I vote.

 

Well, it was put to a vote. The measure on the ballot was called "J" and the people have spoken: "WE ARE STUPID!!" The measure passed with less than 50% turnout, it was roughly 60/40 in favor of this folly, this tremendous waste, this idiocy. (06.28.2010)

 

	Santa Clara City Council Report Card: (06.07.2009) Paraphrased below are the guiding principles for the negotiation of a stadium deal set out by our city council. 1. No use or obligation of general fund. FAIL - Where does the buck stop if things go sour? It's either the General Fund or the Utility. 2. Maintain integrity of all city funds. FAIL - Yes, like using utility stabilization/emergency funds to move a receiving station. (It is disingenuous to call this component a substation.) It is NOT an emergency that a receiving station is "in the way" of the planned stadium. 3. Maintain the existing council industrial to residential conversion policy. WHAT? What the #@$@! political double-speak. 4. No tax increase put on residents, businesses or ratepayers. FAIL - Special business tax in the RDA district. 5. The city manager is responsible for negotiations under direction of the council. FAIL - Unless you call giving away our solvency and future "negotiating." 6. Team owners must be involved directly in discussions negotiations. PASS - Of course they are, gotta support the team. 7.Great America / Cedar Fair must agree and cooperate. FAIL - EPIC FAIL! See Cedar Fair's letter delivered 6/2/2009. 8. If Cedar Fair agrees, there should be no loss to City/RDA from diminished payments for existing land leases. FAIL - Cedar Fair does not agree and the term sheet shows extending the lease on 49r headquarters. (At the current terms?!?!) You can't rent an apartment for as much as the 49rs are paying for their headquarters. 9. Project will be the result of visible, public process open to the community. FAIL - 60+ Secret meetings. 10. Project would be subject to zoning, entitlements and CEQA review. FAIL - Well there's a huge sense of entitlement but it's the wrong kind. CEQA? Oh, we'll get around to it, I guess. 11. The siting should ensure synergistic relationship with surrounding development. FAIL - Siting it in someone else's parking lot is NOT synergistic.
	On January 2, 2007 the council approved the guiding principles for negotiations for a stadium. The city council, has decided to completely renege on the first of many of its guiding principles for this deal.  One of the first listed was to get the owners of Great America, Cedar Fair, to agree to the site next to their park before completing the feasibility study. This 'study' was completed without Cedar Fair's agreement. The study also declared the stadium as feasible. (We will ignore the glaring over and underestimations in this so-called study. I would call it fiction and fraud.) Cedar Fair's official position is essentially: 'not in our main parking lot' and 'we want a piece of the pie too.' On May 9, 2008, the city, without any agreement from Great America on the stadium declared "we don't need their approval." Another guiding principle to fall was "No impact to the general fund"  The current plan to fleece the RDA to fund this playground immediately and automatically provides a negative impact to the general fund. Another guiding principle was no negative impact on the utility   funds. There is an electrical substation in the area where the stadium might be located. The city council, in their infinite wisdom and unbounded caring for its subjects decides that the utility emergency fund  should be used to pay (>20 million dollars) for the substation to be moved. Oh Yes I agree! It's a damn catastrophe that a major substation is in the way of the stadium. Earthquakes, capacity shortages, storm damage, those things are not emergencies. They are expected. But when will we have the chance to get suckered by a business like the 49ers again? (05.11.2008)
	The city council has decided to go forward with this "deal" and negotiate with the forty-niners. MORONS! (Well, six morons and one level headed person.) They have already announced that we will spend no more than 136 million dollars of our money... What idiot puts forward the most money available when negotiating. That's classic stupidity. When wheeling and dealing, and you say; "how much?" And they ask "How much ya got? " DO NOT ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION YOU MORONS! I hope these dorks are just being played to put pressure on San Francisco. (02.02.2008)
	The city staff has determined that there will be a 51 million dollar shortfall to the extortion requested by the forty-niners and a 70 million dollar loss to the city over thirty years. And the council and other dunderheads still think this is a good idea?
	An email I just sent to the council: 11/20/2007

Mayor and City Council,

 Please stop wasting city resources on this stadium proposal. No matter how much money the council spends on studies, it will still be a great deal for the forty-niners, and a bad deal for the city.

 The latest attempt to fleece my city’s money through redevelopment funds is more even more reprehensible and disgusting than fleecing the utility emergency fund. The proponents of the stadium have their priorities scrambled. To give either of these two suggestions any consideration beyond immediate dismissal is a dire dereliction of your duty to the city and its citizens. The stadium will be a liability and we should not pay anything for it. Redevelopment funds for affordable housing and utility emergency funds are both critical needs for the city, a stadium just does not compare in importance.

 If the forty-niners must move here, fine, they can pay for the land, pay for the permits, and pay the taxes. No subsidy from the city is necessary. I would prefer that they just go bother another city. We have wasted a half-million in studies, that is already too much in my book. Also, The forty-niners have shown that they have no regard or respect for our city just by mere suggestion of using either of these two important funding sources for their playground. Do we really want that kind of ‘neighbor?in our city?

