Stadium question for the people who live in SF

Originally posted by StOnEy333:
"I don't wish to go back and forth with you, but here's a 10 point list on why you're wrong"

EXACTLY!!!!

"Hey pot!! Kettle here. Hey man, YOU'RE BLACK!!!"

Originally posted by area49:
It doesn't matter.

Dianne Feinstein proposed legislation to force the 49ers to leave their name in SF if they move to SC. I'm pretty sure it's part of the new lease agreement as well.

So the San Francisco 49ers, should they move to Santa Clara, will change to the Santa Clara...Programmers?

Total, utter, and complete BS.

Yes, it was proposed, but has absolutely ZERO chance of passing. It will be dropped LONG before it even has a chance.

San Francisco 49ers is a TRADEMARKED brand name.

End of discussion.

Originally posted by 9erB4Us:

2) The Old Meadowlands in NYC, where the Giants, & Jets played was also built on a Toxic Waste Dump...Did anything happen? NO, it was throughly cleaned up, nobody is glowing green.

Not yet anyway Toxic waste affects never happen overnight. Asbestos doesn't show up until years later.

As for tradition, I feel what you are saying. As an unbias person who was born in SF, but was raised in Hawaii, and has nothing to gain or lose. It is not just about what is best for the city, it is about the owners and all fans, not just those living in SF. However tradition will not change just because they move a little south, tradition is what you make of it. I just want a new stadium for the team. However, the city has been taking so long. They also seem to try to cut corners on the deal. At least that is what the newspapers said, and the newspapers news org. tend to be liberal.

Originally posted by WildBill:

Originally posted by 9erB4Us:

2) The Old Meadowlands in NYC, where the Giants, & Jets played was also built on a Toxic Waste Dump...Did anything happen? NO, it was throughly cleaned up, nobody is glowing green.

Not yet anyway Toxic waste affects never happen overnight. Asbestos doesn't show up until years later.

As for tradition, I feel what you are saying. As an unbias person who was born in SF, but was raised in Hawaii, and has nothing to gain or lose. It is not just about what is best for the city, it is about the owners and all fans, not just those living in SF. However tradition will not change just because they move a little south, tradition is what you make of it. I just want a new stadium for the team. However, the city has been taking so long. They also seem to try to cut corners on the deal. At least that is what the newspapers said, and the newspapers news org. tend to be liberal.

And BTW the old Meadowlands is across the parking lot from the new Meadowlands . . . it's not in NYC, it's in New Jersey.

Here's two cents and a few paragraphs from a person born and raised in SF (although I am temporarily in Burlingame for about one more year).

Both the proposed SC and HP sites will require a lot of effort and time. Seems like SC is ahead because the plan has been approved by the city and the 49ers. HP will take a lot planning and major construction work through the efforts of SF, Lennar and the 49ers. Note that the 49ers aren't even at the discussion table for HP and a stadium does not really affect Lennar's presence in the area.

The monumental efforts to make HP viable are expensive, time consuming, technically/logistically complex and require luck/timeliness. The luck/timeliness will need to be provided by the SC site hitting financial and time obstacles. There is a lot of ground for HP to make up.

That said, I think the HP site CAN be a superior site to SC. It is planned to be an interesting mixed use development along one of SF's waterfronts. I think it can 'kinda' do for HP what at&t Park did for China Basin, which has corporate & industrial tenants that HP would not necessarily have. But, because of the time and need for infrastructure improvements at HP, SC is a better choice at this moment. It is simply ahead of the game. Still, if the HP stadium can be built, I think it would be worth it.

Actually, let me temper that with emotionally worth it, which goes for the SC site as well. I don't think stadiums anywhere are actually financially worth it. Also, parking and traffic issues plague most stadiums. at&t Park, Qwest Field and Oracle Arena are three of the better stadiums that I have been to that address this with proper levels of public transport and parking options. The newer Arizona stadium has a crappy parking lot issue. When I was there in 2009 (3 years old stadium at the time), that stadium couldn't check parking passes or collect money from people without passes. Also, it took me over 90 minutes to GET OUT of the PARKING LOT.

My point is troubles at any stadium site are pretty much a wash and it's really all about the timeliness of the projects. While I would rather the 49ers play in SF, it pains me to say that the SC site makes a lot more sense right now simply because they are ahead of the game. The only other 'realistic' options in SF is rebuilding Candlestick or Daly City's Cow Palace, but those are extremely far from likely.

