was brought up at a city council meeting, Councilmember Kevin Moore said, "That area can withstand more traffic on a Sunday." The city council members (4) and our mayor have their minds made up about this, and aren't listening to residents here who have legitimate concerns (costs, traffic). The council meetings are filled with people who want the stadium because they will financially benefit from it (tradespeople) as well as 49ers fans etc. who don't live here, so will not be paying for it. Just wait, despite negative comments from Santa Clara residents on the EIR, our city council will approve it and move forward. They want the stadium no matter what the impacts. The council ought to be listening to the 42,000 registered voters in Santa Clara, but they aren't.

What I find humurous about EIR is that it doesn't compare it to another expected development--like millions of square feet of office towers that bring in hundreds and thousands of single car drivers on an annual basis--so lets see--what would I prefer---10 days out of the year where there is a max number of 15,000 cars on a non-traffic day--Sunday---or 5000 single car drivers clogging this section of freeway M-F--230 days out of the year---

Look no further than the Cisco campus in SJ--once the proposed site of the Giants baseball team--I remember the environmentalists acting as if they could keep it open space rather than it being developed---guess who won--closest you will come to open space and minimal environmental impact is a stadium that is only occupied 10x out of the year--

Btw--the council will listen to the 42,000 registered voters in SC in March--so to claim otherwise is a joke--and as a resident of SC I fully support it and will be one of those 42,000 advocating on its behalf

Well you do have to admit in this case if the stadium isn't built it would just remain a parking lot for Great America as it's been for the last 35 years.

Dan- how many acres in the heart of Silicon Valley will remain a parking lot when land is getting more scarce...especially for a company that is ready to go under--you said it already--peak season and the lot is always empty---Having been to GA this week I can tell you that it is on its last legs---poorly run---very few people...closing at 8:00 pm to avoid the gang-banger issues---which is why Cedar Fair is trying to play hardball and force the '9ers to buy it---if the '9ers stadium doesnt fly the "entertainment" concept for this area goes out the window and you will have a free for all for mid-rise development once the economy picks back up--just what we need...more sterile office parks

Initially, Mayor Patty said we would not get a vote. Then she said we could vote, but it would not be binding. Then she said that an overwhelming majority would have to be against the stadium. All of her statements about this are on record at city council meetings. We now have the statement that the vote will be binding, but it took pressure from citizens to make it so. This is not a joke-our mayor did not plan on letting us have a vote on this when the whole stadium process started. Only those of us who attend (or listen over the internet) city council meetings and listen to what the mayor and other council members say know the process that has gone on to allow us to vote. I cannot imagine another city council, such as the one in Palo Alto, for example, ever putting their citizens through what Santa Clara is going through. So SanJoseA's, when the 330 million in bond debt cannot be met through seat licenses and naming rights, who pays? Who pays the debt servicing and taxes on those bonds? No one will provide answers. This is like taking out a huge mortgage without a guaranteed future income stream.

It doesn't matter if the space remains a parking lot. Cedar Fair has the long-term lease for that property. I'd like to see how the City of Santa Clara gets around providing approvals for developing a football stadium without the leaseholder's permission.

Check the San Jose Mercury News website-click on sports/49ers and look for the link on stadium news. The article on the EIR has some interesting comments. More and more voices are coming online, against the stadium. Today, someone is asking for a recall election of our elected officials who are supporting the stadium, against all evidence of how badly this will financially hurt our city.

"It doesn't matter if the space remains a parking lot. Cedar Fair has the long-term lease for that property. I'd like to see how the City of Santa Clara gets around providing approvals for developing a football stadium without the leaseholder's permission."

They might be able to get some advice from Brooklyn on this one...