Well, the Sac City Council voted to give Taylor-ICON 90 days to come up with a proposal last night.

www.sacbee.com/2011/02/09/3388167/council-chooses-developer-taylor.html

What happened to giving them two weeks, two weeks ago?

Will everyone just take a deep breath and have a little faith that we're not going to lie to people?
- typical huckster line, this should make everyone involved run away as fast as possible. what has he done to rate that "faith"?
lies, obfuscation and slight-of-hand are the tools of modern day trojan horse stadium scams.

My favorite line is, "Well, that's just the way these deals are done now." I haven't seen that one in print yet, but I cannot see how it's not at least in the pipeline.

We should use Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Memphis and Omaha as our models. Yeah, that's a great idea.

Canada s proposng that Quebec use a share of gas tax proceeds to fund a Quebec arena, see www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2011/02/09/weston-quebec-arena-feds.html

Jerry Brown could call for raisng CA gas taxes to fund arenas & stadiums - it could cut consumption & reduce greenhouse gases!

If Wikileaks is correct about Saudi Arabia then it would be suicide for Brown to raise gas taxes. Prices themselves will be skyrocketing in the next 12-24 months.

Take a good hard look at the stadium campaign in Santa Clara last spring. There is no truth in advertising requirement for political campaigns. They can say 'No cost to taxpayers' all they want in a campaign, it isn't a contract, so it's not a guarantee. It's just political speech to get a ballot measure to pass. They'll say whatever taxpayers want to here - it doesn't have to be true.

In addition, in California's state code there is no legal requirement for cost disclosure on city ballot measures like there is for state and county ballot measures. Santa Clarans found out in court on April 4, 2010 that they have no right to full stadium cost disclosure on ballot materials, because of this loophole in the law for city-wide ballot measures.

Combine a wealthy entity that wants a stadium built with public funds with elected officials that want the stadium - no matter what the cost/risk/losses/debt - with a campaign that misleads voters into thinking they're going to get a billion dollar stadium for free and no legal requirement for cost disclosure on ballot materials- and you can hoodwink voters into giving a gift of public funds for a stadium. This system needs to get fixed before any more communities are fleeced.

Any way u slice it, its only a matter of time before the NFL is back in Los Angeles! Justifiably so... Just out've curiosity, how can anybody be critical of AEG??? These r the same people that built Staple Center & L.A Live!! I guess everything went horribly wrong with those projects, huh??!! Unless somebody has a better idea of getting a stadium built here in L.A, I suggest u stop being obstructionists & shut up!

How is it that in every discussion about stadiums there is always one guy that just tells everyone else to shut up and let the taxpayers get taken to the cleaners. I am also from L.A. and I also miss having the NFL here but if this isn't a good deal for my tax money then why do it? So you have someone to root for? So you don't have to drive to San Diego? Stop being angry at people who don't want to waste their tax money. I would prefer mine went to schools, police, and firemen. Keep the government out of sports. It's the NFL's fault there's no team in L.A. Not the taxpayers fault.

Dear H. Alan,

You have too limited a view of things. A stadium may not strictly speaking appear to be a "good" deal for your city. But you got to think about all the wonderful economic activity it will generate. That's what really matters.

E-mail the mayor of Santa Clara and it will all be explained to you.

Dang you got me again Jay. The Santa Clara mayor confirmed they will use magic if needed but that it will be awesome.

To Mr H. Alan,
I reiterate, these r the same people that built Staples Center & L.A Live... Do u see anything that went horribly wrong with those projects??!! Try to open your mind a little & think what the south park area(which is where those projects r located) of Los Angeles would look like if those projects wouldnt have come to fruition??!! Exactly, it would be an armpit of an area(which is precisely what it looked like prior to those developments)! These people r basically offering to do the same thing all over again with the downtown stadium, considering how everything resulted with their last project, how can u object??! If I recall correctly, there was a councilman by the name of Joel Wachs(obstructionist) who tried to interfere with the Staples Center project back in 1999 by saying how terrible this project would be and how the taxpayers of L.A would get screwed! So much for that theory, he was sooo wrong he left L.A and moved to New York(good riddance)! All im saying is if u have a better idea in further developing that area while also bringing back the NFL back to L.A, im all ears...... If not, please dont interfere! Thank you

You really need to stop making this comparison because it does not hold up. The Staples Center came with a much smaller public price tag and now houses 3 teams that host 120+ games per year. A football stadium will house 1 team that will host 10 games a year.

