Jed York turns Santa Clara Youth Soccer into "Seahawks fans"

Status
Not open for further replies.

hawknation2015

New member
Joined
Dec 31, 2014
Messages
5,439
Reaction score
0
Location
Seattle, Washington
Funny Jed York story . . . not sure how I missed it. Jed apparently lobbied Santa Clara to pave over the town's youth soccer fields in order to create VIP parking lots for Levi's. The kids and parents went ballistic and made this hilarious youtube video that went viral on Facebook, featuring four young soccer players singing about “Jed the Millionaire" and becoming Seahawks fans to the tune of the old “Beverly Hillbillies” theme song.

[youtube]ALLc_No9pcg[/youtube]

The San Francisco 49ers got a big slap-down at the hands of the pint-sized players of the Santa Clara Youth Soccer League the other night, but it’s the team’s friends at City Hall who could be facing the political penalties for the botched play.

“It was not the Santa Clara way,” said Levi’s Stadium supporter and former Mayor Patricia Mahan, referring to the effort by the Niners and Mayor Jamie Matthews to turn the town’s youth soccer fields into VIP parking for the high rollers at the team’s new, $1 billion-plus playground.

Matthews and the 49ers had been shopping the plan around privately for weeks, and were hoping to push a deal across the goal line by next season that would have the team lease the fields from the city for $15 million over the next 39 years — plus a 20-year option.

Acquiring the 11 acres of fields adjacent to the stadium has been a goal of the 49ers for the past year. Initially, the team offered to rent the fields’ parking lot on game days. When the soccer league rejected that, Niners executives went to the city — which owns the land — with an offer of $15 million up front, plus $3 million to the local school district to build three new soccer fields so the kids could play there.

The parents took special pains to note that the November election campaigns of Matthews and Councilmen Dominic Caserta and Patrick Kolstad were handsomely financed by 49ers executives. That played into a larger feeling among critics that the council is overly friendly to developers in general.

Put it all together, and it added up to a council chambers filled beyond capacity Tuesday night with aggrieved young soccer players and their parents. It was a news event made to order for TV, which of course turned out in force.

920x1240

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/mati ... 223247.php
 

titan3131

Active member
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Messages
1,592
Reaction score
0
Imagine if paul allen came down and donated millions to give them a field. It would be the best owner troll of all time.
 

mikeak

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
8,202
Reaction score
25
Location
Anchorage, AK
Seriously - if they were given enough money (I have no idea how far the $3million will go) to build new fields then just fast track the new fields and don't give up the parking until new fields are available and it should be a non-issue
 

Popeyejones

Active member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
5,525
Reaction score
0
titan3131":19d3uwjp said:
Imagine if paul allen came down and donated millions to give them a field.

They've already turned down the offer of millions for new fields.

If anything it sounds like there's some bad blood between S.C. tax payers and the NFL franchise that bilked them to pay for its palace. And good for them, IMO. There should be bad blood. If someone robbed me and offered me back a pittance of what they took to appease me I'd be pretty pissed off too. TBH I find it pretty disappointing that the residents of more municipalities who pay for their teams' stadiums don't end up as similarly unwilling to continually roll over for them.
 

mikeak

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
8,202
Reaction score
25
Location
Anchorage, AK
Popeyejones":3d1ci7z9 said:
titan3131":3d1ci7z9 said:
Imagine if paul allen came down and donated millions to give them a field.

They've already turned down the offer of millions for new fields.

If anything it sounds like there's some bad blood between S.C. tax payers and the NFL franchise that bilked them to pay for its palace. And good for them, IMO. There should be bad blood. If someone robbed me and offered me back a pittance of what they took to appease me I'd be pretty pissed off too. TBH I find it pretty disappointing that the residents of more municipalities who pay for their teams' stadiums don't end up as similarly unwilling to continually roll over for them.

Curious is there a "post-stadium" first year economic impact article that talks about what they spent vs what they got back the first year and then trends it back?

I have no clue about the deal but have a general belief that areas that spend on teams do get a lot back over the years from business income and tax income related to that. Obviously the value of the deal depends on the terms of the deal
 

Popeyejones

Active member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
5,525
Reaction score
0
mikeak":2tad8aot said:
Curious is there a "post-stadium" first year economic impact article that talks about what they spent vs what they got back the first year and then trends it back?

