January 13, 2010
49ers file Santa Clara stadium petitions; vote in June?
The Santa Clara 49ers stadium took another step closer to a public vote yesterday, as the team-backed group Santa Clarans for Economic Progress submitted 8,043 signatures towards putting an initiative on the ballot. If at least 4,640 of the signatures are found valid, the city council has the choice of putting it on the ballot in June, or waiting until the regular election in November; if it clears 6,970 valid names, the vote automatically takes place in June.
There's been a ton of debate among Santa Clarans (several of whom have posted comments on this site) about whether the paid signature gatherers were misinforming people about the purpose of the petitions. (The city council has the option of putting its own referendum on the ballot if the 49ers don't, which would potentially provide more public disclosure and safeguards.) It's not immediately clear if this is grounds for challenging the petition signatures, or indeed what you can do if you've signed the petition and now wish you hadn't.
Former Council Member Aldyth Parle has been one of the members of the 49ers astroturf organization Santa Clarans for Economic Progress that put forth the 49ers stadium initiative that preempted the city council's own stadium ballot measure. She now says she was unable to attend city council meetings in December and was unaware that the city council was on track with its own ballot measure. So even she was misled into thinking that the 49ers initiative was the only way to get the stadium onto the ballot in June.
Here's the link:
www.santaclaraplaysfair.blogspot.org
Here's what's posted on the link, followed by stories from members of the public who were misled by signature gatherers:
"Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Aldyth Parle does NOT support 49ers initiative!
Breaking news! Live from Santa Clara City Council!
Councilwoman Aldyth Parle has clarified her position. Ms Parle had previously appeared to support the 49ers' astroturf ballot initiative. She has now explained her intentions. Due to an illness in the family she missed some council meetings, and was not aware that Council was on track to put a measure on the ballot. She only agreed to support the initiative because she was led to believe that it is the only way that the voters will have a say. Now that she is aware of the facts, she wants her name removed from the list of astroturf supporters."
Posted by SantaClaraTaxpayer on January 13, 2010 11:03 AM
Oops! The link listed above should have a dot com not a dot org.
http://www.santaclaraplaysfair.blogspot.com/
Posted by SantaClaraTaxpayer on January 13, 2010 11:08 AM
Note that SCEP hasn't spent a penny of its own money - not for this "initiative", and not for the slick mailer they sent out a few months ago.
In fact, they even admitted before City Council back on December 15th that the San Francisco 49ers were paying for all of the printing and the signature-gathering this time around, too.
This is a "49ers initiative," not a a Santa Clara initiative. It's only purpose: The 49ers got a Council majority to certify a grossly deficient EIR back on December 8th - and this "49ers-own-initiative" immunizes them from CEQA challenges to that EIR in court. That is all that this is about.
As for confirming the fact that their signature-gatherers were indeed misinforming Santa Clara voters: If SCEP leadership couldn't be honest with Ms. Parle - what's the likelihood that their paid signature-getters were going to be honest with us?
Bill Bailey
Santa Clara Plays Fair
-=0=-
I see a few more reasons why the 49ers wanted their own initiative. 1) As Councilmember Will Kennedy said, the 49ers initiative is an advocacy piece rather than an impartially written ballot measure. We had hoped for an impartial ballot measure written by our city council. 2) As the Santa Clara city attorney pointed out, the language of a citizen's ballot initiative cannot be changed. So taxpayers in Santa Clara who find the 49ers ballot initiative incomplete, misleading, and/or biased, cannot ask for modifications to the ballot language like they could with a city council written initiative. 3) The 49ers wrote their own initiative and were free to leave out the $330 million the city's agency, the Stadium Authority, will have to raise towards stadium construction. $330 million plus $114 million = $444 million the city and its agency are responsible for. That's a huge number, and the 49ers don't want Santa Clarans to know what that number is. That's why in addition to the 49ers ballot measure, Jed York's website, the 49ers fan sites, the press releases, the misleading mailer sent out by Santa Clarans for Economic Progress (the 49ers astroturf front group) all neglect to mention the $330 million the Stadium Authority will owe.
So there are many reasons for the 49ers to want their own initiative written their way.
This isn't Burger King, and the 49ers shouldn't get to have everything their way, but that's what our city council majority has allowed.
Posted by SantaClaraTaxpayer on January 13, 2010 06:15 PM
The Mercury News is also guilty of not mentioning the $330 million from the City of Santa Clara agency.
As eager as Moore and Mahan are to get a stadium deal and as compliant as the city workers and most of the other council members are, it is likely that the city's ballot measure would also have been an advocacy piece. Probably not as bad as the one the 49ers are writing, but far from an unbiased presentation of the situation.
The term sheet between the 49ers and the city of Santa Clara shows how deceitful both parties are willing to be. They never list bonds as a necessary funding requirement for the Santa Clara Stadium Authority. Don't even list it as a possibility.
Posted by ConcernedInSantaClara on January 14, 2010 07:25 PM
Please see Rich Lieberman's report on Andy Dolich leaving the 49ers as COO.
http://richliebermanreport.blogspot.com/2010/01/49ers-santa-clara-stadium-deal-doa-as.html
Here's the start of the article:
"Andy Dolich' sudden departure as COO for the 49ers signifies the end of the team's pursuit of Santa Clara for its dream stadium. Not that the stadium had any realistic chance of making it past the ballot proposition and even at that, coming to fruition."
