49ers Stadium: Opponents' Of Financing Plan Running Out Of Options
by David Fucillo on Feb 1, 2012 6:01 AM PST
in 49ers Stadium
Email
PrintBack in early December, the San Francisco 49ers and the city of Santa Clara came up with $850 million worth of loans that they would use to pay for the team's new stadium. The loans were subsequently approved by the Santa Clara Stadium Authority with the plan being for serious construction to begin this spring. The team has begun releasing prices for PSLs (they're calling them Stadium Builder Licenses) on some of the club seats and will continue releasing pricing information.
Given that this is California, somebody is not happy about the process. A group in Santa Clara has opposed the current plan under the belief that it is sufficiently different from the original financing plans. They recently submitted a pair of referendum petitions each with 5,500 signatures challenging the development and financing plans for the project. Recently the Santa Clara City Council voted 5-2 to discard the petitions, contending its actions were immune from referendum.
The legal rationale, outlined in a series of previous court cases unrelated to the stadium, is that only "legislative" acts, those that make new policies for a state or local government, can be enacted by voter initiatives or undone by referendums. "Administrative" acts, which tell government officials how to implement their policy, cannot be overturned by referendum or approved by voter initiative.
The group will apparently continue to fight this contending the original measure presented to the voters. It could make for a sticky situation, although the courts have seemed to side with the local governments in the recent past.
Although there might be some differences, the 49ers remain the ones on the line in this whole deal. Although both the 49ers and the county's stadium authority have taken out loans, it is my understanding that the 49ers are the collateral on this loan. The city will not find itself suddenly on the hook for close to a billion dollars in loans. That won't stop groups from protesting, but that's going to happen I suppose. I just want to see shovels in the ground.
16 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Meh it's not just Cali, protesters are plentiful all over the states...
Same issue was/is still happening in Brooklyn with the Nets new Barclay Arena. Mind you as of today, its about 70% completed but still they rally to try and stop it. Hoping to get support from anyone that will listen to their cry/agenda. Moral of the story, even when this 49ers stadium is almost complete, you will still have protesters trying to stop it from completion. It’s sad really because it’s not as if the 49ers, don’t need a new stadium. Guess people have forgotten about the blackout that happend on MNF, where the enitre nation was watching just how outdated their facilities are.
Niners,Nets,Reds & USC!!!
The Most Interesting Man In The World---->Mikhail Prokhorov!!!
What does the 49ers stadium need
have to do with Santa Clara taxpayers?
To prevent a blackout, you just repair the electrical system, as they did for the playoff game.
What is the problem with these people?
Jobs, tax revenue will come from this stadium.
Let's giggity giggity Go 49ers!!!
by Kittles on Feb 1, 2012 10:35 AM PST via Android app reply actions
It is run by a busibody lady who had been running for Santa Clara mayor.
Probably her idea was that she could use that issue to help in elections. Stupid idea.
which probably means
she’s either a Raiders or Chargers fan; it’ll go nowhere…the Santa Clara City Council will make sure of that…
A football stadium is open 10 days a year for only a handful of hours.
It’s incredible that these billionaire owners can still get public money based on a claim of jobs.
Tax revenue comes from any business in the city. Only one gets over 100 million dollars of city money and city ownership of their facility. By the city owning the facility the 49ers avoid paying over 10 million dollars a year in property taxes. Close to 4 million of that would have gone to the school district.
revenue
You do realize the city gets a cut of stadium revenue, correct?
by David Fucillo on Feb 11, 2012 5:13 PM PST up reply actions
revenue
Stadium revenue goes beyond ticket revenue. The 49ers get to keep ticket revenue minus ticket surcharges that are being used to finance the stadium. According to the term sheet in Article 10, the city gets all concession and parking revenue, any potential excess from naming rights and PSLs, and most of the revenue from non-NFL events (concerts, etc).
by David Fucillo on Feb 13, 2012 12:24 AM PST up reply actions
The Term Sheet was the non-binding document that was presented
as a binding document to the voters in June 2010. It is better to reference things in the DDA which was the agreement finalized in December 2011.
One of the problems with football stadiums and one of the reasons why football teams don’t want to own them is that they aren’t good for much besides football. There may be a concert held in that stadium during it’s lifetime, but there may not be. Basketball arenas host just about every music artist today, whether it is Madison Square Garden, Staples Center, Oakland Colosseum or San Jose Pavilion.
There could be an occasional “monster truck show” or maybe a motorcycle race. Or maybe not. The stadium provides only a token amount of parking. In order to host a “monster truck show” you would need Great America to close as it has agreed to do for 49ers games. I highly doubt that they would want to close without being well compensated. Something a monster truck show would not be required to fund at the Oakland Colosseum or Candlestick Park. Or you would need to have it during a colder time of the year when Great America is closed. But I would imagine they would get more fans for monster truck shows and the like when the weather is good. Or the promoters could have an indoor monster truck show as I believe they have had in the Cow Palace.
also...
the 49ers will pay a $5 million a year rent on the lease and all net operating expenses of the stadium. It’s a 40-year lease with options for five separate additional four-year terms.
by David Fucillo on Feb 13, 2012 12:27 AM PST up reply actions
The 5 million a year rent is from the Term Sheet and outdated.
They now say they will pay much more since the Santa Clara Stadium Authority has had to borrow a half a billion more. The rent could be as much as 30 million but they can’t say how much because it is designed around the expenses of the stadium (including financing) and they aren’t sure what those are going to be. I would expect expenses to be approximately identical to what the 49ers pay.
The 49ers do get a great deal. Right off the bat they save 11 million dollars a year from not owning the place. Then they save a hundred million or more in income taxes from not being the official recipient of – Naming Rights, Concessionaire Rights and Stadium Builder Licenses.
I think the tremendous tax savings may be the biggest reason why pro teams don’t want to own these stadiums, followed by the fact that they are virtually useless 355 days a year, making them unprofitable.
Tax savings are number one, now
that municipalities won’t contribute as much to the stadium as they used to. Santa Clara is contributing 110 million or so, which is down from what other cities have given NFL teams in the past. And the amount cities are giving isn’t going down because cities find these stadiums to be great economically.
the loan
You do realize the 49ers are the ones on the hook for all the loans, right? The loans are actually more like a line of credit (money given to the groups involved as it is needed). When the stadium opens, all the loans taken out come due at which point any money in hand will pay what it can and the remaining due will be refinanced by the 49ers and they will make the payments on all those loans.
by David Fucillo on Feb 13, 2012 9:45 AM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
