clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Election Day and the 49ers

Normally I prefer to keep political discussions away from Niners Nation.  The one exception I'll make is when it is something that affects the 49ers, the NFL or something prominent in sports in general.  Now is one of those times. 

I have multiple email addresses and one is for when I need an email address to sign up for something or other.  This ends up getting a lot of junk mail and today I received something from "Carmen Policy" with the subject: "A message from Carmen Policy asking 49er fans to vote YES on G and NO on F."  This coming Tuesday, June 3 is election day out here in California and I've been getting a lot of paper mail and email related to the various candidates and propositions in San Francisco and California.  I had not done much research into the propositions, but this email has me checking out the voter information guide I get in the mail for every election.  Since I'm sure a substantial number of readers here are based on California, I thought I'd point out the propositions that affect the 49ers.  More specifically, these are San Francisco propositions.  I'm using the voter information guide to lay down the basics of the respective propositions since the details are not so simple.  The voter guide includes objective facts and arguments for both sides.  I will only include the objective facts.

Proposition G
Last year two propositions were passed related to the 49ers stadium goals: 1) Prop D allowing the City to issue up to $100M in lease revenue bonds for stadium development and 2) Prop F which changed city zoning to allow a stadium and related shopping/entertainment center to be built.  Nothing has since been developed on those propositions.  This new proposition would make it City policy to encourage the development process, "subject to public input and the environmental review process."  This development would include homes for sale and rent, 300+ acres of public park and open space improvements, retail space, office and industrial space and of course a site in Hunters Point Shipyard for a new stadium if the 49ers and the City determine it is feasible. 

Even if the 49ers leave town, it seems like redeveloping Hunters Point and Candlestick Point is part of the legacy Mayor Gavin Newsom wants to leave behind.  Considering I can't afford to attend games already, I guess it shouldn't really matter where the 49ers play, as long as they're still called the San Francisco 49ers.  Their offices are located in Santa Clara so if they end up down there I don't think it's really the end of the world.  And honestly, considering how much of a pain traffic is getting to Candlestick Park, it would probably be easier for a guy like me who doesn't have a car to get to Santa Clara on the train.

Proposition F
This Proposition goes hand-in-hand with Prop G.  If passed, Prop F would require that the mixed-use development plan in Prop G meet certain affordable housing requirements.  According to the City Controller, this would not affect the cost of government but would lead to lower property tax revenues.  It relates to the 49ers in that Prop F would prohibit the SF Board of Supervisors from approving the sale, conveyance or lease of City-owned land at the project site until any deal is found to incorporate the specific affordable housing requirements.  This prohibition includes a new 49ers stadium.  My email from "Carmen Policy" makes it seem impossible to build a new stadium if F passes, but such conclusory statements are not always true, so take it however you want.

A little research has indicated the 49ers are hoping to get something on the ballot in the South Bay by November , but there appears to be a lot of work still to be done.  In the meantime, if there is anything elsewhere in the Bay Area I've missed in terms of the coming week's elections, feel free to discuss it in the comments.