One last opinion: I haven't seen an actual stadium design for HP. Most renderings I have seen are the SC Stadium pasted onto either the HP site or another SF waterfront site. I'm not crazy about the stadium design, but I think it makes more sense at the HP site. The "building/suite" portion could face a street while the opening of the stadium faces the bay. In SC, it looks really unbalanced and I am not sure if there is a view to take advantage of.

Originally posted by cypherninja:
Here's two cents and a few paragraphs from a person born and raised in SF (although I am temporarily in Burlingame for about one more year).

Both the proposed SC and HP sites will require a lot of effort and time. Seems like SC is ahead because the plan has been approved by the city and the 49ers. HP will take a lot planning and major construction work through the efforts of SF, Lennar and the 49ers. Note that the 49ers aren't even at the discussion table for HP and a stadium does not really affect Lennar's presence in the area.

The monumental efforts to make HP viable are expensive, time consuming, technically/logistically complex and require luck/timeliness. The luck/timeliness will need to be provided by the SC site hitting financial and time obstacles. There is a lot of ground for HP to make up.

That said, I think the HP site CAN be a superior site to SC. It is planned to be an interesting mixed use development along one of SF's waterfronts. I think it can 'kinda' do for HP what at&t Park did for China Basin, which has corporate & industrial tenants that HP would not necessarily have. But, because of the time and need for infrastructure improvements at HP, SC is a better choice at this moment. It is simply ahead of the game. Still, if the HP stadium can be built, I think it would be worth it.

Actually, let me temper that with emotionally worth it, which goes for the SC site as well. I don't think stadiums anywhere are actually financially worth it. Also, parking and traffic issues plague most stadiums. at&t Park, Qwest Field and Oracle Arena are three of the better stadiums that I have been to that address this with proper levels of public transport and parking options. The newer Arizona stadium has a crappy parking lot issue. When I was there in 2009 (3 years old stadium at the time), that stadium couldn't check parking passes or collect money from people without passes. Also, it took me over 90 minutes to GET OUT of the PARKING LOT.

My point is troubles at any stadium site are pretty much a wash and it's really all about the timeliness of the projects. While I would rather the 49ers play in SF, it pains me to say that the SC site makes a lot more sense right now simply because they are ahead of the game. The only other 'realistic' options in SF is rebuilding Candlestick or Daly City's Cow Palace, but those are extremely far from likely.

One last opinion: I haven't seen an actual stadium design for HP. Most renderings I have seen are the SC Stadium pasted onto either the HP site or another SF waterfront site. I'm not crazy about the stadium design, but I think it makes more sense at the HP site. The "building/suite" portion could face a street while the opening of the stadium faces the bay. In SC, it looks really unbalanced and I am not sure if there is a view to take advantage of.

Thats kinda what I'm saying.

The HP site is actually FAR superior to SC in terms of asthetics. The problem with it is its viability. It requires ALOT happen before stadium construction could even take place.

The roads need to be upgraded. A bridge needs to be built. Paths to the freeway need to be added/resolved. I've read that those need to happen anyway for the other projects....but when? Are those as guaranteed as the stadium project in SF? When it comes to SF, I'll believe it when I see it.

If a WORKABLE plan can be put together for HP, I'M ALL FOR IT. More than that, I'll be incredibly happy if they can make that work. That plan looks fantastic...on paper.

Obviously, I have no issue with the team moving to SC, but at the same time I can COMPLETELY understand the desire to keep the team in SF. I'd even go so far as to say I'd PREFER them stay in SF.

SC is MUCH closer to a reality tho. It has its own problems to be resolved. There is no question about that, but it doesn't depend on a ton of infrastructure to be built and wouldn't put fans in a construction zone for more than a decade (all of the buildings being built around it.

Another thing to remember...The 49ers DID NOT reject the Hunter Point plan. Anyone who says that is incorrect. The 49ers worked with the city for 15 years to get a stadium done on Candlestick Point, and they couldn't make it work. The plan with the worlds largest parking garage was the old plan on Candlestick Point.

At that point, the 49ers changed their focus to Santa Clara and have been in talks with SC ever since.

The HP project was a re-do by the city IN RESPONSE to the 49ers setting their sites on SC. Nobody thought that the HP Naval Shipyard could be cleanied up, but to the cities credit, it was cleaned up very quickly.

