Santa Clara city council, 49ers reach deal on new stadium
by David Fucillo on May 20, 2009 12:22 AM PDT
in San Francisco 49ers News
Email
PrintLate tonight Santa Clara city officials signed off on the general framework of a deal to build a new stadium for the 49ers in Santa Clara. While this is a big step, the bigger step is passing the required ballot measure at some point in 2010 (rumored to be in March).
The final proposal was not made public, but will be released May 29. The article linked above says that the city council will meet June 2 to discuss whether to officially back it. Of course, if they've come to terms at this point, I don't see why they wouldn't back it. Santa Clara has posted some details in the past, which you can view to see where things potentially have gone.
According to city officials, Santa Clara would conceivably be contributing no more than $90 million towards the $850+ million stadium deal. That $90M would likely come through redevelopment funds and a tax on hotel customers. The local mayor has indicated in the past that the team would own the stadium and lease it to the 49ers. Given how much the 49ers appear to be kicking in, I'd like to think the lease terms are somewhat favorable.
In the meantime, I'd imagine the city of San Francisco will have something to say about all this. What that is exactly, I do not know. The City hired Carmen Policy to lead their efforts in keeping the 49ers in town. We'll see if that pays off in the end.
Personally, as long as the team is in the Bay Area I'm fine. Well, that and retaining the name San Francisco 49ers. Either way, this process is far from over. If Santa Clara gets a good deal on this it would help with voters. However, when you're relying on voter support, it's always a tricky issue. Then there's also the fact that the NFL's G3 stadium fund is supposedly empty (thank you Jets/Giants!). Money doesn't grow on trees so we'll see how much debt the 49ers have to deal with to make this dream a reality.
After the jump we've got a bit of a mock-up from SupportOurNiners.com.
18 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Wait a second? The city only kicks in $90 million out of the possible $850 million and they are the owner who leases it?
mayor's comments
The mayor has mentioned this in the past. No word yet on if it’s part of the final proposal. And no mention of potential revenue splits.
by David Fucillo on May 20, 2009 12:32 AM PDT up reply actions
That's scary
Jed might be the worst business man of all time.
Also the city of San Francisco should be utterly ashamed. They can’t keep the team in the city for a mere $90 million? A one lane bike bridge crossing a creek full of frogs cost $90 million these days. That’s chump change for a city that size. I thought the hold up was a city had fork over close $500 million to land the team . . . that’s a different ball game.
I imagine it would cost alot more to build a stadium in SF than it would in SC.
With the cost of land, at least.
The cake is a lie.
by Sultan of Seitan on May 20, 2009 1:45 AM PDT up reply actions
bad economy
The 49ers aren’t exactly in a great negotiating position given the economy. Also, for San Francisco, as Deific16 mentioned, it’s not like you can just throw up a stadium somewhere. The place they’ve spoken of down in Hunters Point will require an extensive environmental clean-up.
Additionally, we still don’t know all the details on this whole thing, or really any of them in comparison to what was discussed in the past.
by David Fucillo on May 20, 2009 7:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Property Taxes
I had forgotten about this before a friend reminded me. One plus to the city owning the stadium is that the 49ers would not have to pay any property taxes. Those can be a real kick in the nuts on an $850 million stadium. I’d imagine that if they are in fact renting the stadium, whatever rent they pay will be a pretty good deal for them.
by David Fucillo on May 20, 2009 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions
When you pay property taxes...
… are you paying it for the land, or the property on the land? Or both?
property taxes
I believe it’s like owning a home. The percentage comes off the value of what’s on the property. I don’t own property so I’m certainly not the best person to ask.
by David Fucillo on May 21, 2009 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions
What's even goofier...
… is that in something I read yesterday, the 49ers may be on the hook for demolition and cleanup if the stadium reaches the end of it’s usefulness. I’m sure there are details missing, and it’ll probably be clearer as the people in Santa Clara are provided info to vote on.
correct
That was part of the mayor’s comments in an article written before the city council agreed to a deal. Hard to tell what is based on previous discussions, and what is actually in the deal.
In the end, I think any deal would be favorable to the city given the economy and the fact that city’s have wised up to what they really get out of stadium deals.
by David Fucillo on May 20, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Follow up.
According to this article in the Contra Costa Times, the 49ers will be paying to lease/rent the land that the stadium sits on, not necessarily the stadium itself. I could be misunderstanding the article, of course. Isn’t that kind of a weird (and unusual) situation? Owning a building on someone else’s land?
Carmen Policy Interview
with The Razor and Mr.T on Tuesday: Listen Here
"geez its like this site is so serious i jus wanna git mai opinyons on tha Kings out there ok" - TZ
Its all good
what is Santa Clara, 40 minutes from San Francisco? And Santa Clara is no New Jersey, either (the New York teams stadium location).
Maybe I’m not concerned because I’m not in the Bay Area, but York has said time and time again, it will be the San Francisco 49ers, no matter where the stadium is. Well, assuming its either in SF or SC anyway.
Having said that, I think it would cool if the city of San Francisco stepped up and did a blockbluster stadium proposal that the team couldn’t say “no” to. Either way, I’m glad a new stadium is finally on the horizon. This team needs one.
by Andrew Davidson on May 20, 2009 8:55 AM PDT reply actions
Like Fooch
I want the name to stay the same.
Like Dre, this doesn’t affect me as much because I’m not in the bay area
However, $90 mil does seem a little light, even if the team is said to be expecting the NFL to kick in (though Roger Goodell said there’s not really any money left for it).
Anyone out on the West Coast have a better sense than me as to whether the Santa Clara voters will ok this?
Taxing hotel visitors takes the sting out a bit, but we don’t much like using public funds for pro sports stadiums.
Please tax me to build a stadium that will cost me another $200+ each time I visit. PLEASE?!?!
by daveofferson on May 20, 2009 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't live in the bay area
So I’m not going to get taxed
by SportsChicken on May 20, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
