There's no contract (DDA) and no financing agreement yet.
We don't even have $10 million for pre-construction work (that's what the money is for - to route utilities around the parking lot where they want to build the stadium).
We have to borrow $6 million at this early stage.
They've had 1 1/2 years since the election, and haven't come up with the financing.

Does anyone else see a comparison with Al Davis and Irwindale spending $10 million trying to get the Raiders? They never got paid back.

And neither will we.

But SCT,

Santa Clara can be famous for a big "Hole in the ground".

Can Palo Alto brag about something like that?

Hey, I just read a few articles about this snazzy new stadium they're building in LA. Actually, they're building two (they're competing proposals). Why can't the 49ers go there? It works out for the 49ers, for the people in LA who want the NFL and the people in the Bay Area who want the NFL (they still have the Raiders).

The debt down to Santa Clara agencies could be much worse than $500,000,000:

1. Let's be generous and assume that the stadium's construction costs don't go over $987,000,000 - an assumption that you and I know is a total crock.

2. If the 49ers are only down for 15% to 25% of that (our City Council meeting, 6/7/2011, Agenda Item 6B, page 4), then they're only paying $247,000,000, at most.

3. That leaves SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY MILLION DOLLARS ***$740,000,000*** to be paid by us.

Our city of Santa Clara, then, already stuck for $114,000,000 out of our RDA and a Mello-Roos hotel taxing district, will be piling $626,000,000 worth of debt onto the Santa Clara Stadium Authority.

Remember that the 49ers demanded our votes on Measure Jed last June by telling us that the Stadium Authority was only going to be stuck with $330,000,000 in debts.

**********************************************
Santa Clarans, ask yourself how that debt could virtually double in the last seventeen months.
**********************************************

When you have your answer, you'll understand why NFL stadiums are losers.

Public "Committee of the Whole" Study Sessions will be held on December 6 and 8. Council vote will be on December 13th. Please come. Please write the Council. Please call City Hall. But please participate.

**********************************************
The massive stadium subsidy, a lousy "deal" last June, is an even worse one today.
**********************************************

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

-=0=-

The 49ers won the election through keeping the costs off of the ballot (its legal in CA for city-wide ballot measures to not disclose costs).

They claimed in the stadium campaign that they were paying 88% ($823 million) of the total. Santa Clara was saturated with $5 million worth of mailers, TV and radio ads, and newspaper ads etc. to buy the election.

They denied the loss to our general fund and the two to 1 negative return on investment that our city's consultant estimated for our city's direct subsidy of $114 million.

They hid the existence of the Stadium Authority's costs/debt/risks during the campaign. Santa Clara's biggest exposure to risk is through the Stadium Authority.

Given what Bill described from the city report of June 7, 2011, we can only assume that the DDA will have made a bad deal for the city (as described in the Term Sheet) only worse. Only the 49ers will make money on the stadium.

Here's a link to the Tuesday Nov. 15th news report before the City Council vote to take the $6 million loan from the 49ers (we had already given them $4 million for 'safekeeping'). Note how offensive our mayor is when he speaks about blindfolding stadium opponents and letting them touch the stadium:
(add www in front)
ktvu.com/videos/sports/santa-clara-scheduled-vote-could-bring-49ers/vFD8f/

Also in this link from the news report after the meeting, the reporter pointed out that while the 49ers have one loss on the field this season, they've never had a loss in Santa Clara city council chambers:
(add www in front)
ktvu.com/news/news/49ers-stadium/nFfGp/

"The 49ers football team has lost only one game this season, but the record is even better at Santa Clara City Hall: no losses at all."

Just out've curiosity, what r the chances santa clara city council green lights the 49er stadium?? Also, is san francisco completely out've the running??

Its obvious our city council is going to green light the stadium. However, it appears both sides are well short of the funding goals needed to build a $1 billion football stadium. I don't know if San Francisco is in/out of the running. What I do know is their plan requires the Yorks/49ers to pay for the construction & operations of the stadium. That's something they don't want. Hence, they picked on our all too willing city officals who are going to mortgage Santa Clara's future in order to make the 49ers happy.

Its obvious our city council is going to green light the stadium. However, it appears both sides are well short of the funding goals needed to build a $1 billion football stadium. I don't know if San Francisco is in/out of the running. What I do know is their plan requires the Yorks/49ers to pay for the construction & operations of the stadium. That's something they don't want. Hence, they picked on our all too willing city officals who are going to mortgage Santa Clara's future in order to make the 49ers happy.

Anyone wishing to stay on top of what's going on with Santa Clara stadium issues can sign up for Santa Clara Plays Fair's newsletter. Go to the website and click to enter your email address under the 'Take Action' part of the menu':

santaclaraplaysfair.org

The main page currently contains info about the upcoming Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA), which will show exactly how much of the costs/debt/risks the 49ers have shoved onto Santa Clara and its agencies, with the help of our pro-stadium city council members, who have never voted 'no' on anything the 49ers have asked for.

That being said, what is the probability this stadium gets built in santa clara? If there's a high probability, when would it get built?

It can't get built without money, and thus far, neither the city nor the 49ers have said they have the finances. Without money, I'd say the probability is low.

If that's the case, what is the concern?