I think that is in part why this whole thing bothers me. The thought is that the Niners just up and decided to leave SF. Thats NOT how this happened. They couldn't get this done in SF for 15 freakin years!! The city wasn't even doing the maintinence they were CONTRACTED to do on the 'stick!! So the Niners went another way. Then the city crys foul all of the sudden. Lame.

Anyway...here I am with another LONG post..lol. Basically, if they can make it work on HP, GO FOR IT. I have just seen absolutely NOTHING to show me that it is anything more than some people drawing pretty pictures on a piece of paper.

One final point on the stadium design....the one you see is pretty much what it will look like regardless of the location. The only real difference is that one endzone will be enclosed and the other will be open to allow a view of the SF skyline.

EDIT: Added pics of what the stadium would look like both in SC and in SF. Pretty much the same stadium with an open endzone for the view of the SF skyline.

SC:
[img=]

SF:
[img=]

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by area49:
It doesn't matter.

Dianne Feinstein proposed legislation to force the 49ers to leave their name in SF if they move to SC. I'm pretty sure it's part of the new lease agreement as well.

So the San Francisco 49ers, should they move to Santa Clara, will change to the Santa Clara...Programmers?

Total, utter, and complete BS.

Yes, it was proposed, but has absolutely ZERO chance of passing. It will be dropped LONG before it even has a chance.

San Francisco 49ers is a TRADEMARKED brand name.

End of discussion.

It will be laughed at. It is petty & ignorant to set legal precedences that could affect many other businesses in your zeal to "get back" at a single business that doesn;t want to play ball with your local government.

Originally posted by djfullshred:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by area49:
It doesn't matter.

Dianne Feinstein proposed legislation to force the 49ers to leave their name in SF if they move to SC. I'm pretty sure it's part of the new lease agreement as well.

So the San Francisco 49ers, should they move to Santa Clara, will change to the Santa Clara...Programmers?

Total, utter, and complete BS.

Yes, it was proposed, but has absolutely ZERO chance of passing. It will be dropped LONG before it even has a chance.

San Francisco 49ers is a TRADEMARKED brand name.

End of discussion.

It will be laughed at. It is petty & ignorant to set legal precedences that could affect many other businesses in your zeal to "get back" at a single business that doesn;t want to play ball with your local government.

ya.

What was even worse was the guy at the Harbaugh press conference who tried to make a polical statement by asking Harbaugh about the stadium and invoking Bill Walsh's name as tho he had any clue what Walsh would think.

Pathetic.

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by djfullshred:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by area49:
It doesn't matter.

Dianne Feinstein proposed legislation to force the 49ers to leave their name in SF if they move to SC. I'm pretty sure it's part of the new lease agreement as well.

So the San Francisco 49ers, should they move to Santa Clara, will change to the Santa Clara...Programmers?

Total, utter, and complete BS.

Yes, it was proposed, but has absolutely ZERO chance of passing. It will be dropped LONG before it even has a chance.

San Francisco 49ers is a TRADEMARKED brand name.

End of discussion.

It will be laughed at. It is petty & ignorant to set legal precedences that could affect many other businesses in your zeal to "get back" at a single business that doesn;t want to play ball with your local government.

ya.

What was even worse was the guy at the Harbaugh press conference who tried to make a polical statement by asking Harbaugh about the stadium and invoking Bill Walsh's name as tho he had any clue what Walsh would think.

Pathetic.

I forgot about that. I was yelling at my radio . . . what a dumb question that was.

Why are people getting upset at the 49ers for leaving SF? If SF wants them to stay so bad to the point of "betrayal" then vote, pay-up and get er done.

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by djfullshred:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by area49:
It doesn't matter.

Dianne Feinstein proposed legislation to force the 49ers to leave their name in SF if they move to SC. I'm pretty sure it's part of the new lease agreement as well.

So the San Francisco 49ers, should they move to Santa Clara, will change to the Santa Clara...Programmers?

Total, utter, and complete BS.

Yes, it was proposed, but has absolutely ZERO chance of passing. It will be dropped LONG before it even has a chance.

San Francisco 49ers is a TRADEMARKED brand name.

End of discussion.

It will be laughed at. It is petty & ignorant to set legal precedences that could affect many other businesses in your zeal to "get back" at a single business that doesn;t want to play ball with your local government.

ya.

What was even worse was the guy at the Harbaugh press conference who tried to make a polical statement by asking Harbaugh about the stadium and invoking Bill Walsh's name as tho he had any clue what Walsh would think.

Pathetic.

