One of the more interesting parts of the Santa Clara / 49ers deal are the loans the team will provide.

Neither the $35M hotel tax contribution nor the city redevelopment contribution can be made in full, up front. So the 49ers loan the money at 8%. I'm sure Neil has seen this type of scheme before but I almost fell over.

The 49ers have the money to fund construction but instead of using it for construction, they loan it to Santa Clara at 8% so the city can pay for the construction plus interest. Amazing.

Somewhere, Ben Bernanke is smiling with delight.

Well, consider the amount of revenue that the stadium will bring in. Game days, special events, concerts, most likely a Super Bowl...that's a lot of economic stimulus brought about by having a nice new stadium. Is it not right that the team generate some revenue from adding that value into the city? I certainly think so.

Definitely makes more sense to build a stadium at the current Coliseum site in Oakland than shoehorning one into the Great America parking lot which is surrounded by high tech industrial parks and single family homes.

This was a poor survey not only because a sample size of 200 is too small for 46,000 voters, but because the question doesn't mention any of the costs (I realize this is our ballot question, which has been manipulated just like the initiative was to leave out the numbers). But the ballot paperwork will have the Term Sheet attached, and the ballot arguments, which will have numbers.

Today on KGO 810 am in the SF bay area there was an hour on the stadium (2-3 pm time slot). At the end of the hour, Kevin Moore, council member from Santa Clara, was on, and Gil Gross, the moderator asked Kevin to explain how Santa Clara was going to make up for the $114 million direct subsidy. Kevin couldn't answer the question, LOL, because the return on investment to the city budget is terrible from the stadium. There's also the $67 million loss to the General Fund as redevelopment property taxes are siphoned off for stadium debt instead of to the General Fund. Kevin also said that there's $40 million in guaranteed rent payments to the General Fund- that's false, the city's own numbers show that it's $8 million over 40 years in rent from the Stadium Authority to the city.

And the bond interest debt on the Stadium Authority bonds is estimated to be >$20 million/year, and the rent the 49ers will pay to play in the stadium, $5 million/year, is less than the estimated insurance premium of $6 million/year. So who will pay the annual bond debt and the operating costs???

There will be people making some money from the stadium (Mostly the Yorks) but the city won't be making money, the city will sustain a loss to its General Fund, which pays for police, fire, paramedics, libraries, parks and rec, senior center, and all of the city services and city staff salaries. What cuts to the city's services and staff do Santa Clarans want in order to pay for the stadium? That's the choice we face, although the 49ers and our city council majority won't admit it.

Dan, I certainly don't agree with you. You seem to be implying that the 49ers would almost be doing the city a favor by taking our money and locating here. This is patently ridiculous.

Revenue associated with any project doesn't mean much if expenses exceed it. Any commonsensical analysis of this project show it to be a big loser for the city as a whole. To date, not one proponent has been able to refute this claim.

What I found more interesting than the article in the Chron itself was reader reactions to it. They were overwhelmingly negative on the stadium. What this leads me to believe, if one accepts that the proposal is in fact deadlocked, is that supporters of the scam are largely a non-literate subset of the population.

Yes, Thomas you're right about the absurdity of the city paying 8.5% on a loan from the 49ers for to help to build their stadium.

It's kind of like paying for privilege of being a great man's mistress.

Santa Clara Taxpayer,

Nothing that's come out of Kevin Moore's mouth has made any sense to date. Is there going to be a miracle in the future?

Class comment SC Jay----those that have a differing view and support the stadium are "non-literate subset of the population"---ironic in that they are the wealthier ones--those making more than $70k/year lean strongly towards the stadium---damn all those "non-literate" wealthy people who have vision

In response to John: Sure the Yorks/49ers have a right to generate a profit from their organization. However, why should it be the obligation of taxpayers to assist them with substantially increasing their net worth by providing them with a new stadium? Contrary to what most believe, the 49ers belong to the Yorks. This being the case, they should assume 100% of all associated business risks. Let them, and their NFL colleagues, build a new stadium for the 49ers.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the self-reporting of income for this survey. First, 'refused' was one category and 'don't know' was another, and they lumped those in with some of the other income categories instead of splitting them out. You have to go to the Lindholm website to see and click around for the details:
http://lindholmcompanyblog.com/?p=2662

And the highest incomes were lumped with the very lowest, which dilutes the results. And only the highest income earners will be able to afford personal seat licenses and tickets.

Second, people can mis-report their income for a variety for a variety of reasons, including maintaining their privacy, and there is no way for the survey people to know whether or not the data are correct.

And third, again, 200 is too small a sample size for 46,000 voters. The margin of error is 7%, which is large.

Finally, the question they asked did not include anything about a public subsidy for the stadium, and all of the independent polls have shown that a majority of people say 'no' when asked if they support a public subsidy of the stadium.

If the A's are looking at a privately financed stadium, why aren't the 49ers?

Jay you seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm saying that it would make more sense for the Niners to leave Santa Clara alone completely and go to a location that is much more suited for the stadium where the current Coliseum is located in Oakland. They wouldn't be taking any money from Santa Clara in doing that.

As for this poll not being a good representation of the city, yes the sample size is small. And yes they didn't include numbers. But if support for the stadium is waning even without mentioning the numbers, which are a substantial drain on SC city resources, it doesn't bode well for the Niners chances of getting a stadium built in Santa Clara.

