May 11, 2010
SF Chronicle: Niners stadium opponents say — oh, who cares about them?
The San Francisco Chronicle chimed in yesterday with a long report on the Santa Clara 49ers stadium battle; unfortunately, it largely left out the "news" part, instead opting for a he-said-she-said recounting of the two sides' arguments (opponents: "It'll cost taxpayers more than they're saying!"; 49ers: "Nuh-uh!") without any attempt to determine whose numbers are correct. C'mon, people — I already did all the math for you.
In any case, though, the Chron soon moved on to its main point, which was that it doesn't much matter who's right, as the opponents are doomed to failure in any case:
It's going to be an uphill battle for the stadium opponents. A poll released late last month by the San Jose Mercury News and KGO-TV found that 52 percent of likely voters in Santa Clara supported the stadium plan while 36 percent intended to vote against the measure, and there has been little to suggest the numbers have moved much since then.
The stadium also has the enthusiastic support of government, business and labor leaders in the community, including five of the seven council members, the trustees of the Santa Clara Unified School District, the president of the city's Chamber of Commerce and a variety of other officials.
Curbed immediately picked up on this message, calling the Niners stadium "inevitable." It's so much less work to cover the ponies than the news.
Honestly, when looking into all the details the City of Santa Clara doesn't want the Raiders but if I'm the York family and NFL, I do everything I can to get the Raiders into that stadium. After that they have to work on the Vikings, Chargers, Rams, Bills, Jaguars & Falcons about getting new stadiums.
Lease wise the Vikings & Chargers can just up and leave at any moment. The Rams could technically leave by 2012 if they can't come up with something and pay off St. Louis or just wait out until 2015. The Bills can move once Ralph Wilson passes away and the will sells the asset of the Bills to whoever.
The Jaguars can claim hardship with selling tickets and eventually leave. The owner has flirted with the City of Orlando a couple times and they're going to renovate the Citrus Bowl but I doubt that's NFL-ready after that anyways. Plus, they haven't even started the construction because it's not worth it to them at the moment.
The Falcons can't leave until 2020 but as that year gets closer Arthur Blank will beat his drum but I expect at the end of the day for Atlanta to keep its NFL team. The NFL is the most popular sport in the United States. Cities want to keep there team.
Options will be out there for teams eventually if Santa Clara gets built.
Santa Clara - Become the 2nd tenant of the 49ers Stadium, I look only to two team for that the Oakland Raiders or the San Diego Chargers (who would probably be re-named the San Jose Chargers). Those are the teams I watch out for there. The Bay Area can easily support two teams. I like the prospect of the 49ers/Chargers teaming up together than Raiders.
Los Angeles - If someone is willing to make the sacrifice of their team for "future" earnings at the City of Industry Stadium, they'll go there. Once they break the L.A. market, another team will follow. Every team will be willing to move to Los Angeles. I like the Vikings/Raiders in this situation.
Toronto - I only see the Vikings or Bills really looking into this situation. I think the Bills are the front runners easily though.
Orlando - I only see the Jaguars looking at this site and Los Angeles as Plan B.
San Antonio - The mayor has talked to the Spanos Family before and they would love the Chargers. Honestly I think they would love any NFL at the end of the day. I'm sure they'll keep an eye on the Rams ownership situation as well. They'll either have to build a new Alamodome or do a MAJOR renovation of the current one but I can easily see San Antonio getting into the NFL game. They've been looking at MLB and MLS as well. To me it makes perfect sense to go after a multi-purpose NFL/MLS stadium like Qwest Field and get those sports.
Posted by NFL Relocation on May 11, 2010 06:40 PM
Your wish of the Chargers in the Bay Area is a pipe dream. The Chargers ownership currently wants to be in SD and their friends of Roski in LA. So either SD or LA are the only destination for that team.
As for San Antonio, they're going to have to keep on wishing. The Alamodome is already far too out of date design wise as a permanent dome to satisfy the NFL. And it's way too big and too much of a dome to satisfy MLS (to say nothing of MLS having no interest in that city thus far)
Posted by Dan on May 12, 2010 02:36 AM
I'm really surprised that the SF Chron doesn't have more balanced coverage and coverage that isn't so 'U Rah Rah' for the 49ers, given that the SJ Mercury News stands to become the paper of record for the 49ers if the stadium gets built in Santa Clara, taking away that distinction from the SF Chron.
We recently had a switch in reporters at the SF Chron, and every time that happens, we're back to square one in terms of a reporter not having the background on this project to know what the truth is and what isn't. Case in point, the SF Chron now won't publish about the $67 million loss to our General Fund because the 49ers say there will be no loss (the loss was calculated by our city staff). Even the SJ Mercury News will publish about the $67 million loss.
A new reporter for the Merc reported inaccurately this morning and attributed far more of the stadium construction costs to the 49ers than their actual share of $493 million; at least she corrected it when the inaccuracies were pointed out in the article comments.