I forgot about that. I was yelling at my radio . . . what a dumb question that was.

haha, forgot about that one. That was a face-palm moment if there ever was one.

Originally posted by djfullshred:

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by djfullshred:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by area49:
It doesn't matter.

Dianne Feinstein proposed legislation to force the 49ers to leave their name in SF if they move to SC. I'm pretty sure it's part of the new lease agreement as well.

So the San Francisco 49ers, should they move to Santa Clara, will change to the Santa Clara...Programmers?

Total, utter, and complete BS.

Yes, it was proposed, but has absolutely ZERO chance of passing. It will be dropped LONG before it even has a chance.

San Francisco 49ers is a TRADEMARKED brand name.

End of discussion.

It will be laughed at. It is petty & ignorant to set legal precedences that could affect many other businesses in your zeal to "get back" at a single business that doesn;t want to play ball with your local government.

ya.

What was even worse was the guy at the Harbaugh press conference who tried to make a polical statement by asking Harbaugh about the stadium and invoking Bill Walsh's name as tho he had any clue what Walsh would think.

Pathetic.

I forgot about that. I was yelling at my radio . . . what a dumb question that was.

haha, forgot about that one. That was a face-palm moment if there ever was one.

IIRC, the bill was designed that if the team was moved from the city by 100 miles so the 49ers will have the option of keeping the name. Anything more than a 100 miles and the name stays.

- 98

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by 9erB4Us:
@Marvin49 1/13/11 @9:51am

Gawd Marv, what are you complaining about? The OP specifically said that he wanted to hear from individuals *WHO RESIDE IN SAN FRANCISCO REGARDING THE STADIUM ISSUE.* If you have a problem with that, you should take it up with the OP of the thread.

I have a question for you Marvin, who pays you to be the spokesperson on THE PROPOSED 49ER STADIUM? I have been on several websites, and there is always someone like you, who is the spokesperson for the 49er Stadium in Santa Clara. In fact on *forums.49ers.com,* they won't even let individuals who live in SF register to be a blogger on their site, because they are Pro-Move the 49ers to Santa Clara website. I'm just sayin... "Thanks 49ers Webzone Fan Forum, for letting all 49er fans join your MB."

@Gavintech...
You are absolutely correct, HP is going to happen, with or without the 49ers Stadium. Your entire comment is on the money. And of course infrastructure, roads, and transportation will be included in the project.

Now I will answer some of your points Marv...

2) The Old Meadowlands in NYC, where the Giants, & Jets played was also built on a Toxic Waste Dump...Did anything happen? NO, it was throughly cleaned up, nobody is glowing green.

4) Thats exactly what I said, the proposed Stadium in SC sits on 14 Acres, it will be built on Great America's overflow Parking Lot. Great America as to date, is involved in a Law Suit with the 49ers, and has NOT giving any permission for the 49ers to Park in their Amusement Park Parking Lot on Game Days.

In fact GA is so PO'ed at the City of Santa Clara elected Officials, and the 49ers for ignoring their concerns about running their business, that GA has threatened to also be open on 49er Game Days....Talk about Nigthmare Traffic Issues.

5) Done Deal...former mayor Gavin Newsom, and Jed York hammered out a deal for ALL REPAIRS TO BE DONE AT THE CANDLESTICK.
http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_16930812?nclick_check=1

7) So Marvin, why didn't the Morabito's lobby the NFL for the 49ers to play football in the South Bay? After all thats where the Morabito's are from, the South Bay...Because the draw is the City of San Francisco itself..(I.E. See the the SF Giants at AT&T Park)

Traffic...Trust me I lived on the North Side of Santa Clara, and if you think Candlestick traffic is bad...get ready for Worst, that proposed stadium site is no where near Freeways 101, or 237...you will have to drive ON SURFACE STREETS TO GET TO THOSE FREEWAYS. And remember this stadium site is also located near a residential area, so a lot of streets will be blocked off.

Lastly Marvin, I say it right up front, I Love the 49ers, and I strongly believe that the team should remain in the City of their Birth. The Pro-Move to Santa Clara folks always say, to a word, "I'd like for the 49ers to stay in SF, but its not feasible." Then they go on to espouse their Bias, as to why Santa Clara is a better location for the team. Just say it dude...You want the 49ers in the Suburbs!

As I said before I, don't care to go back, and forth with you on this subject, cuz you pro-move folks will debate until the cows come home...And we will never come to agreement, cuz I embrace the 49ers History, and you have a different opinion about the 49ers History.

