Originally posted by Marvin49:
I blame ALOT of it on the failure of peple in SF to see the big picture. I remember when the first stadium vote came up. All I saw on TV from people was "why should we spend money on a stadium when we have bigger needs for the city". Short sighted. The stadium brings money IN to the city. A new stadium would have brought SUPER BOWLS to SF and that would be even more money coming into the city (at the time 400 mil was the estimate).
People don't understand the difference between an expenditure and an investment. As it is, the City is going to lose alot of money that flowed into it from Candlestick. Alot of that money funded the park service, etc. Now it's gone. Who do they have to blame? Themselves.
There was a lot of organized resistance from the residents. They simply don't want a big noisy stadium, and don't like the idea of paying for it.
It's actually like a business life cycle. At first everything is built and then expands and everybody is enthusiastic. Then as the business becomes more successful, it expands more broadly, and focuses more on efficiency than on innovation. Then it focuses on bureaucracy and shareholder value. It completely forgets where it came from and why it was successful in the first place, it only cares about it's stock price, and now it can't compete with the new innovators.
San Francisco is comfortable and established, and the residents like it because of what it is now, not because of it's future. This allows other cities to come in and innovate and build towards a better future. It's no different from any other big city. Everything is based upon some kind of cycle.