The stadium proponents in Santa Clara keep pointing to how well the SJ Arena has worked out in San Jose. While I don't know if the Arena has resulted in a great amount of returns in the city's coffers, it has had a high rate of utilization (well over 100 dates a year). It also cost much, much less than a NFL stadium will.

I think the more germane comparison is other NFL stadiums that have been built in recent years. It's pretty much a zero sum game-the government gives, and the team takes (NFL owners are tough individualists until it comes time for government handouts).

A good place for bottomline to start his/her research would be this very website...

I don't see how you believe an NFL stadium will generate enough economic activity to pay the debts a town like Santa Clara will be able to afford. If your theory were correct, all these other new NFL stadiums wouldn't be having so many financial problems and needing taxpayer bailouts.
As for the San Jose Arena, the City of San Jose doesn't profit from the facility. An arena management group, operated by the San Jose Sharks, manages HP Pavilion. They profit from the arena's events. San Jose receives rent from the management group which pays for the debt service. Perhaps the city benefits from additional sales taxes, but that's barely a drop in the bucket for San Jose's general fund.

First of all, the stadium would not only be used for football games! It would be built with a retractable roof so it would also be used for "Final Four Games", soccer(world cup) games, concerts, championship fights, & other convention center related events! The developers have already guarranteed that they wouldn't use any taxpayer $$, it would be completely privately financed. Which is exactly how they financed Staples Center! By the way, thats also how they built L.A Live, which cost more than what the stadium would cost. For all the negative commentary i've heard(seen), i've yet to hear any kind of positive alternative!

bottomline: Would you like to buy a bridge? The proposed NFL stadium will require The City of Los Angeles to issue $350 million in debt instruments. Now, what return has the City of Los Angeles received from LA Live? Do you have that information. Los Angeles is on the verge of fiscal insolvency.

Information relative to LA Live:

"In addition to agreeing to forgo as much as $270 million in room-tax revenues from the hotel over 25 years, the Community Redevelopment Agency agreed to a $16 million below-market loan, and the city has authorized $4 million in fee waivers."

I'm sure the near-broke City of Los Angeles could have used that money.

Bottomline is reiterating the exact same arguments that SC Stadium proponents have been using about glorious alternative events that will take place in a future 49ers home.

The term sheet lists an average of 17 events, but a plausible listing of them is laughable.

Try naming some concerts and championship fights that are going to fill a football stadium. World Cup, yeah, maybe a few games in 20 years or so (and then again maybe not).

Basically proponent stadium hucksterism reminds me of "rain follows the plow" logic utilized by 19th century land promoters.

I'd say a positive alternative would be for the city not to waste its money.

LA Live is heavily dependent on continuous entertainment. When there's nothing going on at Staples Center, there isn't much activity around the complex. A football stadium in LA would be a huge waste of taxpayer money, in spite of any developer's word it won't cost us anything. Honestly, the NFL needs us more than we need them. We're the second largest TV market in the country. They should be kissing up to us and not the other way around.

Conceivably, if this stadium could lure UCLA football and the occasional Mexico National Team game away from the Rose Bowl, they could at least capture sales tax revenue from those events away from Pasadena.

I don't know how tight the Bruins are with the Rose Bowl, but Farmers Field would be closer to campus and would eventually be linked by the Expo Line to Westwood.

Mexico NT's friendly games in the US are promoted by SUM--a soccer promotion arm founded by MLS owners, which AEG is a large stakeholder in--so I think future Mexico friendlies in LA would for sure be held at Farmers. Mexico plays about a half dozen games a year in the US. At the most, I could see two of those going to LA a year. Add in a Galaxy friendly vs a top Euro club per year (which they've been doing for several years in a row at the Rose Bowl now) and a Mexican club team friendly vs a top Euro club per year, and that's 4 games. Add in a biennial Gold Cup fixture or two involving Mexico, and that's an average of 5 potential sell out soccer games they could host a year.

If both of these properties could be captured, I can see 7-10 regular additional events per year from outside of the city that could sell out the stadium besides NFL.

Unrealistic in hoping that would pay the debts of a close to $1 billion stadium. UCLA is locked into a long term lease at the Rose Bowl. It won't expire until 2042. Given there already exists two large venues for hosting soccer events, there will be competition in attracting major soccer matches. The LA Coliseum, and the Rose Bowl, no longer have mortgages. Their expenses will be considerably Each of them can undercut the hosting fee of Farmers Field. I doubt if the Mexican National Teams will care what stadium they play at. Their promoters will care most about maximizing their profits.