LOL!!!

Sorry, the "only SF" thing just touches a nerve. People ask questions like that assuming that ONLY a resident of SF would know the answer. The 49ers ONLY belong to the city of SF. Its nothing you said, its just a touchy subject for me around these parts. ;-)

1) Ahem....so much for agreeing to disagree..."who pays you to be the spokesperson on THE PROPOSED 49ER STADIUM?". Nice. You stay classy.

I never got insulting, so thanx for taking it to that level.

2) It is just one hurdle among many. BTW, the Meadowlands isn't in New York. Its in New Jersey. Its in a different STATE.

4) (You seem to have skipped 3) Please. Give me a break about Great America. First, they don't have the right to "refuse". Second, Cedar Fair wants to SELL the park and is just trying to use their percived leverage to get the 49ers, the League, or the City to buy the park from them.

5) Yes, they made a deal. Too bad they didn't live up to the previous deal for the past decade and a half and thats why the park fell into disrepair in the first place. The City was on the hook for the repairs LONG before last year. They have been in violation of that copntract for YEARS.

7) (skipped another number) I'm not quite sure what we are arguing here. The Niners played in SF. Yup. Correct. Whats the point? I'm saying that REGARDLESS of where their home games are played, they belong to the Bay Area, not just SF.

I live in SJ and am currently sitting right off Trimble. I know the area as well. 101 and 237 are right there. Yes, you need to take a SIX LANE surface street (Tasman and then Great America Blvd) to get to EITHER freeway. It also has Amtrac and Light Rail. Wahy are you even arguing this?

"The Pro-Move to Santa Clara folks always say, to a word, "I'd like for the 49ers to stay in SF, but its not feasible." Then they go on to espouse their Bias, as to why Santa Clara is a better location for the team."

Um, bro, the answer is right there in your sentance. We would prefer them to stay in SF, BUT ITS NOT FEASABLE!!!!!

I'd love them to stay if SF. I wish they could find a downtown locale like AT&T. I wish they could figure it all out and make the Navy Shipyard work. The grass parking lots to make it green, the water all around, and the slight modification to the stadium to allow a vew of the SF skyline would not be just better, but FAR superior to the SC location in terms of asthetics.

Ya...you don't want to do a back and forth, but you sure do want the last say, don't you? You want to blast another opinion, and then sound like YOU'RE the one being resonable by saying lets not do a back and forth because "Us Pro-SC Folks" won't ever give in.

Um, who's the pot here and who's the kettle?

Like I mentioned b4, the Pro-Move to the Suburbs folks will debate you under the table, and also until the cows come home. Because after all, they are always 100% correct in all of their unbiased RHETORIC....

Thats why I choose not to go back and forth with the Pro-Move People...BUT if I see Utter MISINFORMATION, and words put in my mouth that I did not say...I will rebut you.

Marv if you read my post correctly you would have also read that I have encountered Pro-Move to the Suburbs bloggers just like you on a lot a MB's...So out of curiosity I asked, "DOES SOMEONE PAY YOU FOLKS." If I hurt your feelings, I apologize, that was not my intention.

* I ONLY addressed your points that I felt were Misinformation....

* Yeah, you're right...the 49ers do belong to the whole region, so leave them where they belong, SF. Their are 2 options for a Stadium to be built in SF, Hunters Point, and Candlestick. San Francisco is the Heart & Soul of the Bay Area, NOT the South Bay, and this is coming from a person who has Lived in Santa Clara....

*For a wonderful Game Day experience, all you have to do is look at the SF Giants World Series...The City of SF, with the Series was the draw. What in the hell you gonna do in the Burbs...

*Only people who don't see that there are options in the SF, is the York Ownerhip, and the Pro-Move to the Suburbs folks, who want a new 49er Stadium built in the Suburbs, next to an Amusement Park, on a 14 Acre overflow parking lot, with limited Game Day parking.

And the point regarding the Meadowlands was that it was a "TOXIC WASTE DUMP," and the NY Giants, along with the NY Jets played football there for a long time. Excuse me for not noting that the Meadowlands is about 10 minutes over the Bridge to Jersey.

Originally posted by 9erB4Us:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by 9erB4Us:
@Marvin49 1/13/11 @9:51am

Gawd Marv, what are you complaining about? The OP specifically said that he wanted to hear from individuals *WHO RESIDE IN SAN FRANCISCO REGARDING THE STADIUM ISSUE.* If you have a problem with that, you should take it up with the OP of the thread.