I have no clue about the deal but have a general belief that areas that spend on teams do get a lot back over the years from business income and tax income related to that. Obviously the value of the deal depends on the terms of the deal

If there is one I don't know about it.

That said, in the last decade or so a general consensus has built up among urban planners and economists that publicly financing sports stadiums is a really horrible expenditure of tax revenue that never returns. It's why all the publicly financed stadium deals of the 90s and early 2Ks sailed through pretty easily, and all the publicly financed deals as of late have been drag-out fights or just wholly abandoned.

There are residents of Santa Clara that have known they were getting wildly screwed over since before the stadium was even built (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_20107165), and know that the 9ers are only even there in the first place because the city/county of San Francisco wasn't dumb enough to build the team a stadium.
 

mikeak

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
8,202
Reaction score
25
Location
Anchorage, AK
I have read some of those articles about the bad deal it is but also read others that completely disagree with this

I remember a few years ago how St Louis suddenly had all this extra cash just because they went deeper in the playoffs than expected.......
 

Marvin49

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
7,941
Reaction score
351
I can't comment on how much the city is or is not making off the stadium, ut it is one of the most city friendly stadiums built in the entire NFL. I think the city only used something like $150 mil of redevelopment funds to build the stadium and its 1.2-1.3 billion price tag. There are also no taxes outside of a hotel tax.

As for the field...The Team and city have been trying to work out a deal for a long time in order to relocate the soccer fields on the teams dime.

I think the bottom line is that the city will just want more money for the last AND get a piece of the parking revenue. Kids will have their soccer field...and it'll likely be less than a mile from where it is now.

BTW...this story is pretty old.
 

Popeyejones

Active member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
5,525
Reaction score
0
Marvin49":11fsu1p6 said:
. I think the city only used something like $150 mil of redevelopment funds to build the stadium and its 1.2-1.3 billion price tag. There are also no taxes outside of a hotel tax.

Ehh, that's a little bit deceptive. The vast, vast majority of the stadium financing comes through a loan secured by the Stadium Authority, which is...the Santa Clara City Council. That's supposed to be paid for by stadium revenue, but if the 9ers had ANY intention whatsoever of paying off the loan if those projections aren't met they would have just secured the financing themselves rather than forcing Santa Clara to create a fake quasi-public entity to do it. Basically Santa Clara gave them 1) 150 million gratis and 2) took on 850-950 million dollars of risk if sunny projections don't pan out (it will end up being less than that, but by how much is still unknown).

It's a heck of a lot better than most other public deals, but still a boondoggle, IMO.

http://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/Lev ... 687409.php

Years of complex negotiations, at least four lawsuits, special state legislation and a successful ballot measure - which stadium opponents contend was a bait-and-switch - have produced a financing plan that includes a new tax on hotel guests near the stadium and $621 million in construction loans taken out by a city-related entity.

Levi's Stadium is on city land and is owned by that specially created public agency, the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, whose members are the Santa Clara City Council. The authority was created as a separate legal entity to shield city coffers from being used to cover stadium costs. The 49ers have a 40-year lease, with options to extend it up to 20 more years. The team's annual rent is $24.5 million.

The authority, which is responsible for the construction loans, is supposed to pay them back using revenue generated by the stadium,including its $154 million cut of the $220 million, 20-year naming rights deal with Levi Strauss & Co. and the sale of seat licenses - one-time fees ranging from $2,000 to $250,000 per seat that give people the right to purchase 49ers' season tickets. The licenses are budgeted to bring in $312 million.

"The issue in the stadium financing deal always has been whether the planned revenues and expenses of the Stadium Authority were realistic," said Roger Noll, a professor emeritus of economics at Stanford University. "The structure of the financing package is such that it will take at least three years to know whether the authority is financially viable.
 

Marvin49

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
7,941
Reaction score
351
Popeyejones":xrpeh4hd said:
Marvin49":xrpeh4hd said:
. I think the city only used something like $150 mil of redevelopment funds to build the stadium and its 1.2-1.3 billion price tag. There are also no taxes outside of a hotel tax.

Ehh, that's a little bit deceptive. The vast, vast majority of the stadium financing comes through a loan secured by the Stadium Authority, which is...the Santa Clara City Council. That's supposed to be paid for by stadium revenue, but if the 9ers had ANY intention whatsoever of paying off the loan if those projections aren't met they would have just secured the financing themselves rather than forcing Santa Clara to create a fake quasi-public entity to do it. Basically Santa Clara gave them 1) 150 million gratis and 2) took on 850-950 million dollars of risk if sunny projections don't pan out (it will end up being less than that, but by how much is still unknown).