Well Bottomline,

I don't know where you live, but if it's in Santa Clara then you'd see how outrageous the behavior of the council has been the past four years.

It's opened a lot (but apparently not enough) eyes. Yes I'll concede that in the end since all criticism of the plan has fallen upon deaf ears (in the council) maybe the rational thing to do would be to take the fatalistic approach.

But the best we can hope for now is no stadium financing, and that means the city will have wasted millions upon millions of dollars on studies, consultants, staff time, and now impending pre-construction.

When the obvious conclusion to any sane person from the very beginning should have been to run, not walk, from any dealings with the 49ers.

Not only has the city wasted millions on staff time, etc., as SCJ has stated, the 49ers campaign and the falsehoods associated with it (No new taxes! No cost to our general fund! You get a $1 billion stadium for free! the 49ers are paying 92% etc.), spread by our city council majority of 5 and the 49ers front group campaign staff (including 2 former council members at the helm of the 49ers campaign front group), has fractured our community right down the middle. This used to be a nice, peaceful place to live, but then the 49ers wanted a stadium, and they poured $5 million into convincing people to vote against their own best economic interests. It was disgusting to see the number of people who lined up to help the 49ers hide the costs/debt/risks of the stadium, and to deny the general fund loss and the negative return on investment (both shown by the city's consultant).

Our pro-stadium city council members helped the 49ers get a ballot measure/ballot question that did not disclose costs (because there is no legal requirement in CA for cost disclosure for city-wide ballot measures, as our city attorney told the judge when the city was sued to try to have costs put on the ballot.) Council members who really truly represent the people would not try to hide the Stadium Authority and the costs/debt/risks it is taking on for the stadium.

The stadium issue has divided this community in a way from which we will never heal. When one side has big bucks ($5 million) from outside the city to spend to drown out the voices of the locals who are telling the truth about the costs/debt/risks, and the media acts as cheerleaders for the stadium (and received big bucks advertising dollars for the stadium), and many pro-stadium city council members have hired as a campaign consultant a man who harasses stadium opponents via a hate blog on the internet, calls people's homes, calls their places of employment, sends harassing emails, files harassing public information requests etc., you realize that there is a lack of ethics here brought to light by the stadium campaign. The harassment is of anyone who dares to write a letter to the editor questioning the spending on the stadium, dares to speak in front of our city council, or dares to send a letter to the council or speak to the press questioning the stadium spending. The harassment is designed to intimidate people, and to shut down freedom of speech for anyone who dares to question the stadium. And our city council pro-stadium majority doesn't care - most of them have had the hate blog guy on their campaign payroll (as shown by FPPC form 460s as recently as the Nov 2010 election he was paid by our former mayor for her run for council). They recently put the hate blog guy on a committee to review our election processes (the city is currently under threat of a lawsuit to change our council election processes.)

The stadium issue has just shown many of us who were blissfully unaware of how bad things really are here - just how bad things really are, and that we need to make changes on our council to elect people who represent us, not special monied interests from outside the city. Hopefully those changes can happen before it's too late - and we end up like Cincinnati or worse with NFL debt.

"The stadium issue has divided this community in a way from which we will never heal"?! Wow, no offense, but dont you think you're exaggerating just a little bit? I mean, that sounds pretty severe! I get your point but when it's all said & done, you yourself said that the likelihood of this stadium getting built is a longshot. Hence, the city loses whatever they've invested in it so far, which is a hell of alot better than having it built, isn't it! Example: Irwindale has recovered since being fleeced by Al Davis back in the day, what makes you think Santa Clara is doomed? Ideally, in a perfect world, everything would turn out great for the community and nobody gets screwed but unfortunately we dont live in a perfect world. I guess im just an optimist by nature...

There's a difference between being optimistic and delusional. Our council and city staff crossed that line long ago...

I agree that the city will lose whatever it has invested (many many millions) when the stadium can't get funding, but when I said we will never heal completely, I mean that people will not forget being lied to by their elected officials, by the Yes on the stadium campaign (and former council members at the head of that campaign) and having other elected officials not on the council (who should not have gotten involved with city politics, like our elected police chief)use their positions to help a corporation win hundreds of millions from our community. We will not forget what it feels like to have $5 million drown out the voices of so many in our community.

The level of trust of city government and city staff that used to be here will never return (in a way that's a good thing, many people who were blissfully unaware of how our city council operates in favor of special interests from outside the city now know and have gotten involved to try to improve things here). People will also not forget how the media refused to accurately and adequately cover the stadium costs/debt/risks because the media want the stadium to happen here, regardless of the financial and environmental consequences to our city. The media claim that receiving advertising dollars does not affect their coverage - you only have to have lived through the stadium campaign to know that's not true - the media functioned as cheerleaders for the 49ers, not as objective or investigative reporters.

And the current legal threat from the Lawyers Committee on Civil Rights of having to change how our city conducts its elections for council can also change things for the better here (there's hope of breaking the "council majority voting as a block for anything the 49ers want regardless of how idiotic their 'yes' votes are").

Well thought I'd mention while the city is throwing treasure the 49ers way, our library is closed again today Saturday the 26th and tomorrow (up the road in Mountain View, they do manage somehow to keep their library open this holiday weekend).

However, this isn't really surprising to me in that I don't get any sense that the council members are readers...