I have a question for you Marvin, who pays you to be the spokesperson on THE PROPOSED 49ER STADIUM? I have been on several websites, and there is always someone like you, who is the spokesperson for the 49er Stadium in Santa Clara. In fact on *forums.49ers.com,* they won't even let individuals who live in SF register to be a blogger on their site, because they are Pro-Move the 49ers to Santa Clara website. I'm just sayin... "Thanks 49ers Webzone Fan Forum, for letting all 49er fans join your MB."

@Gavintech...
You are absolutely correct, HP is going to happen, with or without the 49ers Stadium. Your entire comment is on the money. And of course infrastructure, roads, and transportation will be included in the project.

Now I will answer some of your points Marv...

2) The Old Meadowlands in NYC, where the Giants, & Jets played was also built on a Toxic Waste Dump...Did anything happen? NO, it was throughly cleaned up, nobody is glowing green.

4) Thats exactly what I said, the proposed Stadium in SC sits on 14 Acres, it will be built on Great America's overflow Parking Lot. Great America as to date, is involved in a Law Suit with the 49ers, and has NOT giving any permission for the 49ers to Park in their Amusement Park Parking Lot on Game Days.

In fact GA is so PO'ed at the City of Santa Clara elected Officials, and the 49ers for ignoring their concerns about running their business, that GA has threatened to also be open on 49er Game Days....Talk about Nigthmare Traffic Issues.

5) Done Deal...former mayor Gavin Newsom, and Jed York hammered out a deal for ALL REPAIRS TO BE DONE AT THE CANDLESTICK.
http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_16930812?nclick_check=1

7) So Marvin, why didn't the Morabito's lobby the NFL for the 49ers to play football in the South Bay? After all thats where the Morabito's are from, the South Bay...Because the draw is the City of San Francisco itself..(I.E. See the the SF Giants at AT&T Park)

Traffic...Trust me I lived on the North Side of Santa Clara, and if you think Candlestick traffic is bad...get ready for Worst, that proposed stadium site is no where near Freeways 101, or 237...you will have to drive ON SURFACE STREETS TO GET TO THOSE FREEWAYS. And remember this stadium site is also located near a residential area, so a lot of streets will be blocked off.

Lastly Marvin, I say it right up front, I Love the 49ers, and I strongly believe that the team should remain in the City of their Birth. The Pro-Move to Santa Clara folks always say, to a word, "I'd like for the 49ers to stay in SF, but its not feasible." Then they go on to espouse their Bias, as to why Santa Clara is a better location for the team. Just say it dude...You want the 49ers in the Suburbs!

As I said before I, don't care to go back, and forth with you on this subject, cuz you pro-move folks will debate until the cows come home...And we will never come to agreement, cuz I embrace the 49ers History, and you have a different opinion about the 49ers History.

LOL!!!

Sorry, the "only SF" thing just touches a nerve. People ask questions like that assuming that ONLY a resident of SF would know the answer. The 49ers ONLY belong to the city of SF. Its nothing you said, its just a touchy subject for me around these parts. ;-)

1) Ahem....so much for agreeing to disagree..."who pays you to be the spokesperson on THE PROPOSED 49ER STADIUM?". Nice. You stay classy.

I never got insulting, so thanx for taking it to that level.

2) It is just one hurdle among many. BTW, the Meadowlands isn't in New York. Its in New Jersey. Its in a different STATE.

4) (You seem to have skipped 3) Please. Give me a break about Great America. First, they don't have the right to "refuse". Second, Cedar Fair wants to SELL the park and is just trying to use their percived leverage to get the 49ers, the League, or the City to buy the park from them.

5) Yes, they made a deal. Too bad they didn't live up to the previous deal for the past decade and a half and thats why the park fell into disrepair in the first place. The City was on the hook for the repairs LONG before last year. They have been in violation of that copntract for YEARS.

7) (skipped another number) I'm not quite sure what we are arguing here. The Niners played in SF. Yup. Correct. Whats the point? I'm saying that REGARDLESS of where their home games are played, they belong to the Bay Area, not just SF.

I live in SJ and am currently sitting right off Trimble. I know the area as well. 101 and 237 are right there. Yes, you need to take a SIX LANE surface street (Tasman and then Great America Blvd) to get to EITHER freeway. It also has Amtrac and Light Rail. Wahy are you even arguing this?