It's a heck of a lot better than most other public deals, but still a boondoggle, IMO.

http://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/Lev ... 687409.php

Years of complex negotiations, at least four lawsuits, special state legislation and a successful ballot measure - which stadium opponents contend was a bait-and-switch - have produced a financing plan that includes a new tax on hotel guests near the stadium and $621 million in construction loans taken out by a city-related entity.

Levi's Stadium is on city land and is owned by that specially created public agency, the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, whose members are the Santa Clara City Council. The authority was created as a separate legal entity to shield city coffers from being used to cover stadium costs. The 49ers have a 40-year lease, with options to extend it up to 20 more years. The team's annual rent is $24.5 million.

The authority, which is responsible for the construction loans, is supposed to pay them back using revenue generated by the stadium,including its $154 million cut of the $220 million, 20-year naming rights deal with Levi Strauss & Co. and the sale of seat licenses - one-time fees ranging from $2,000 to $250,000 per seat that give people the right to purchase 49ers' season tickets. The licenses are budgeted to bring in $312 million.

"The issue in the stadium financing deal always has been whether the planned revenues and expenses of the Stadium Authority were realistic," said Roger Noll, a professor emeritus of economics at Stanford University. "The structure of the financing package is such that it will take at least three years to know whether the authority is financially viable.

That's actually incorrect.

The Stadium Authority consists of both the City Counsel AND the 49ers.

True, the loans were secured through the Stadium Authority as a legal shield, but that shield protects both the team and the city. Also, that Stadium Authority is NOT funding the stadium through taxes. They are funding it through SBLs, Private Company Partnerships, etc., not public money.

Time will tell how the city fairs on the deal, but its a sweet deal in terms of the way other NFL stadiums are financed. Also can't look at it in a vacuum, because looking at it all by itself might give you idea that it was a bad investment...but you have to factor in the OTHER projects that wouldn't even exist if not for the stadium being there...IE the Montana/DeBartolo project and the completely new downtown development on the golf course that's 5 times the size of the stadium. None of that happens without the stadium.
 

mikeak

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
8,202
Reaction score
25
Location
Anchorage, AK
Marvin49":2klzxv84 said:
Time will tell how the city fairs on the deal, but its a sweet deal in terms of the way other NFL stadiums are financed. Also can't look at it in a vacuum, because looking at it all by itself might give you idea that it was a bad investment...but you have to factor in the OTHER projects that wouldn't even exist if not for the stadium being there...IE the Montana/DeBartolo project and the completely new downtown development on the golf course that's 5 times the size of the stadium. None of that happens without the stadium.

These points are spot on in general as well. People turn numbers to prove their point. So it is "easy" to say a stadium doesn't pay off but then you ignore income tax by the athletes (for other states besides WA), business tax around the area, other businesses that start up, even gas stations around where people fill up and spend their money. So having stadium built can often help the community with exceptions when the city gives away to much (miami and the marlins) or build something stupid (Memphis and the pyramid)
 

Popeyejones

Active member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
5,525
Reaction score
0
Marvin49":3mum7vcx said:
That's actually incorrect.

The Stadium Authority consists of both the City Counsel AND the 49ers.

That is plain and simply untrue. Every single link says otherwise, and the Stadium Authority itself (as part of the santaclara.gov website) clearly states it as well:

The Stadium Authority exists as a public body...

Members of the Stadium Authority are the City of Santa Clara. The seven elected members of the City Council serve as the governing board for the Authority. The Mayor serves as chair of the Authority, with the City Manager as the Executive Director and the City Attorney as the Authority’s General Counsel. Authority Members and Officers are as follows:

Board Members
Jamie L. Matthews, Chairperson
Dominic J. Caserta
Debi Davis
Lisa M. Gillmor
Pat Kolstad
Jerry Marsalli
Teresa O'Neil
Executive Director, Julio J. Fuentes
Stadium Authority Counsel, Richard E. Nosky, Jr.
Secretary, Rod Diridon, Jr.
Finance Director/Treasurer/Auditor, Gary Ameling
Assistant Executive Director, Alan Kurotori

When/if the stadium doesn't meet projections, the city of Santa Clara will be on the hook.* The 9ers closest thing to any involvement with the Stadium Authority is the Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC, which is a shell company that the 49ers use to pay off their lease to the Stadium Authority to ensure that San Francisco Forty Niners, Ltd (the actual team company) has absolutely zero liability whatsoever if revenue projections aren't met.