Unrealistic in hoping that would pay the debts of a close to $1 billion stadium. UCLA is locked into a long term lease at the Rose Bowl. It won't expire until 2042. Given there already exists two large venues for hosting soccer events, there will be competition in attracting major soccer matches. The LA Coliseum, and the Rose Bowl, no longer have mortgages. Their expenses will be considerably Each of them can undercut the hosting fee of Farmers Field. I doubt if the Mexican National Teams will care what stadium they play at. Their promoters will care most about maximizing their profits.

Actually, mortgages are a fixed cost, since you have to pay them regardless of how many games you host. So whether the stadiums still have mortgages or not shouldn't affect the hosting fees.

Thanks for the info on UCLA, I figured there was probably something keeping them long term at the Rose Bowl since I never hear their team thrown into the mix with regard to the new stadium.

Re: the soccer, you missed the part where I said SUM (of which AEG is a large stakeholder), is the promoter of Mexican NT exhibition matches in the US. There are other promoters which put on soccer exhibitions in LA, but the only properties that can consistently sellout a large stadium in LA flow through SUM.

I am also a skeptic on the stadium paying for itself, I was just trying to make an educated guess on what kinds of regular events could be targeted besides NFL from outside the city boundary, if this stadium were built.

Neil: Not having the tremendous amount of overhead costs, including mortgages normally associated with new NFL stadiums, would give the LA Coliseum, or Rose Bowl, a competitive advantage in holding soccer events. Realistically, they can offer cheaper rent to the promoters. However, a handful of annual soccer matches will not generate the considerable amounts of money required to pay the fixed costs of a $1 billion stadium.

I agree with taxpayempoffs comment above. I also think the the gate receipts from a exhibition soccer match (even if a sellout) would be far lower than a NFL game.

To taxpayerripoffs,
I must say your knowledge on the topic is very impressive. However, i have a question for u... First of all, r u trying to tell us that Staples Center and L.A Live were bad investments??? If so, instead of criticizing and finding fault in everything what alternative did u have??? If u remember what the area looked like then & what it looks like now, i think you'll be hard pressed in finding anyone that will side with u(in spite of the debt#. Also, remember that these r businessmen, of course they're not going to invest in something if there isnt a profit in it, would u??!! If u look around the country where other sports facilities were built, i think you'll agree that the way it was built here was arguablly the best way#keep in mind, i said best not perfect)! Lastly, as i stated earlier, if u have a better suggestion or alternative, im sure the mayor & the city council would love to hear from u.....

It really depends. Has the City of Los Angeles received a return on investment for the $58.5 million in taxpayer funds which were allocated for the Staples Center arena? If not, then who is profitting the most? Ditto for LA Live. Granted, the site looks better than before. However, unless there's a postive return of the public's investment, consider it a loss.
My suggestion to the LA mayor & city council? Don't spend one dime of taxpayer money on building an NFL stadium, whether its direct or indirect.

I think yur way of looking at things r much too simplistic. U r completely overlooking some very important elements! Keep in mind anytime u(or anyone) makes an investment, there r always risks involved! Especially if yur talking about projects of this magnitude. Take for example the development of Staples Center, where the city invested $58.5 million to build it. Do u realize that is approximately 16% of the total cost?! If u look around nationwide u will notice cities investing much much more than that without ever seeing any kind of return! I am also quite certain that the city of L.A has recouped much of that investment thru property tax increments. Is this a perfect, no-risk project?? Of course not, but considering all other options that r on the table, i think its definitely worth looking into.... Otherwise, we can do what i think yur suggesting & just sit back for another 16 years to see if something better comes along??!! What do u think?

In a nutshell, bottomline, is you're advocating corporate welfare for sports team owners. If the City of Los Angeles has recouped the taxpayer share of the Staples Center project, where is the proof? Los Angeles has been without the NFL for 16 years? Have they really been missed that much? Frankly, given the area is the 2nd largest television viewing market, they need Southern California more than we need them. Let their $9 billion per year industry pay for new stadiums and assume all the risk.

Exactly, the NFL can afford to build, operate and pay taxes on their own stadiums.

bottomline's viewpoint is what's depressingly common in my town. People like football, see all the publicity it gets and assume that it means lots of money [to the host city].

Even Jed York admitted that the Santa Clara stadium wouldn't make the city any money, but that we should view it like supporting a fine arts organization.