"The Pro-Move to Santa Clara folks always say, to a word, "I'd like for the 49ers to stay in SF, but its not feasible." Then they go on to espouse their Bias, as to why Santa Clara is a better location for the team."

Um, bro, the answer is right there in your sentance. We would prefer them to stay in SF, BUT ITS NOT FEASABLE!!!!!

I'd love them to stay if SF. I wish they could find a downtown locale like AT&T. I wish they could figure it all out and make the Navy Shipyard work. The grass parking lots to make it green, the water all around, and the slight modification to the stadium to allow a vew of the SF skyline would not be just better, but FAR superior to the SC location in terms of asthetics.

Ya...you don't want to do a back and forth, but you sure do want the last say, don't you? You want to blast another opinion, and then sound like YOU'RE the one being resonable by saying lets not do a back and forth because "Us Pro-SC Folks" won't ever give in.

Um, who's the pot here and who's the kettle?

Like I mentioned b4, the Pro-Move to the Suburbs folks will debate you under the table, and also until the cows come home. Because after all, they are always 100% correct in all of their unbiased RHETORIC....

Thats why I choose not to go back and forth with the Pro-Move People...BUT if I see Utter MISINFORMATION, and words put in my mouth that I did not say...I will rebut you.

Marv if you read my post correctly you would have also read that I have encountered Pro-Move to the Suburbs bloggers just like you on a lot a MB's...So out of curiosity I asked, "DOES SOMEONE PAY YOU FOLKS." If I hurt your feelings, I apologize, that was not my intention.

* I ONLY addressed your points that I felt were Misinformation....

* Yeah, you're right...the 49ers do belong to the whole region, so leave them where they belong, SF. Their are 2 options for a Stadium to be built in SF, Hunters Point, and Candlestick. San Francisco is the Heart & Soul of the Bay Area, NOT the South Bay, and this is coming from a person who has Lived in Santa Clara....

*For a wonderful Game Day experience, all you have to do is look at the SF Giants World Series...The City of SF, with the Series was the draw. What in the hell you gonna do in the Burbs...

*Only people who don't see that there are options in the SF, is the York Ownerhip, and the Pro-Move to the Suburbs folks, who want a new 49er Stadium built in the Suburbs, next to an Amusement Park, on a 14 Acre overflow parking lot, with limited Game Day parking.

And the point regarding the Meadowlands was that it was a "TOXIC WASTE DUMP," and the NY Giants, along with the NY Jets played football there for a long time. Excuse me for not noting that the Meadowlands is about 10 minutes over the Bridge to Jersey.

Jeez. For someone who doesn't want to argue, you sure argue ALOT. WOW.

And then you say "us Pro move to the suburbs" folk don't give up, you're right. We don't allow peeps to use, as you would say RHETORIC, to try to make it look like the SF plan is better and that the 49ers are simply abandoning the city of SF. I don't see a ANYTHING in my argument that's rhetoric. I am stating the facts as I understand them.

If someone can give me informed opinions and explain exactly where I'm wrong and explain why SF is a better option, I'm completely willing to be convinced.

Sadly, you have not done that. All I've seen from you are the same talking points every pro-SF stadium proponent has used.

You don't seem to believe this, but I honestly would prefer the team stayed in SF. I'm serious when I say that. If the city can address the issues with the Hunters Point site, I'M ALL FOR IT and I'll be the first person on this site to be happy and look forward to the new stadium being built.

I just don't see that happening. I've been down this road too many times getting excited about a new stadium just to see SF politics derail the thing. I have REAL trouble seeing that city pony up to redevelop the Hunters Point area and include a 49ers stadium. I've researched the project and its Beautiful. There is now doubt. From an asthetic point of view, its FAR superior to SC. I don't think anyone would question that.

IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

All of the infrastructure needs to be built. Roads, a Bridge, expanded roads, maybe even new exits. I'm not saying they won't, but how long do you think it will take to build all that stuff? Is that stuff as guaranteed to get built as the 49ers stadium-mall complex? Thats the problem...there is no guarantee all that infrastructure will be there.

Its already there in SC. Is Santa Clara as nice a site as HP? Hell no. Will it have the same views? Hell no. Does it have the appeal of being right on the water and withing the borders of San Francisco. No.

It doesn't have any of those things, but it has the benefit of something the SF plan doesn't. Plausability.

To address your specific points....

1) I want the team in SF. Why are you still arguing this? Oh, its because you don't believe me. Sorry. I'll say this again. If they can make a plan that works, KEEP THE TEAM IN SF.

