Oh yes, open up the end of the stadium facing the Bay, I'm sure THAT will have no effect on Field Goals, punts and kickoffs during the game.

Are they nuts? Have they forgotten the good old days of the 60s at the Stick when Willie Mays would have to run in circles to chase fly balls?

Obviously, they're not serious.

IF the NFL wants a say, then they should contribute some $$. So far, they've said they have no money.

One problem with a shared stadium in Santa Clara is that the Raiders will simply pay some rent, and won't have paid for any of the construction costs. That is not fair to Santa Clara.

In addition, if the stadium ballot measure passes, Santa Clarans won't have any say in whether or not the Raiders come to Santa Clara. That decision will be up to the 49ers and the Raiders. Santa Clarans-how will local businesses like having Raiders fans in local parking lots, given the reported behavior of Raider Nation? Remember, there is very little parking at the Santa Clara stadium site, and offsite businesses will need to agree to have their parking lots used on game days by NFL fans. 2 of our city council members expressed big concerns about whether or not the offsite parking plan will work. There are currently no agreements in place for parking. As council members said, any agreements will need to be renegotiated each year, and local businesses can decide to stop allowing their parking lots to be used.

I would guess that parking on a Sunday morning is at a premium for the hi-tech companies that surround the proposed stadium....oh but wait...no they are typically empty on Sundays because no one is at work---and lets see--haven't we seen SCT lament that this facility would only be used for 8-10 dates out of the year--now he/she is crying foul that they are more than likely going to have way more events than that at this facility making money for the good citizens of Santa Clara---oh my what are these evil NFL officials plotting to do next--

Take a look at the new SJ Merc article on the initiative the 49ers are pushing on Santa Clarans.

"The initiative language makes passing reference to the $114 million package of public contributions to the project"

Note the 'makes passing reference', and the fact that the initiative doesn't mention the $330 million in additional money that Santa Clara is on the hook for through its agency, the Stadium Authority. This is exactly what I predicted-that the 49ers/Yorks would write a ballot initiative that is inaccurate and untruthful on purpose, because they don't want Santa Clarans to know the truth-that we will be responsible for 47% of the stadium construction costs ($444 million = $114 million plus $330 million). This is why the ballot measure needs to come from our city council-it has a better chance of being accurate and telling the truth about stadium costs.

Here's the SJ Merc link:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_13978732

If it is inaccurate and "untruthful" than it will never be approved---thats what we have courts for....I hear many of the anti-stadium group cite surveys that say this initiative will easily be defeated---if that is the case I can't understand why all the frenzy coming from this group---as I recall last week they were lamenting their city council for even putting this to a vote...and now the line is that our city council should be the one to write it....pick a story and stick to it---as much as you accuse others of twisting the "facts" you are also guilty of it---gets old and hurts your credibility at the end of the day-

We have never lamented this going to a vote. It is the stadium opposition that has caused this to go to a binding vote in the first place. Initially, Mayor Patti said that it was a land use decision and there would be no vote. Under pressure, she then said that we could vote but it wouldn't be binding. Under more pressure, she said we could have a vote but there needed to be an overwhelming majority against the stadium (umm, no, a simple majority is what applies in this case). The people kept up the pressure until she said it could be a binding vote-and our city staff said the EIR had to be certified. All of this has occurred at city council meetings and is part of the public record, on DVD at the Santa Clara library.Mayor Patti also said that the stadium will fulfill her father's dream for Santa Clara (I was present at the city council meeting when she said that). Now the EIR was certified last Tuesday, and they voted to put it on the ballot on June 8th. And on the same night, the 49ers said they were doing an end run around the city council. The 49ers are not acting in good faith towards Santa Clara, and the language in the initiative is incomplete and misleading - on purpose. The 49ers are treating Santa Clarans like we are stupid, and I think that will backfire, just as it did with the card club that tried to come in here a few years ago, and saturated us with advertising for their ballot measure.

Is the initiative submission available somewhere? Might be fun to actually read it before flying off the handle.

According to the Merc-
"The Santa Clara city attorney must now review the initiative and craft a ballot title and summary for voters. ". So the actual language hasn't been set.

Also from the Merc-
"in an interview Wednesday, Mayor Patricia Mahan, a stadium backer, said the council could defer to an initiative as long as the language of the measure is consistent with what the council would have placed on the ballot. "

The initiative language seems far from set at this point but I'd really like to read what the 49ers submitted to the City Attorney - wouldn't you?

The Santa Clara city attorney said at last Tuesday's city council meeting that the language of a citizen's initiative cannot be changed (unlike a ballot measure written by the city council, which is supposed to be open to citizen input). So yes the city attorney is writing a summary and a title (normally our titles are like the one for the recent school district measure 'Measure C' was the title everyone referred to, so the titles don't necessarily say anything, you have to read the text), but the city attorney and city council can't change the language of the 49ers ballot measure. Mayor Mahan is one of the members of the 49ers front group that sent an inaccurate and misleading mailer into our homes recently, the same group that is behind this initiative. I simply think the 49ers should allow the normal political ballot measure process to work, and let our city council come up with the ballot measure language. The 49ers are interfering with the election process, just as they interfered with SB43 to take away our right to a vote on amending our city charter to allow the 49ers to bypass the required competitive bid process. They are trying to manipulate the election process in any way they can, and spending loads of money to do it. Because of the way the election laws are written, the 49ers can spend whatever they want on mailers going into our homes, and pay people to collect signatures, and not have to report how much they are spending at this point. I think they are going to try to pressure our city council to only have 1 stadium ballot measure on the ballot-the 49ers written initiative.

