There are two dark sides to that $40M. The first is our City Council's five "stadium boosters" breaking a promise they made to Santa Clarans.

1. We were told explicitly on January 9, 2007, that the stadium subsidy would cause NO losses, direct or indirect, to our City's General Fund. But we learned last night what the "stadium boosters" would only reveal in the Term Sheet - that our General Fund will lose nearly a nominal $20,000,000 as a result of the RDA servicing stadium debt.

IOW, the RDA won't be paying back money that it owes the city. The dirty word here is, of course, "subordination":

'I'm paying off this other debt first, so I can't pay you back what I owe you.'

2. The other dark facet: It's not $40M in RDA bonds and cash, it's (now) $25M, plus $15M we're actually accepting in cash advances from the 49ers themselves! The dollar figures are even *worse* than the estimates we got on our ballots last June.

Once we're on the hook for that $15M in debt to the team, that debt repayment will never be "subordinated." This is one reason why our city's General Fund loses - big - with the stadium and its $444M subsidy.

Worse: Extend the RDA by a year, and you delay by a year giving property taxes to the schools and to County Government - which announced $40M in cuts only this weekend.

The Public Hearing on March 15th, 7:00pm, will probably only make this ripoff final.

The 49ers are turning our RDA into their ATM. That's all this is about.

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

-=0=-

Santa Clara is paying dearly for '80s 49er's nostalgia.

We're considered a second rate city as it is-a compromise place for people who can't afford a more elite place to live (with good schools) but don't want to spend too much time commuting (our location is pretty central).

This is only going to confirm other's negative conceptions about the city. SAD.

Of course the City Council promised zero general funds being used in 2007. That was long before that idiot Jerry Brown came into office to strip cities of the one avenue for them to create property taxes to help drive jobs and revenue growth in the city itself.

Now with Jerry Brown trying to eliminate RDAs he is using his own "socialist" approach that will burn up in flames everywhere.

Look, the general fund is straight under water in most cities in California. By putting 40M extra into it will not even create a "dent".

Police, Fire, and teachers will all still get laid off all over the place because of their unions, unfair pensions, and pay these positions get.

The real problem is unions in the public sector not RDAs.

RDAs at least help the city create create revenue growth in a private sector fashion. Why do you think every city is against Brown in full force?

Santa Clara like San Jose will set aside this money for the 49ers and A's no problem as it is not a lot of money in the long run of things.

You guys think that 40M is something? The problems extend far beyond that and you should be taking shots at Unions and not at RDAs which represent a fraction of the overall government spend.

I don't think $40 million is the end of it-the stadium will cost the city far, far more than this.

If everything goes "right" the city's own analysis said a loss to the GF over alternative uses.

I foresee the main losses will be in the SA not covering it's debts and the city having to make good on it.

I agree there are other problems/concerns confronting the city. What bothers me is that this is exactly what's being shunted aside as the city council and managers focus on the stadium.

Sid:

The Governor isn't responsible for a promise made by our City Council to us Santa Clarans - the City Council is.

Also, his proposal doesn't go after ANY General Funds - only the RDA.

Finally, that $40M has nothing to do with the General Fund. The $40M causes an *additional loss* to the General Fund. The GF of our city has its own problems. Ongoing spending patterns on salaries and pensions are one - and the 49ers stadium subsidy in is the other.

Our RDA IS part of the problem.

Also, $444,000,000 in public subsidies IS "a lot of money in the long run."

I'm sorry, but you're badly misinformed about the stadium subsidy and about the role of the RDA - and the Stadium Authority - in all of this.

That's not Governor Brown's fault.

That's our fault.

Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org

-=0=-

Hey, isn't Phil Anschutz building a stadium in Los Angeles? That would be a great stadium for the 49ers. That way, the Bay Area gets to keep a team, San Diego gets to keep a team, and LA gets a team.

John,

It would be my dream to have the Yorks to make like Robert Irsay and move their team out of town at 3am.

People in the BA would cry about it, but it is their team to do with what they want.

Jay,

I agree. 49ers fans can still cheer for their team or they can cheer for the Raiders. I don't see what the big deal is!

I remember decades ago how upset I could get when a favorite TV show got cancelled or a rock band I liked broke up. However tough it seemed to me at the time, I eventually was able to recover.

If the 49ers move people here s/b able to get over it. It's a pretty similar situation...

Jay,

Exactly. Maybe they'll start worrying about more important things like their kids' public schools, libraries, etc. I know I'd rather not have to compete with something as corrosive and uncultured as professional sports for my kids' attention.

The Santa Clara City Council is so rotten to the core that they don't smell themselves. They have lied and hidden facts and misrepresented every inch of the way. The City Council is, basically, an extension of Gillmor Real Estate. Gillmor employees, associates, consultants and family members control every seat on the council. Gillmor wants the stadium. Gillmor wants high-density housing in encroaching on existing residential neighborhoods. And Gillmor gets what Gillmor wants.