Just $74 for land and infrastructure? That's a helluva deal!

If Silicon Valley is the heart of the giants territory than they should have built their ballpark in San Jose---not in some outpost like SF---poor biz decisions by the giants shouldn't influence whether or not the A's can move to SJ--

If Silicon Valley is the heart of the giants territory than they should have built their ballpark in San Jose---not in some outpost like SF---poor biz decisions by the giants shouldn't influence whether or not the A's can move to SJ--

Everybody's a comedian. (Fixed now, thanks, Brian.)

Typical nonsense out of the Stadium Spenders - they just got through telling us Santa Clarans that we "can afford" to subsidize a $1,000,000,000 stadium for the 49ers, because it can be used for every other sport including lacrosse and badminton.

Come to find out that, now that Santa Clarans have approved Measure J, that can be used to bootstrap another wasteful ballpark on the San Jose side of the line.

A ballpark that San Joseans can't even afford.

C'mon, Stadium Gang - do we have a multi-use stadium or don't we?

Or are the Stadium Spenders still exhaling the same hot air about stadiums and what cities "owe" to millionaires' vanity teams? I'd say that the "booster crowd" can't decide what lie to tell next.

Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair.org

-=0=-

Sounds like sour grapes BB---and don't even begin to try and compare the two deals from a financial perspective--the focus of the article was recognizing Silicon Valley as the hub of the Bay Area---something NFL realizes and now more likely so will MLB--

Bill I think you've misread what the article is getting at. If the voters of Santa Clara were willing to support a partially publicly financed stadium (be it $114 million or the total amount of both the direct and stadium authority subsidy) then the voters of San Jose are likely to be very willing to support a ballpark in San Jose that is not wasteful but is actually 100% privately financed.

Have the phrase "100% privately financed" and the name "Lew Wolff" ever appeared (ok, been implied...) together in print before? Just wondering...

As far as I'm concerned, if no tax money is going into (or being diverted by) a sports stadium, they can build 100 NFL stadia in my neighbourhood...

Funny, though, I don't hear bulldozers...

If there were no direct tax implications (IE: public money going private) to professional sports facilities, there would be no propositions or referenda on them. It would simply be a zoning matter for the cities in question to review (as I believe was the case w Meadowlands II). The fact that we keep having endless propaganda campaigns and faux plebiscites rather suggests that public money (or a guarantee against loss etc) is very much involved.

Rather funny responses out of Dan and out of San Jose As - the VERY Mercury News article itself DOES compare the two deals.

You might have done better to have read between the lines: "We've suckered Santa Clarans into subsidizing an NFL team; just betcha we can sucker San Joseans into giving land to an MLB team."

Looks like it's pretty clear from the original material - as well as from what Neil wrote.

Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair.org

-=0=-

John, actually the SJ council has said they'd put it before the voters even as is (ie: privately financed) because of the scale of the project. They don't want to foist something as large as a baseball stadium on their constituents without going through the ballot process.

As for suckering SJ Bill, San Jose is buying the land and then some in that area with or without the ballpark. They've already been purchasing land in that area for several years now which makes sense with the need for improved traffic flow in the area currently to say nothing of when some combo of BART, HSR and/or a ballpark come into the area as well.

And even IF the land is used for a ballpark, it will be leased to the team. They'll have to pay for the privilege of playing there. Just because Santa Clara may have been boned (or bone headed) doesn't mean the same thing is happening in San Jose.

I'm not willing to accept a narrative that the stadium opponents are "lost causers" who will be magnanimously accepted back into the fold if we admit we lost a fair fight.

The fact of the matter is that the election was a fait accompli from the get go. The council decided that there weren't to be any spending limits on the campaign. They did this because they didn't want a fair process and you'd have to be blind not to have seen that. That they were in the 49ers camp for three years was beyond obvious.

I could accept the election itself as being fair if resonable spending limits had been adopted, such as $50K a side (which still would have allowed the proponents a 2:1 advantage). But the reality was that the spending was several million to $20K.

Therefore I now see the election as a conspiracy--a high jacking of process. Because of that no one can tell me "you lost-get over it." It's akin to the scene in Monty Python about [let's not be] "quibbling about who killed whom."

Dan may want to check the front pages of the San Jose Mercury News before making any claims about taxpayers not paying "anything" for an A's stadium in San Jose. The value of the land now being furiously bought up by your own Redevelopment Agency - for a ballpark and transit connections which may never become reality - is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Go ahead: Hand it all off to the A's for free, then keep telling yourself that you're going to make this big deal with Lew Wolff - and you'll be bitterly disappointed at how little San Joseans are really going to get in return.