Neil, I wish you'd bring back those coffee mugs with the Art Modell quote about sports teams and libraries. I'd like another chance to get one. Our fine city library will be closed Friday, Saturday, and Sunday due to budget concerns while payments to lawyers, consultants, and city staff RE the stadium continue unabated.

The mugs are still available!

www.cafepress.com/fieldofschemes.19498927

Corporate welfare?? My viewpoint is whats depressingly common in my town?? Give me a break!! Last time I checked, the 3 NFL teams that play in California play in the most antiquated facilities in the nation! Is it any wonder that all 3 r looking to move??!! U people r the reason y projects get delayed or scrapped altogether! If it would"ve been up to u the south park area where Staples Center presently sits would still be a GHETTO! Bottomline(no pun intended), I've heard plenty of criticism and negative viewpoints about this project but I have yet to have heard any kind of alternative or better solution!!! Seriously, instead of being obstructionists y dont u people suggest a better option(s)??!!

I didn't realize it was incumbent upon me to "suggest a better option."

I was only thinking about the sorry situation with taxpayer subsidized pro-football stadiums nationwide. It really shouldn't be my concern that teams in CA play in less than state of the art palaces to begin with. How I wish I had enough influence to derail the SC project. How sports stadiums have come to be a supposed government function is something I'll never understand and object to.

My point in an earlier post was that my city council and professional staff is absolutely fixated on toadying up to the York family while the library is closed for more and more days.

If all the three CA teams move people will survive. It won't be a tragedy. Maybe people will even figure out a better way to spend their Sunday afternoons.

Okay, I'll bite on "suggesting a better option": How about instead of spending $350 million on tearing down and rebuilding a convention center hall, Los Angeles instead spend it on schoolteacher salaries? Not because schoolteachers are more deserving of taxpayer dollars than pro football team owners — heaven forfend — but on simple economic grounds that 1) companies that are choosing where to locate rank a well-educated workforce way above the presence of pro sports teams in their decisions, and 2) schoolteachers, unlike AEG executives, spend pretty much all their money in the local economy, giving you a better bang for your buck.

I realize that this doesn't solve the problem of AEG's bottom line, but I'm not sure how that became the problem to be solved, exactly.

Yur absolutely right, its not incumbent upon u to suggest a better option!! But is it incumbent upon u to criticize, delay, or sabotage a project that can potentially do the area(and surrounding areas) some good??!! I understand the gist of what u guys r saying.... And as hard as it may be for u to believe, I agree that we shouldnt be giving billionaires handouts! However, the problem is yur talking about a fantasy(if u expect any developer to take 100% of the risk)!!! How many projects(nationwide) r u familiar with that were 100% financed by the developer(team owner(s) without any kind of public assistance?? I think the last one that comes to my mind is back in the late 60's when Jack Kent Cooke(then owner of the Lakers) built the Great Western Forum! And even then, im not so sure if the city of Inglewood didnt pitch inn($$)! Look, im a sports fan, and all im saying is that we shouldnt be so quick to condemn a project thats being proposed while at the same time try to save taxpayer $$$......

Yur absolutely right, its not incumbent upon u to suggest a better option!! But is it incumbent upon u to criticize, delay, or sabotage a project that can potentially do the area(and surrounding areas) some good??!! I understand the gist of what u guys r saying.... And as hard as it may be for u to believe, I agree that we shouldnt be giving billionaires handouts! However, the problem is yur talking about a fantasy(if u expect any developer to take 100% of the risk)!!! How many projects(nationwide) r u familiar with that were 100% financed by the developer(team owner(s) without any kind of public assistance?? I think the last one that comes to my mind is back in the late 60's when Jack Kent Cooke(then owner of the Lakers) built the Great Western Forum! And even then, im not so sure if the city of Inglewood didnt pitch inn($$)! Look, im a sports fan, and all im saying is that we shouldnt be so quick to condemn a project thats being proposed while at the same time try to save taxpayer $$$......

"How many projects(nationwide) r u familiar with that were 100% financed by the developer(team owner(s) without any kind of public assistance?"

I can answer that one for you, bottomline. The San Francisco Giants. They financed AT&T Park with their own money.

I find it interesting that these public meetings were only announced 1 day before. It looks like AEG doesn't want people to come speak out against the plan by talking about the bad traffic, lack of parking and hotels, etc. They are probably going to fill up the room with their supporters and make a big marketing show just like all their other pre-planned events.