Neil-are reporters allergic to reading background information? They come onto a project that's been going on for 3 1/2 years and don't seem to read what's been published before in their own papers much less read FofS and any background information about other NFL stadiums and the financial problems of their host cities.
2 reasons. 1 whether the Niners get a new stadium in Santa Clara or SF they'll still be the paper of record for the San Francisco 49ers. The move to Santa Clara will have no impact on that. Second, the Mercury news is a layoff or two away from folding. They're news department is almost non-existent at this point, and their sports department isn't much better off.
Posted by Dan on May 13, 2010 04:29 PM
Please see Dr. Roger Noll's article in the SF Chronicle on the issues with Measure J, Santa Clara's stadium ballot measure. He goes through the costs and the risks (minus the $67 million general fund loss, which isn't mentioned in the term sheet). His numbers come from the city, which is what stadium opponents are using. The 49ers on the other hand, are hiding most of the costs and controlled our ballot language so that the only cost revealed is the $40 million in redevelopment bonds.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/15/IN1F1DDH14.DTL
Yes, I hate to criticize anyone who reports for a newspaper, as I'm sure morale and pay must be dismal now days. But still one would think that pride alone would make one do some research and be up to speed with the basic aspects and controversy surrounding this highly visible project.
But I concur with SC Taxpayer that the reportage is sloppy and full of omissions. I had an idealistic notion that newspapers should help protect the interests of the average citizens against manipulations of politicians and developers, but if anything the opposite seems true in Santa Clara.
The Merc is probably one punch away from the end and I think it views a 49er move as if not a lifeline, at least something that will help circulation. However, I doubt it will really matter or stave off the inevitable. I tried and tried to support the paper through my subscription, but I finally threw in the towel a few weeks ago...
Yes, I hate to criticize anyone who reports for a newspaper, as I'm sure morale and pay must be dismal now days. But still one would think that pride alone would make one do some research and be up to speed with the basic aspects and controversy surrounding this highly visible project.
But I concur with SC Taxpayer that the reportage is sloppy and full of omissions. I had an idealistic notion that newspapers should help protect the interests of the average citizens against manipulations of politicians and developers, but if anything the opposite seems true in Santa Clara.
The Merc is probably one punch away from the end and I think it views a 49er move as if not a lifeline, at least something that will help circulation. However, I doubt it will really matter or stave off the inevitable. I tried and tried to support the paper through my subscription, but I finally threw in the towel a few weeks ago...
Unfortunately for Santa Clarans, the SJ Merc is part of a larger newsgroup that gets its Santa Clara news from the SJ Merc, and won't publish anything that contradicts the SJ Merc. The Merc is also affiliated with the TV station KGO. They partnered for the survey a few weeks ago - a survey that suspiciously had the 'for' the stadium results jump an amazing amount from 40% to 52%. It was presented as an independent survey, but when the company paying for it (Merc) has endorsed the stadium and is pushing it heavily because the company (Merc) stands to financially benefit, and chose the language of the ballot measure to not mention the costs, then the survey is not independent.
The Merc is now also running shadowy online ads for a few seconds upon logging in - a tall, narrow ad of the stadium drawing shows up in purple/grey with the words 'no city taxes' in white, then the whole thing fades quickly. It seems one step away from subliminal advertising.
And the 49ers latest campaign piece is a door hanger for the absentee ballot voters. It looks like it is official and comes from the city - there's a partial picture of the city seal and 'The city of Santa Clara welcomes you' sign and its says 'you can make a big difference in our community's future' then on the back it gives instructions for filling out the absentee ballot to vote yes for the stadium. Throughout this whole campaign the 49ers have tried to deceive voters into thinking that Measure J is about schools/jobs/economic activity. As much as possible they have tried to disconnect the campaign from what it really is - giving a public subsidy to an extremely wealthy private corporation. They controlled our ballot language to not disclose the costs, and they took away our right to vote on a change to our city charter to give themselves a better chance of winning this election. What type of partners would they be to the city over the long term if the stadium passes?
Posted by SantaClaraTaxpayer on May 16, 2010 11:00 AM
And that's exactly what I think the newspaper s/b involved in exposing: the dirty underhanded tactics the 49ers have used in trying to turn the election their way. But that hasn't happened.
Nor has there been an article about what's happened in other cities with an SA in trouble.
In short virtually nothing critical of the stadium outside of the reader's letters and the Kennedy/McLeod opinion piece has been published.
And it's obvious that the TV stations read the papers before deciding on the stories they want to run. The bias of TV reportage that I've seen is strongly in favor of the stadium.
There are also financial connections with the TV stations, such as between the Merc and KGO who partnered for the 'survey' that wasn't independent.
I just found Neil's congressional testimony on stadium subsidies- it applies to Santa Clara's situation. Hey Neil - did they ever implement any of the suggestions you made to Congress?
http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/documents/20070329144749-35526.pdf