With the atrocious fiscal shape that San Jose is now in: A baseball park is a sucker bet for San Jose - anyway you slice it.

Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair.org

-=0=-

Bill, the only one deluding himself here is you. The land SJ is buying is going to be used for redevelopment projects, projects those funds are designed to go toward, be it the transit projects, ballpark, office buildings, etc... These redevelopment funds cannot by law go toward anything else. So if not use them for redevelopment what do you suggest San Jose do with them? Sit on them? The plan they're instituting is solid in that the city is turning idle redevelopment funds (funds the state of California has now proven more than willing to drain away from the San Jose and all the state's cities if it doesn't use them) into land which will do nothing but accrue value long term regardless of what is sitting on it.

don't believe half of what you read in the local papers and none of what you hear from lou-lou wolff.
he's between a rock (hayward auto plant reopening) and a hard place (gi-ants s.j. territory and their ownership stake in s.j. gi-ants) with no other places to threaten to move to.
stuck in oakland, seems like the a's are a perfect fit with the town described as the "luckiest city since hiroshima"...

btw - if seattle had a new building in '67, finley would have moved the a's there...

"These redevelopment funds cannot by law go toward anything else. So if not use them for redevelopment what do you suggest San Jose do with them? Sit on them?"

If all you get is a net loss, that's exactly what you should do.

And the reason that you're assured of that net loss is the precise issue that you are refusing to address: The fact that the lands you're blowing those RDA monies on are about to be handed over Lew Wolff and the A's for free.

Resolve that issue - then just try and prove that this is some kind of net gain for the City of San Jose.

You can't.

Nice try though.

Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair.org

-=0=-

So BB---has AT&T been the financial disaster for SF that you are predicting for SJ? Exact same types of deals---and look at the development that has been fueled around ATT---all generating revenue for.....the general fund...that's what redevelopment dollars are for---of course your stuck in a mindset of do nothing and somehow magically things will happen anyway--not the way it works in my world---as they say in business...hope is not a strategy--

Paul, it's Lew, not Lou. Second there is no auto plant in Hayward, but there is one in Fremont that would not object to having a ballpark next door any longer based on their own statements. As for the Giants minor league team, their recent purchase of a 25% ownership stake in it was nothing but a ploy to supposedly tie them to the region that they were granted the rights to move to and then largely ignored for 20 years. It will have no bearing on the final decision for the A's move. The bigger question is who is going to sue who, the Giants sue MLB or the city of San Jose sue MLB.

Bill you keep insisting that the land will be "handed" to the team. What part of the team leasing the land from the city (and the city still owning it) does not compute? And what part of the land also being used for HSR, BART and several parking garages for HSR, BART, downtown SJ, and the SJ Arena and the potential ballpark does not compute? Particularly in light of the fact those funds are doing nothing right now but waiting to be poached by the state government? Are you seriously suggesting a better use of these hard earned city funds is to go to be wasted on the state's coffers rather than toward what they were designated for on several redevelopment projects including a land purchase that would actually grow their value long term?

Show me the exact terms of that lease - and I'll show you a total giveaway to Lew Wolff.

Also, you're using a mess of ancillary "development" in order to bootstrap your atrocious decision to back a ballpark in San Jose.

All being done by a Redevelopment Agency that the San Jose Mercury itself conceded some months ago to be bordering on bankruptcy.

That's what "does not compute."

Rgds,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair.org

-=0=-

San Jose A's: AT&T has not one thing to do with the nonsense being peddled in San Jose.

As for your cute little tagline, "hope is not a strategy," you just proved my point: Subsidized sports palaces benefit only their millionaire owners - not the cities that pay the bills for them.

Rgds,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair.org

-=0=-

Bill your continuing to misrepresent the San Jose situation just because you're upset Santa Clara passed the stadium doesn't do you any credit. ATT Park and the San Jose situation are nearly identical. City has the land and is going to lease it to the team. The team is going to build the stadium just like ATT Park.

As for what you see as ancillary development I suspect most people wouldn't see the High Speed Rail or BART as ancillary to anything. And of course you're ignoring that the land is being purchased with or without the ballpark being built.

Well, purchasing land and using it for a stadium are two different things — there's the opportunity cost of what else you could have done with it. Not saying that a stadium isn't the best use, but you do need to weigh it against the alternatives, not just a vacant piece of land.

Speaking of which, Dan, where are you getting the info that Wolff would pay rent to San Jose for the land? Yes, there's been media mention of "leasing" the land to the A's, but that could just as easily be something where Wolff calls his stadium bond payments lease payments, a la the Yankees, as real rent. Again, not saying they couldn't be paying rent, but I haven't been able to find any documents (or even promises by Wolff) about who'd be paying who to whom for what.