 Kaiser built a new hospital in Santa Clara for significantly less than the proposed stadium’s projected cost. A hospital! A hospital is used 24/7/365 to save lives, help people, bring new lives into the world. A hospital employs people from across the economic and educational spectrums - full-time, with benefits. A stadium is used a few days a year to play a game. A stadium will employ part-time low-wage earners on a seasonal basis. Probably with minimal, if any, benefits. Did Kaiser demand or receive any subsidy from the city?

 My point is this: There are much better things we can do with this land and money than to subsidize a playground where some people watch other people play a game. Get your priorities unscrambled.

 Sincerely, 

Nick McCurdy,
Citizen and Voter,
Santa Clara, CA.

	Two days after a pro-stadium majority took office in our fair city's council, the San Francisco Forty-niners announced their intent to move to Santa Clara. They also announced their desire for a handout from the city on the order of 160 MILLION dollars in cash and another 40 million in assets and services. (And that is just the beginning.) That is a pretty steep price to pay for having the "pleasure" of hosting a gigantic concrete zit that will gain nothing for most of our citizens. (7/15/2007)
	The unmitigated gall of these billionaire owners to ask for handouts as if they are doing our city a favor to build here. Not only that, the owners don't want to own the stadium, they want the city to own it and lease it to the team for cheap. Screw them. If they want to build here, they can buy the land, pay for the permits, build their playground and pay their taxes just like everyone else. (7/15/2007)
	The team leases more than 10 acres of prime land from the city already. They have threatened to move out if they don't get their juicy stadium deal. "Farewell and good riddance!"; I say. Try and find another deal like that anywhere decent in California, >10 acres for about 24K a year? That'll get you a 2&2 condo apartment in this area. (7/15/2007)
	The mayor and several council members seem hell-bent on ramming this stadium down our throats. Mayor Mahan, jumps right in and says; "it's do-able." (Mayor Patti: First rule of negotiation, don't show all your cards.) Studies have shown that it's not. So now? More studies. I think the 60% cost over-run for "studies" is indicative of the cost over-runs for the stadium deal in general. (7/15/2007)
	Another thing about these studies, they are bullshit. Expensive bullshit at that. A transportation 'fact-sheet' shows that traffic will not go past 101 on to our major roads. What kind of bullshit is that? If the traffic studies are bullshit, the financial studies must be bullshit too.
	Now, even with their total bullshit studies, they can't make the stadium deal look good. Their studies say that for a 160 MILLION cash investment, the general fund might receive 700K in revenue. That's a 0.44% ROI. I'm no financial wizard, but I promise the citizens and council of Santa Clara, give me those megabucks and I promise to double that ROI! Hell, I'll be generous and triple it!
	The Forty-Niners, after announcing their intent to move, also promised they would NOT change their name. "San Francisco" was their city and their name. Well fucking stay in San Francisco then. Keep the riots, traffic, litter and riff-raff up there with the team. (7/15/2007)
	In Santa Clara, we have our own electrical power system, not PGE (Pacific Gouging for Energy). We pay about 40% less than the cities powered by PGE. That should be enough of an enticement to move here -- if they must -- but no handouts! But what do the Forty-Niners do? Root around in our finances and see a sizeable cash account for the public utilities. They announce here's the money you could use to bribe us to move here. That's just plain rude! If you invited someone to visit your home wouldn't you be a little distressed when they start rummaging through your desk drawers? (7/15/2007)
	It turns out that San Francisco owns some land right under the planned stadium location. Santa Clara's redevelopment agency has promised not to use eminent domain in the North-side area. Hmm an irresolvable conflict? The Forty-Niners say; no-big-deal. (Patti: See how that negotiation thing works?) (7/15/2007)
	San Francisco has offered the Forty-Niners some land in a former radioactive waste dump. I think this is more than appropriate for a bunch of fans to blow on a bunch of men who refuse to grow-up so they play a game for a living. Society has put such great value on these over-grown children that their salaries exceed that of most engineers, scientists and even CEO's. It does not compute. I just don't get it. (7/15/2007)
	Hooray, Cedar Fair, the owners of Great America, have expressed opposition (6/15/2007) to the stadium plan. Boo, Cedar Fair, the owners of Great America, have expressed a willingness to consider (7/12/2007) the stadium plan. Bribes paid? (Patti: See how the negotiation thing works?) (7/15/2007)
	Proponents of the stadium (mostly non-residents of this city) tout some intangible improvement in the "quality-of-life" for Santa Clarans. I want to ask the North-side residents; Is showing proof-of-address to the parking Gestapo in order to park in front of their own home an improvement? How about a giant concrete zit on your skyline? What about the traffic? When you finally get home, will you be able to park? The "studies" barely mention the liabilities. Things like the 49 police officers needed for security and traffic control, the load on the utility, moving a substation, you know... little things. Bah details. (7/15/2007)
	Here's the way I see it. If you can afford to pay several men millions of dollars to play a game, you can afford to buy the playground too. (7/15/2007)
	Mayor Patti was quoted as saying; "This site, we believe, would give the fans a great game-day experience and that's what it's all about: doing what's best for the 49ers and doing what's best for the fans." I am appalled and disappointed in our mayor for saying this. That is most certainly NOT what it's all about. How about doing what's best for the city and its residents? Patti? Your loyalties are showing. Shame on you. (7/15/2007)