Or the city's own redevelopment company, the bylaws for which the city re-wrote in 2012 so that the city could be "joint partners" with itself in constructing the Stadium Authority.
 

Sports Hernia

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,755
Reaction score
3,372
Location
The pit
Popeyejones":21z8lc5y said:
Marvin49":21z8lc5y said:
That's actually incorrect.

The Stadium Authority consists of both the City Counsel AND the 49ers.

That is plain and simply untrue. Every single link says otherwise, and the Stadium Authority itself (as part of the santaclara.gov website) clearly states it as well:

The Stadium Authority exists as a public body...

Members of the Stadium Authority are the City of Santa Clara. The seven elected members of the City Council serve as the governing board for the Authority. The Mayor serves as chair of the Authority, with the City Manager as the Executive Director and the City Attorney as the Authority’s General Counsel. Authority Members and Officers are as follows:

Board Members
Jamie L. Matthews, Chairperson
Dominic J. Caserta
Debi Davis
Lisa M. Gillmor
Pat Kolstad
Jerry Marsalli
Teresa O'Neil
Executive Director, Julio J. Fuentes
Stadium Authority Counsel, Richard E. Nosky, Jr.
Secretary, Rod Diridon, Jr.
Finance Director/Treasurer/Auditor, Gary Ameling
Assistant Executive Director, Alan Kurotori

When/if the stadium doesn't meet projections, the city of Santa Clara will be on the hook.* The 9ers closest thing to any involvement with the Stadium Authority is the Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC, which is a shell company that the 49ers use to pay off their lease to the Stadium Authority to ensure that San Francisco Forty Niners, Ltd (the actual team company) has absolutely zero liability whatsoever if revenue projections aren't met.

Or the city's own redevelopment company, the bylaws for which the city re-wrote in 2012 so that the city could be "joint partners" with itself in constructing the Stadium Authority.

:snack:
Pass the popcorn, please. 8)
 

Jville

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
13,167
Reaction score
1,497
Popeyejones":4cmxjtvj said:
That said, in the last decade or so a general consensus has built up among urban planners and economists that publicly financing sports stadiums is a really horrible expenditure of tax revenue that never returns. It's why all the publicly financed stadium deals of the 90s and early 2Ks sailed through pretty easily, and all the publicly financed deals as of late have been drag-out fights or just wholly abandoned.

There are residents of Santa Clara that have known they were getting wildly screwed over since before the stadium was even built (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_20107165), and know that the 9ers are only even there in the first place because the city/county of San Francisco wasn't dumb enough to build the team a stadium.
I have certainly seen independent 3rd party studies of public expenditures for stadiums, as well, and the outcomes are horrific. It amounts to a redistribution of wealth from the general public to sporting enterprises and associates.

Administrative acts. Sadly, that is the common mechanism by which the rest of us outside the legal community and outside of vested interests with something to gain, are routinely excluded from having a decisive voice in the affairs of our own communities.
Opposition group Santa Clara Plays Fair, however, asserted that voters deserved another crack at the stadium because the bank loan was never part of the original plan. Before a brief hearing in Santa Clara County Superior Court, Judge Peter Kirwan sided with the 49ers and the city. "The court finds the (bank loans) at issue here are administrative acts not subject to referendum," Kirwan wrote.[urltargetblank]http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_20107165[/urltargetblank]
That two step process is how vested interests routinely excluded the rest of us from a voice in costs and financing and yet transfer the burden and expense to us as members of the community at large without recourse. Erosion of representation grows in this fashion.
 

Marvin49

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
7,941
Reaction score
351
Popeyejones":22euzeyf said:
Marvin49":22euzeyf said:
That's actually incorrect.

The Stadium Authority consists of both the City Counsel AND the 49ers.

That is plain and simply untrue. Every single link says otherwise, and the Stadium Authority itself (as part of the santaclara.gov website) clearly states it as well:

The Stadium Authority exists as a public body...