If a San Jose A's deal ends up looking like AT&T Park, I think most people would be happy with it. But without a real financial plan to go on — and none likely until the Giants thing is resolved — it's hard to say whether it'd be a good deal or not.

Neil- of course nothing has been negotiated because the A's still haven't been blessed to move to San Jose--but the "structure of the deal" that has been discussed by the Mayor and even LW uses references to ATT. Relative to opportunity costs---this area is old warehouses, tv studio that went out of biz, meat packing that closed down, and several surface parking lots. The arena was built 20 years ago--and nothing has changed in the general vicinity where the ballpark is being proposed. Brining 2.5M fans into the downtown core on an annual basis near term is much more desirable to many than waiting another 20 years for the possibility of corporate towers and housing--not to mention what it does in terms of increasing marketing for conventions etc.

@BB--damn--taking that loss in Santa Clara pretty hard--you should try and follow Council member Kennedy's lead and learn to accept the will of the people. Relative to ATT not having a thing to do with what will happen in SJ--your clueless Bill---stick to Santa Clara issues---if you can't draw from the success 50 miles up the road in a non-sports town than you really are a very limited individual-

Sounds like Aize and Dan could stand to actually look at the San Jose ballpark on its own (lack of) merits.

Your city's $116 million in the hole. Your RDA is close to broke. The last thing in the world you need is a ballpark - but hey, it's your city, so go ahead.

And again: AT&T Park has not a thing to do with San Jose. You can try and pump up a losing deal in San Jose with what happened in S.F. - but you're really not fooling anybody here. Two different venues, two different mixes of businesses and residents, two different transit models...and, like that.

But the biggest reason why this is a loser for San Jose should be clear from the coverage of the land "deals" for the ballpark that appeared in your very own hometown daily - look up "Hitch in A's Plan: Cash," SJMN, Sunday, April 25th, 2010, and note that the cost (alone) of acquiring the land is almost sure to go way past the $72,000,000 they've estimated so far.

As of late April: They'd already spent more than $24 million they didn't have to get about half of the area they need.

It's the San Jose Redevelopment Agency we've come to know and love: They're prepared to shut down businesses, evict anybody in their way and very possibly seize what they can't buy through eminent domain.

Can you say, "Tropicana"?

And after all of that: They're still being cagey about how a land lease to the A's is even going to pay San Jose a positive return - after they've paid more than ***$5 million an acre*** to acquire all of the 14 acres (ballpark parcels + Autumn St. alignments).

This is pretty much why an MLB ballpark doesn't work in your city any better than an NFL stadium does in mine, guys.

Nice try, though.

Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair.org

-=0=-

So this is a very interesting and potentially informative debate, but can I request that everyone involved tone down the rancor a couple of notches? I just had to delete one comment because it crossed the line from political arguments to personal attacks (even more so than the person who called someone else "clueless" above, which I let stand as a borderline call), and I won't hesitate to do so again if I have to.

On the web, as I'm sure everyone here is familiar with, there's a fine line between impassioned debate and screaming at each other. One of my jobs here is to point out that line, and it looks like we've reached it. Everyone please take a deep breath and then we can resume debating the fine points of stadium leases...

Maybe the A's baseball stadium does make more sense for SJ then the 49ers for SC. I mean, that's really, really possible.

However, proponents for the SJ stadium are using the same "use it or lose it" arguement employed by SC stadium backers for RDA funds. I can't pretend to have a more than sketchy knowledge of RDAs, but my understanding is that if a RDA is allowed to expire, then there's no danger of a RDA grab by the state.

"if a RDA is allowed to expire, then there's no danger of a RDA grab by the state. "

In fact, that's quite right.

But that didn't stop the 49ers from using this as a scare tactic. They told residents that if they didn't pay millions in subsidies to the 49ers, that Sacramento was going to take away all of the RDA's money.

Even though that claim is absolutely false.

Also: Allowing the North of Bayshore RDA to clock out in the year 2016 would have put millions of dollars into our schools. Yet, in exchange for pennies, the SCUSD voted on Feb. 11th to endorse the stadium subsidy - and to extend that same RDA through the year 2026.

Even though the stadium subsidy causes our City's General Fund to lose $67,000,000.

That loss happens because the RDA can't pay back the City what it owes and still service stadium bonds at the same time. City Staff was very clear about this loss when they presented it to Council - and to all of us - last June 2nd.

So now: A school district has endorsed a subsidy ripoff that actually DELAYS the expiration of an RDA by ten more years, thereby delaying schools funding they claim they badly need.

Go figure.

Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair.org

-=0=-