What has also been overlooked is that the same group also poll San Jose voters on their opinion of an A's move to San Jose. And that poll saw a substantial increase of support from a nearly 45-45% split previously to 53% for to 37% against the A's moving to San Jose. It seems the pendulum is swinging toward San Jose supporting the A's pending baseball granting them the rights to move.

A total lack of meaningful information provided in the question, a non-representative sample size, little or no information on how the participants were selected, and a vague question underpinning it all.

Oh yeah, this is democracy...

As the poll taker mentions, this is just to gauge general reactions to the two questions. Questions which have been asked before with similar language and in the case of the SC stadium they used the current version of the language that will be on the actual ballot (unless it's changed). They even admit both have a margin of error of 7%. However both the SC and SJ polls are somewhat telling in that they both reveal trends that stadium support in SC is wavering, and support for the ballpark in SJ is growing (and indeed the SJ ballpark is growing in support even outside the margin of error with the 53-35% for it.

Ask Santa Clarans how they feel about a $1B stadium for which they'll be paying and raising $444M in subsidies - but don't talk about the money once?

A survey using only the 49ers own "bought-and-paid-for" ballot initiative just doesn't tell the whole story.

Also, the surveyors are essentially saying that 90 voters, each side, somehow get to decide the question for 46,000 other voting Santa Clarans. That's a bit of a stretch - hence the +/- 7% margin of error.

The really important question is this: When asked if they're willing to squander hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies only for a millionaire NFL team owner, Santa Clarans consistently weigh in with big NOs.

And the San Francisco 49ers just can't take that.

Tough, ain't it?

Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-

We have a nice a new Stadium waiting for them in L.A.

Santa Clara will pass the stadium. The York's will pay an ACORN type group to rig the election in their favor. After that the 49ers/Raiders will have a new stadium to play in after 2014. This will also get the push going for the San Jose Ballpark for the Athletics.

A lot of the leagues need to get new stadiums for their teams, NFL needs them for the Niners/Raiders/Chargers/Vikings, NBA needs them for the Nets/Kings/Bucks/Timberwolves, NHL needs them for the Islanders/Oilers and MLB needs them for the Atheltics/Rays. Almost all the leagues will get them from that city or they'll get it from another city with a state-of-the-art facility.

Such as Santa Clara Stadiums, City of Industry Stadium, Sprint Center, Barclays Center, San Jose Ballpark and Tampa Bay Ballpark (or Possibly New Jersey Ballpark).

Granted, maybe all of those teams really, REALLY, need ***$1,000,000,000*** stadiums of their very own.

But why should we as taxpayers end up paying hundreds of millions of dollars just to have them?

Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer
Santa Clara Plays Fair

-=0=-

A very good question, Mr. Bailey. At least thus far, the answer seems to be "because we'll take our ball and go home if you don't".

Surely, as time marches on, that will be exposed as a complete lie. Perhaps in the NFL there are still markets that both want and can support the product (though I question that, beyond LA), but certainly for MLB, the NHL and (to a lesser extent) the NBA, there are no new homes that would be advantageous moves for clubs barring staggering public subsidy.

Quite why municipal officials feel the need to bid against themselves to keep an asset that isn't really 'theirs' (except when the bills come in) baffles me. None of the businessmen practicing this brand of extortion would fall to these tactics... yet they expect us to.

All matters involving building fixed assets to be used (and controlled) by private businesses should go to plebiscite. If the voters agree to it, then so be it. This business of lobbyists polling a few friends to gauge public opinion is simply a joke.

John it's always seemed quite simple to me. In cities that have teams currently no municipal official wants to be the one that tells a large chunk of voters who are fans of such and such team in their town that the team is moving away. To do so would be political suicide in many cities. Or at the very least very detrimental to their chances at re-election. In towns that don't have teams they do it because they want their city to be in the "big time" and want a "legacy" to their time in office.

-City of San Francisco have been promoting one ridiculous stadium plan after another for almost 2 decades. The 49ers finally got fed up and starting looking around other communities.
-Only 8% of session ticket holders currently at Candlestick live in San Francisco. Many more live in the Silicon Valley area. 49ers simply want to move to where the money and support is at.
-Sharing a stadium with Raiders in Oakland is nonsensical at best. Even the ridiculous Treasure Island proposal is very poorly conceived. (Yerba Buena island would have to be turned into one massive on and off ramp)
-I don't think 49er fans don't want to see their team sharing a stadium with Raiders anyway, even in Santa Clara.

1. It shouldn't be the obligation for the City of San Francisco, nor the City of Santa Clara, to build a stadium for a private entity such as the 49ers. The only reason they're targeting Santa Clara, is because its the ONLY municipal government foolish enough to offer the Yorks/49ers million of dollars in taxpayer subsidies and publicly issued debt.

2. Until you can provide evidence as to where every season ticket holder lives, your point is moot. The 49ers issued that value without any concrete evidence to support their assertion. The 49ers are going where the taxpayer money is.

3. The 49er & Raiders will never share a stadium. Al Davis will make sure of it.

4. That would be up to the 49ers. However, how will Santa Clara pay the debts of the stadium if it fails to generate sufficient revenues?