Members of the Stadium Authority are the City of Santa Clara. The seven elected members of the City Council serve as the governing board for the Authority. The Mayor serves as chair of the Authority, with the City Manager as the Executive Director and the City Attorney as the Authority’s General Counsel. Authority Members and Officers are as follows:

Board Members
Jamie L. Matthews, Chairperson
Dominic J. Caserta
Debi Davis
Lisa M. Gillmor
Pat Kolstad
Jerry Marsalli
Teresa O'Neil
Executive Director, Julio J. Fuentes
Stadium Authority Counsel, Richard E. Nosky, Jr.
Secretary, Rod Diridon, Jr.
Finance Director/Treasurer/Auditor, Gary Ameling
Assistant Executive Director, Alan Kurotori

When/if the stadium doesn't meet projections, the city of Santa Clara will be on the hook.* The 9ers closest thing to any involvement with the Stadium Authority is the Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC, which is a shell company that the 49ers use to pay off their lease to the Stadium Authority to ensure that San Francisco Forty Niners, Ltd (the actual team company) has absolutely zero liability whatsoever if revenue projections aren't met.

Or the city's own redevelopment company, the bylaws for which the city re-wrote in 2012 so that the city could be "joint partners" with itself in constructing the Stadium Authority.

You could be right there, but that wasn't the way I understood it when the Stadium Authority was initially created. I'll defer to you on this one...

...but I still stand by my comment about how the deal stands against other NFL Stadium deals and what the presence of the stadium does for the region and the projects that are in the pipeline that wouldn't be otherwise.

We can argue all we want about how municipalities shouldn't be I the stadium building business, but in the grand scheme of things this was hardly bad deal for the city.
 

Marvin49

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
7,941
Reaction score
351
Jville":iiz7gbd4 said:
Popeyejones":iiz7gbd4 said:
That said, in the last decade or so a general consensus has built up among urban planners and economists that publicly financing sports stadiums is a really horrible expenditure of tax revenue that never returns. It's why all the publicly financed stadium deals of the 90s and early 2Ks sailed through pretty easily, and all the publicly financed deals as of late have been drag-out fights or just wholly abandoned.

There are residents of Santa Clara that have known they were getting wildly screwed over since before the stadium was even built (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_20107165), and know that the 9ers are only even there in the first place because the city/county of San Francisco wasn't dumb enough to build the team a stadium.
I have certainly seen independent 3rd party studies of public expenditures for stadiums, as well, and the outcomes are horrific. It amounts to a redistribution of wealth from the general public to sporting enterprises and associates.

Administrative acts. Sadly, that is the common mechanism by which the rest of us outside the legal community and outside of vested interests with something to gain, are routinely excluded from having a decisive voice in the affairs of our own communities.
Opposition group Santa Clara Plays Fair, however, asserted that voters deserved another crack at the stadium because the bank loan was never part of the original plan. Before a brief hearing in Santa Clara County Superior Court, Judge Peter Kirwan sided with the 49ers and the city. "The court finds the (bank loans) at issue here are administrative acts not subject to referendum," Kirwan wrote.[urltargetblank]http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_20107165[/urltargetblank]
That two step process is how vested interests routinely excluded the rest of us from a voice in costs and financing and yet transfer the burden and expense to us as members of the community at large without recourse. Erosion of representation grows in this fashion.

To be fair though, Santa Clara Plays Fair only had an issue with the financing because they were looking for something....anything to have an issue with in order to stop the stadium being built. That was their sole reason for existing. It wasn't to secure a better deal. It was to END the stadium process.

Also in response to San Francisco's "not stupid enough" to build them a stadium...I can't disagree more. I see it the opposite way. The city was unwilling to do just about ANYTHING to get a stadium built and then cried foul when the team went elsewhere.

"Not stupid enough"? More like too damn stubborn for its own good and wanted everything for free. I remember they were actually angry with the 49ers because they felt not building them a free stadium cost them an Olympic bid.
 

Jville

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
13,167
Reaction score
1,497
Marvin49":heu86afc said:
Jville":heu86afc said:
Popeyejones":heu86afc said:
That said, in the last decade or so a general consensus has built up among urban planners and economists that publicly financing sports stadiums is a really horrible expenditure of tax revenue that never returns. It's why all the publicly financed stadium deals of the 90s and early 2Ks sailed through pretty easily, and all the publicly financed deals as of late have been drag-out fights or just wholly abandoned.

There are residents of Santa Clara that have known they were getting wildly screwed over since before the stadium was even built (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_20107165), and know that the 9ers are only even there in the first place because the city/county of San Francisco wasn't dumb enough to build the team a stadium.
I have certainly seen independent 3rd party studies of public expenditures for stadiums, as well, and the outcomes are horrific. It amounts to a redistribution of wealth from the general public to sporting enterprises and associates.