Check out the following website:
http://www.savesantaclara.org/49ers_stadium.shtml

And check out this website:
http://stadiumfacts.blogspot.com/

Here is the link to the initiative that appeared on the SJ Merc website tonight:
www.santaclaraplaysfair.org
There is a tab to click on to read the 49ers backed initiative.
It doesn't cover everything that the taxpayers need to know.

As usual, the Stadium Mob gets it wrong.

Santa Clara: 14-acre stadium on a 17-acre site.

Hunters Point: 14-acre stadium on a 438-acre site.

That one simple fact is exactly why the Santa Clara site is completely inferior to Hunters Point.

It's why you'll end up with some kludge of a private-parking "district" that NFL fans will do everything to avoid (better count on $15 to $20 per car, kids).

It's why you end up with jam-packed traffic on games days which the 49ers themselves have claimed they have no intention of mitigating - and which will require 160 police officers to direct.

That's the reason for the so-called "citizens'" (shill) initiative - to immunize themselves from any environmental challenge...

...after they spent three hours on December 8th trying to persuade us that the EIR process was solid and that it was no cause for worry.

Bill Bailey
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-

Bill--you continue to show your ignorance about the situation--first claiming that SF wasn't interested, only to find that they have released a competing proposal at an inferior toxic waste dump that will require significant investment in infrastructure to make it accessible for game days---but since you point out parking--have you been to an '49er's game recently or for that matter a Sharks game or a Giants game--parking is at least $20 bucks around the venues--so to act like Santa Clara will be something unique that screws the fan (sorry kids) shows your ignorance.

I didn't claim that S.F. "wasn't interested" - you did.

And Candlestick - 84 acres - doesn't have the toxic waste problem. The waste problem at Hunters Point can be fixed.

None of that makes Santa Clara the better site - it's still the stupid solution of putting a 14-acre stadium on a 17-acre site.

Also, nothing you've said changes the fact that the EIR for the Santa Clara site has NO fixes. NO mitigation of any kind.

Finally: Those $20 parking fees are exactly what will put the pressure on gamegoers to stow their Escalades and Q45s on the residential streets in Agnews, Rivermark, the Calles and the numbered streets. That's exactly why we were told we'd need a game-day police force of 160 officers.

Again: Real stupid.

Sorry. You lose.

Again.

(That's not too many capital letters for you, is it?)

Bill Bailey
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-

Humm--check with the residents around HP Pavillion--parking restrictions that are enforced make your claim a non-issue---btw--"you lose" how old are you Bill? My kids are more clever than that---

HP Pavilion has not a thing to do with the subsidized stadium in Santa Clara. Those San Jose residents are welcome to hold their own opinions about the parking situation around their own neighborhoods. Not my problem.

No such "sticker district" is being proposed for Santa Clara - just a 160-man police force plunked right in the middle of a huge mess.

You're going to have to do a lot better than bringing up irrelevant cities, irrelevant venues and irrelevant little factoids.

Santa Clara is still a 14-acre stadium on a 17-acre site, with no room for any other development, in particular for any kind of parking - Other than some piddly little parking structure for some 1,700 cars.

I notice that you flamed out in the other thread when you managed to prove that you didn't understand S.F.'s Measure G any better than you understood Senate Bill 43. In fact, you weren't even close.

Bill Bailey
Santa Clara Plays Fair
-=0=-

There's another parking problem in Santa Clara-the convention center, which is right across the street from a hotel that's next to Great America. What will prevent football fans from parking up all of the free convention center parking? Nothing. Convention center patrons could easily have no where to park. Patrons could also give up on attending a convention on game days, rather than fight the traffic. When I spoke with the president of a company that puts on a convention every fall at the Santa Clara convention center about the stadium, he said the stadium would hurt his business on game days, and he told me to read Neil's book 'Field of Schemes'!!!!

Everybody: Enough with the veiled insults. You can have an impassioned argument without questioning each other's intelligence.

I will start closing comments on items if people can't be civil.

That silly reference to the Raiders and the 49ers sharing a stadium in Santa Clara is no more believable than it was over a year ago.

Stadium **supporters** aren't even falling for it.

For starters, go to the 49ers stadium page on our City's website, then go to the June 2 reports.

If one opens up the actual Term Sheet, "Exhibit 5", and pages down to Section 16.1 on page 24, one will learn that...

*** Santa Clara has surrendered ALL right of sublease to the 49ers themselves.***

IOW, we'll never get a second team just by demanding one - the 49ers themselves are the only party to any agreement with the power to consent to that.

As for Al Davis ever signing a sublease with the York family controlling the primary lease, that's just ludicrous.

The "Second Team" nonsense is being blown out the pipes for one reason and for one reason only: To pump up the deplorable utilization days for a $1 BILLION, 68,500-seat NFL stadium --- It let's these guys claim a pathetic 20 days of home games a year instead of the more pathetic 10 days a year.

The number of non-NFL events stands at 17 per year - and that's all. The 49ers themselves admitted to exactly that in front of our City Council on June 2.

Get the Raiders' representatives to sign on the dotted line. Then I'll believe it.

Bill Bailey
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-

Well it looks like this may move forward.

Regarding the 17 acre site, since the De Bartolo Family are well known for their expertise in gaming (and the Yorks only pretend to abhor it for public consumption - an instance of good wise guy - bad wise guy), what they are gambling on here is that Great America is going to fold. Then they'll buy the land. Lots of cash to do such things and lots of reasons to dump such cash whenever the opportunity presents itself. Looks like the mob is ramping up in the Bay Area big time and for the first time ever getting very entrenched in the South Bay.