There are 174 users in the forums
Originally posted by Young2Rice:
Yup. People are more interested in things like "love fest" or sitting in a park smoking weed playing bongo drums.
Originally posted by Marvin49:
Originally posted by fastforward:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
I get your point, but SF is just different than any other city. Way too much politics.
As for the residents not wanting a big noisy stadium....Candlestick is ALREADY there. The new stadium wouldn't infringe on anyone. In fact, that is a larger concern in SC than in SF.
The problem is simply short-sightedness. Not to get too political myself but its similar to National Politics. One side yells cut all spending. They don't understand that some spending is an investment and the return is far greater than the original expenditure. You don't grow an economy by not spending money. you grow it by speding it on things that return more than your investment. in the 50's and 60's we build infrastructure all over this country. That created jobs and built the economy. Now we have a crubling infrastructure and nobody seems to have the forethought to realize that is an avenue to fix alot of our problems.
Again...I'm not trying to be political...I'm using it as an analogy.
If SF had realized the oportunity that they had instead of concentrating on nothing but the here and now, they'd still have the team and would probably be hosting Super Bowls already. They'd be making MORE money than they do at Candlestick.
Football stadiums are too expensive as there are too few games per year. The 49ers have to do extremely well on the field for the city of Santa Clara to cover its bets. According to Bloomberg, the cost to the city by 2015 will already be $78 million in fees and interest. Considering that Santa Clara only has slightly more than 100 thousand residents. That's close to $750 per head.
...and how much will the city make when a Super Bowl is hosted in the City? How much will the City make of tax revenue from the Montana/DeBartolo project that wouldn't be there without the stadium. How much revenue will be made off of the new Mall complex being proposed in place of the Golf Course that, AGAIN, wouldn't be there if not for the stadium.
This is my point. Short sighted. You can't look at the stadium in a phone booth. The stadium is just a catalyst to all sorts of other recenue creating projects.
78 Mil? Are you joking? The stadium cost 1.2 BILLION. Thats less than 10 percent of the total.
Originally posted by fastforward:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
Originally posted by fastforward:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
I get your point, but SF is just different than any other city. Way too much politics.
As for the residents not wanting a big noisy stadium....Candlestick is ALREADY there. The new stadium wouldn't infringe on anyone. In fact, that is a larger concern in SC than in SF.
The problem is simply short-sightedness. Not to get too political myself but its similar to National Politics. One side yells cut all spending. They don't understand that some spending is an investment and the return is far greater than the original expenditure. You don't grow an economy by not spending money. you grow it by speding it on things that return more than your investment. in the 50's and 60's we build infrastructure all over this country. That created jobs and built the economy. Now we have a crubling infrastructure and nobody seems to have the forethought to realize that is an avenue to fix alot of our problems.
Again...I'm not trying to be political...I'm using it as an analogy.
If SF had realized the oportunity that they had instead of concentrating on nothing but the here and now, they'd still have the team and would probably be hosting Super Bowls already. They'd be making MORE money than they do at Candlestick.
Football stadiums are too expensive as there are too few games per year. The 49ers have to do extremely well on the field for the city of Santa Clara to cover its bets. According to Bloomberg, the cost to the city by 2015 will already be $78 million in fees and interest. Considering that Santa Clara only has slightly more than 100 thousand residents. That's close to $750 per head.
...and how much will the city make when a Super Bowl is hosted in the City? How much will the City make of tax revenue from the Montana/DeBartolo project that wouldn't be there without the stadium. How much revenue will be made off of the new Mall complex being proposed in place of the Golf Course that, AGAIN, wouldn't be there if not for the stadium.
This is my point. Short sighted. You can't look at the stadium in a phone booth. The stadium is just a catalyst to all sorts of other recenue creating projects.
78 Mil? Are you joking? The stadium cost 1.2 BILLION. Thats less than 10 percent of the total.
$78 million for 2 years in fees and interest. That's a lot of money for a city with barely more than 100,000 people. Santa Clara is a small town with not much to see. There is a Great America nearby, but that's pretty much it. How much money is the city going to get from tourism?
Many stadium projects have turned into money-losing ventures for the local government. Bloomberg reported in 2012 that in the stadium building spree, US taxpayers lost a cool $4 billion to make NFL owners richer.
I love football, but I'm very skeptical of all the sweet talks of booming economy because of football. There are only 8-10 games in a season, for Pete's sake.
Originally posted by Young2Rice:
Plus it makes property value skyrocket, adding addional revenue in property taxes.
Originally posted by pdizo916:Its way over 10 years.....
What exactly happened between the niners and the city of san francisco? I knew that the team tried to work with the city for at least ten years but no progress was made. I'm curious as to what happened? Was it politics, greed, stupidity, a failed leadership by the mayors of San Francisco? Did San Fran offer up free land like they did the Warriors? Was freeway access the problem? Besides bayview, where else was the proposed stadium suppose to be built? I was thinking right across the street from att where ucsf extension campus is being built.
Could anyone give an explanation on what caused the rift between the niners and the city?
Originally posted by xtm059:
Why does anyone think santa clara has money problems
Originally posted by fastforward:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
Originally posted by fastforward:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
I get your point, but SF is just different than any other city. Way too much politics.
As for the residents not wanting a big noisy stadium....Candlestick is ALREADY there. The new stadium wouldn't infringe on anyone. In fact, that is a larger concern in SC than in SF.
The problem is simply short-sightedness. Not to get too political myself but its similar to National Politics. One side yells cut all spending. They don't understand that some spending is an investment and the return is far greater than the original expenditure. You don't grow an economy by not spending money. you grow it by speding it on things that return more than your investment. in the 50's and 60's we build infrastructure all over this country. That created jobs and built the economy. Now we have a crubling infrastructure and nobody seems to have the forethought to realize that is an avenue to fix alot of our problems.
Again...I'm not trying to be political...I'm using it as an analogy.
If SF had realized the oportunity that they had instead of concentrating on nothing but the here and now, they'd still have the team and would probably be hosting Super Bowls already. They'd be making MORE money than they do at Candlestick.
Football stadiums are too expensive as there are too few games per year. The 49ers have to do extremely well on the field for the city of Santa Clara to cover its bets. According to Bloomberg, the cost to the city by 2015 will already be $78 million in fees and interest. Considering that Santa Clara only has slightly more than 100 thousand residents. That's close to $750 per head.
...and how much will the city make when a Super Bowl is hosted in the City? How much will the City make of tax revenue from the Montana/DeBartolo project that wouldn't be there without the stadium. How much revenue will be made off of the new Mall complex being proposed in place of the Golf Course that, AGAIN, wouldn't be there if not for the stadium.
This is my point. Short sighted. You can't look at the stadium in a phone booth. The stadium is just a catalyst to all sorts of other recenue creating projects.
78 Mil? Are you joking? The stadium cost 1.2 BILLION. Thats less than 10 percent of the total.
$78 million for 2 years in fees and interest. That's a lot of money for a city with barely more than 100,000 people. Santa Clara is a small town with not much to see. There is a Great America nearby, but that's pretty much it. How much money is the city going to get from tourism?
Many stadium projects have turned into money-losing ventures for the local government. Bloomberg reported in 2012 that in the stadium building spree, US taxpayers lost a cool $4 billion to make NFL owners richer.
I love football, but I'm very skeptical of all the sweet talks of booming economy because of football. There are only 8-10 games in a season, for Pete's sake.
