Originally posted by GOLDMOUTH22:
Originally posted by NinerBuff:
Originally posted by PopeyeJonesing:
It will pass, which is GREAT for 9ers fans, and really bad for residents of Santa Clara.
Why would it be bad for Santa Clara residents? Traffic? Just curious.
ya? go to the measure j website... santa clara residents will not have a tax paying for the stadium.
Yes, there's not a specific tax levied for the construction of the stadium (a lot of deceptive language here), which does not mean that Santa Clara residents aren't ultimately paying for about 50% of the stadiums construction.
As for Santa Clara's contribution:
$114 million dollars in direct subsidy is going to the stadium construction, and the Stadium Authority is contributing another $330 million. The Stadium Authority doesn't sound too bad (what great guys!), until you take into consideration that the Stadium Authority is a new branch of Santa Clara gov't.
So, that's $440 million dollars that the city of Santa Clara is contributing to the construction of the stadium, but luckily, the 49ers have been generous enough to offer them a loan for this money at 8.5% interest. That's more money. Even before factoring in the interest, the city of Santa Clara is spending about $10,000 per resident to contribute to the building of the stadium.
Then factor in that Santa Clara is also providing 17 acres of land for about $1 million dollars a year in rent. This land is valued at $35 per square foot. This means that before factoring in costs due to reroutings of electric, water, and gas lines (and their use gratis) the city of Santa Clara is leasing $25 million dollars worth of land for the same price that it will be paying out of pocket to make it functional as a a stadium.
Before it's all said and done, I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that the cost to Santa Clarians will be about $15,000 per taxpayer.
Of course, this doesn't factor in the benefits to the city including jobs, money spent by stadium goers, increased worth of the cities "brand" due to the presence of a major sports franchise, etc.
The problem here is that it's been nearly a decade since economists and urban studies scholars have reached consensus that sports stadiums (and football stadiums in particular), even in ideal circumstances, are almost always a bad investment for cities. This research is why teams must now self-finance their stadiums, find the most desperate of locales to do it for them, or at least give the false-impression that the stadium is basically self-financed to get measure passed (as is the case with Santa Clara).
This is also also far from ideal circumstances. As for increasing the "brand" recognition of Santa Clara, the 49ers aren't even including the city's name and are staying the San Francisco 49ers (it's a win/win for the city of San Francisco, even if it's not politically good in the short-term for Gavin Newsome). It's not like tech firms are rushing to East Rutherford, NJ because the New York Jets and New York Giants each spend 8 meaningful days a year there.
Sorry for the long post. As a 9ers fan who is not from Santa Clara I honestly hope
this passes because I want to the 9ers to be in the Bay Area for the rest of my life. If I was a Santa Clara resident though, I wouldn't touch this with a 10-foot-pole.