Administrative acts. Sadly, that is the common mechanism by which the rest of us outside the legal community and outside of vested interests with something to gain, are routinely excluded from having a decisive voice in the affairs of our own communities.
Opposition group Santa Clara Plays Fair, however, asserted that voters deserved another crack at the stadium because the bank loan was never part of the original plan. Before a brief hearing in Santa Clara County Superior Court, Judge Peter Kirwan sided with the 49ers and the city. "The court finds the (bank loans) at issue here are administrative acts not subject to referendum," Kirwan wrote.[urltargetblank]http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_20107165[/urltargetblank]
That two step process is how vested interests routinely excluded the rest of us from a voice in costs and financing and yet transfer the burden and expense to us as members of the community at large without recourse. Erosion of representation grows in this fashion.

To be fair though, Santa Clara Plays Fair only had an issue with the financing because they were looking for something....anything to have an issue with in order to stop the stadium being built. That was their sole reason for existing. It wasn't to secure a better deal. It was to END the stadium process.

I think your wrong. Your chosen interpretation is an explanation of convenience that is false.

But more important, I find it disturbing that we have so many who have accepted this all to common two step mechanism for sidestepping public participation as a method to facilitate shifting much of the cost and liability of special interests to those with no voice. This disturbing behavior is not unique or limited to Santa Clara. It plagues many communities.
 

Marvin49

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
7,941
Reaction score
351
Jville":q0ueb7m1 said:
Marvin49":q0ueb7m1 said:
Jville":q0ueb7m1 said:
Popeyejones":q0ueb7m1 said:
That said, in the last decade or so a general consensus has built up among urban planners and economists that publicly financing sports stadiums is a really horrible expenditure of tax revenue that never returns. It's why all the publicly financed stadium deals of the 90s and early 2Ks sailed through pretty easily, and all the publicly financed deals as of late have been drag-out fights or just wholly abandoned.

There are residents of Santa Clara that have known they were getting wildly screwed over since before the stadium was even built (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_20107165), and know that the 9ers are only even there in the first place because the city/county of San Francisco wasn't dumb enough to build the team a stadium.
I have certainly seen independent 3rd party studies of public expenditures for stadiums, as well, and the outcomes are horrific. It amounts to a redistribution of wealth from the general public to sporting enterprises and associates.

Administrative acts. Sadly, that is the common mechanism by which the rest of us outside the legal community and outside of vested interests with something to gain, are routinely excluded from having a decisive voice in the affairs of our own communities.
Opposition group Santa Clara Plays Fair, however, asserted that voters deserved another crack at the stadium because the bank loan was never part of the original plan. Before a brief hearing in Santa Clara County Superior Court, Judge Peter Kirwan sided with the 49ers and the city. "The court finds the (bank loans) at issue here are administrative acts not subject to referendum," Kirwan wrote.[urltargetblank]http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_20107165[/urltargetblank]
That two step process is how vested interests routinely excluded the rest of us from a voice in costs and financing and yet transfer the burden and expense to us as members of the community at large without recourse. Erosion of representation grows in this fashion.

To be fair though, Santa Clara Plays Fair only had an issue with the financing because they were looking for something....anything to have an issue with in order to stop the stadium being built. That was their sole reason for existing. It wasn't to secure a better deal. It was to END the stadium process.

I think your wrong. Your chosen interpretation is an explanation of convenience that is false.

But more important, I find it disturbing that we have so many who have accepted this all to common two step mechanism for sidestepping public participation as a method to facilitate shifting much of the cost and liability of special interests to those with no voice. This disturbing behavior is not unique or limited to Santa Clara. It plagues many communities.

I like how you think you know more about this organization because you read something once on the internet and didn't follow the entire process from beginning to end to see them pretty much have an issue with everything at every stage of the entire process.

Thay didn't want the stadium. Period. That's their right, but don't try to sell me on them just having an issue with an aspect of the thing. The organization was FOUNDED to stop the stadium. That's it.
 

Jville

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
13,167
Reaction score
1,497
^^^ Yours is an argument of convenience in support of a means you seek to justify. I think your priorities are misplaced.

Public participation and voice is much more important than that of narrow vested interests seeking to affect the outcome of any community project.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top