2) Again....no prob with SF. Again...you don't believe me. LOL...I don't know where to go wuith this. If they could build a stadium next to AT&T, I'd do a backflip. That would eb the best possible situation. As for what people would do, its an entertainment district as it is and you KNOW a number of restaurants and bars will open near the site once this thing gets shovels in the ground. The HP Pavilion doesn't seem to have too much trouble giving fans something to do after games.

SF as the heart and soul. OK, whatever. I'll just agree to disagree on that one. Its by far the most famous, the most historic, and the most arrogant. ;-) Sorry, couldn't resist.

3) Ya...the ONLY reason someone could POSSIBLY think the options in SF aren't feasable are the Yorks and people who want the team in SC. Thats total BS. Some of us have been down this road before with the 49ers, Giants, and A's. We've seen how many stadium measures have come and gone.

The city has ALWAYS been a roadblock to getting a stadium built. The Giants only succeeded because they came up with a plan to do it 100% with private money. Football stadiums are too big and too expensive for that. Additionally, the Niners only play 10 games a year in the stadium compared to 81 for the Giants.

4) Woah....but its still a different state? Isn't that the point? It doesn't matter how far it is, its about staying in the city where the history was made. 10 minutes to a different state to see a game is WAY diff that about 35-40 minutes down the peninsula. Right.




So. I really hope you believe me this time. I WANT THE TEAM TO STAY IN SF. I LIKE THE LOOK OF THE STADIUM ON HUNTERS POINT. Show me a way to make it work and I'm all aboard. I don't think you can tho.

Originally posted by cypherninja:
Here's two cents and a few paragraphs from a person born and raised in SF (although I am temporarily in Burlingame for about one more year).

Both the proposed SC and HP sites will require a lot of effort and time. Seems like SC is ahead because the plan has been approved by the city and the 49ers. HP will take a lot planning and major construction work through the efforts of SF, Lennar and the 49ers. Note that the 49ers aren't even at the discussion table for HP and a stadium does not really affect Lennar's presence in the area.

The monumental efforts to make HP viable are expensive, time consuming, technically/logistically complex and require luck/timeliness. The luck/timeliness will need to be provided by the SC site hitting financial and time obstacles. There is a lot of ground for HP to make up.

That said, I think the HP site CAN be a superior site to SC. It is planned to be an interesting mixed use development along one of SF's waterfronts. I think it can 'kinda' do for HP what at&t Park did for China Basin, which has corporate & industrial tenants that HP would not necessarily have. But, because of the time and need for infrastructure improvements at HP, SC is a better choice at this moment. It is simply ahead of the game. Still, if the HP stadium can be built, I think it would be worth it.

Actually, let me temper that with emotionally worth it, which goes for the SC site as well. I don't think stadiums anywhere are actually financially worth it. Also, parking and traffic issues plague most stadiums. at&t Park, Qwest Field and Oracle Arena are three of the better stadiums that I have been to that address this with proper levels of public transport and parking options. The newer Arizona stadium has a crappy parking lot issue. When I was there in 2009 (3 years old stadium at the time), that stadium couldn't check parking passes or collect money from people without passes. Also, it took me over 90 minutes to GET OUT of the PARKING LOT.

My point is troubles at any stadium site are pretty much a wash and it's really all about the timeliness of the projects. While I would rather the 49ers play in SF, it pains me to say that the SC site makes a lot more sense right now simply because they are ahead of the game. The only other 'realistic' options in SF is rebuilding Candlestick or Daly City's Cow Palace, but those are extremely far from likely.

One last opinion: I haven't seen an actual stadium design for HP. Most renderings I have seen are the SC Stadium pasted onto either the HP site or another SF waterfront site. I'm not crazy about the stadium design, but I think it makes more sense at the HP site. The "building/suite" portion could face a street while the opening of the stadium faces the bay. In SC, it looks really unbalanced and I am not sure if there is a view to take advantage of.

@ cypherninja...

You're Spot On! And Thank You.
You Being a Native San Franciscan, as I am, you also know that Lennar has spotted the Yorks $1 mil dollars to start the Hunters Point Stadium. As Gavin Newsom has said repeatedly, "all we need is the Yorks to say YES, and we can start building the next day." Because the residents of San Fancisco have voted a total of 3 Times for the the project to get started. There are No Hurdles in San Francisco, HP is shovel ready to go.