Timeline Dec. 2011-Present Stadium Gamplan Exposed

December 2, 2011

18 months after the passage of Measure J, and after more than 100 closed door backroom negotiating sessions, the City Council releases the draft Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA - stadium contract between the city and the 49ers) and the Joinder (stadium financing agreement).  Santa Clara residents are shocked and outraged to see that our city council has signed up our Stadium Authority to take on $850 million in loans that were not revealed on the stadium ballot Measure J.

Santa Clara Plays Fair creates the following to compare what voters were told during the Measure J campaign on the left with the true pie chart of the stadium construction costs from the DDA on the right:

 

SANTA CLARANS FEEL BETRAYED BY OUR COUNCIL


 

December 6 and 8, 2011

Two study sessions reveal:

  • A Goldman Sachs financing chart shows that the 49ers are putting up zero of their own dollars for stadium construction (there is no money shown on the arrow from the 49ers or Team.)
  • Our city's Stadium Authority ("Authority" on the chart) will take on $850 Million in previously undisclosed loans for stadium construction.  There will be a direct loan of $450 Million to our Stadium Authority, plus another l$400 Million oan made to the 49ers Stadium Company (Stadco) which will be shoveled over onto our Stadium Authority.
  • The stadium will be completely debt financed.
  • There are no parking/traffic mitigations.
  • The city and the 49ers admit that the Youth Soccer Park won't be usable on NFL game days.  There was no mention of a loss of use of the Youth Soccer Park in the Environmental Impact Report.

December 13, 2011

The Santa Clara City Council votes to accept the DDA and Joinder 7-0, ignoring the concerns of Santa Clarans about $850 Million in loans that were not disclosed on the Measure J ballot.

Council Member Kevin Moore talks fondly of putting up Yes on J yard signs at 2:30 am during the Measure J campaign.

 

Dec 20, 2011

SCPF decides to gather signatures for referendum petitions for both the DDA and Joinder.  The right to referendum is guaranteed by the CA Constitution and Santa Clara's City Charter. Election codes require that signatures be gathered "within 30 days of the date the adopted ordinance is attested by the City Clerk."

The attested, signed documents (DDA and Joinder and their associated resolutions 11-16 and 11-17 become available in the City Clerk's office after being sent to the east coast for signatures.  SCPF obtains documents from the City Clerk's office; while there, Santa Clara's City Attorney tells SCPF in front of witnesses that the resolutions can be subject to referendum.

SCPF beings printing petitions which follow the elections code requirements.  An extraordinary number of people volunteer to help circulate petitions.

 

December 27, 2011

SCPF circulates petitions for signatures, and finds that many Santa Clara voters feel betrayed by our city council.  People want to have the right to vote on the $850 million in loans.  Many sign who previously voted Yes on Measure J.  More and more people volunteer to help gather signatures.

Santa Clara Plays Fair receives help from the ACLU because the city is not following the law regarding allowing signatures to be gathered in front of the library and senior center. The ACLU intervenes and the city must comply with the law.

 

December 2011 - January 2012

The San Jose Mercury News will not run letters to the editor expressing opposition to the $850 million in loans or expressing concern about the risk of the loans.  Email from the SJ Mercury News Letters editor tells writers that they have to prove the city is at risk from the $850 million in loans.  The media ignore the fact that Measure J did not disclose any loans

 

January 6, 2012

The union IBEW posts on its website "AFFILIATES…we have been asked by the 49ers to generate between 10-20 individuals to act as "Interceptors" in an effort to derail a ballot referendum targeted at overturning the City of Santa Clara's recent vote to approve the Development Agreement with the 49ers." "Interceptors" would be paid $25/hour for 4 hours of work at a time.

 

The 49ers stadium campaign group, Santa Clarans for Economic Progress (SCEP) Major Funding by the 49ers Stadium LLC - comes back to life.  The Secretary of States's Website shows that SCEP has been re-animated for purposes of a "2012 election."

SCEP provides the union interceptors with fliers to hand out at locations where Santa Clara Plays Fair collects signatures.  There are up to 15 union blockers per SCPF signature gatherer at grocery stores.  When the blockers are filmed by a TV news crew, the union blockers refuse to say who is paying them. Union blockers also get into their vehicles to follow Santa Clara Plays Fair signature gatherers from location to location within Santa Clara.

 

SCEP also funds a full page color ad on the back of the Santa Clara Weekly telling people not to sign the petitions and threatening litigation against the people of Santa Clara.


January 7 & 8, 2012

SCPF holds 'Save Santa Clara Saturday' with successful petition signings all over the city on two weekends at the Farmer's Market, library, senior center, post office, and grocery stores.

 

January 10, 2012

To convince Great America to let the 49ers use the GA parking lot on game days, the City Council grants rent concessions to GA - their rent will essentially stay flat for the next 60 years despite inflation, and the city's General Fund will lose out on all of the income it could have made.  This violates the City's Guiding Principal 8 - that there would be no reduction in Great America income to the city due to the stadium - established at the start of the stadium contract negotiations years earlier.

 

The San Jose Mercury News and the Santa Clara Weekly runs editorials telling people not to sign the petitions. SJ Mercury News columnist Scott Herhold writes an opinion piece saying 'Just Say No' to signing the petitions. He writes that SCPF 'threw everything but the kitchen sink' at the No on J campaign - failing to note that SCPF had $20,000 to spend (almost all from Santa Clarans) whereas SCEP/Yes on J had almost $5 Million to spend.

 

January 13, 2012

City attorney Ren Nosky releases a letter to the media in which he states the DDA and Joinder are not 'referendable' because they are 'administrative acts' which followed from passage of stadium Measure J in June 2010, not 'legislative acts.'

 

San Francisco Radio Host Brian Sussman joins SCPF in gathering signatures at Savemart after he receives his bill from the 49ers for personal seat licenses, and is outraged at the cost.

 

January 2012

Yes on J/SCEP stadium campaign consultant Rich Robinson posts an article on San Jose Inside in which he: 1) fails to disclose that he was paid $23,000 as a consultant to SCEP, and 2) calls Santa Clarans who want the right to vote on $850 Million in loans 'miscreants' and 'obstructionists.'  The online personal attacks of Santa Clara voters who dare to raise concerns about the stadium financing continues.

 

January 18, 2012

Despite having to collect signatures during the holidays, the City Attorney's letter in the media, the union blockers, and editorials in newspapers telling people not to sign, SCPF submits 5,500 signatures on each of two petitions. A preliminary count at the City Clerk's office verifies that there are enough prima facie signatures.  The petitions are transported to the Registrar of Voters, where they are validated.  SCPF has collected more than enough signatures.

 

January 24, 2012  City Council Meeting

The council receives a letter from the Registrar of Voters stating that SCPF has enough signatures to qualify for referendums on the DDA and the Joinder.  By law, the council is supposed to either rescind its resolutions or put the DDA and Joinder to a vote of the people.  The city attorney tells the city council that he believes the referendums are invalid because the DDA and Joinder are merely 'administrative acts' to carry out Measure J.   He advises the council not to certify the petitions and to move to sue SCPF so that a judge can rule that the DDA and Joinder are not subject to referendum.  The Council votes 5-2 to not certify the petitions and to sue SCPF.

CBS coverage- http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/01/25/2nd-vote-on-49ers-stadium-project-rejected-by-santa-clara-city-council/

“The people of Santa Clara were deceived,” said one resident. “The city is being ripped off, that’s why people showed up and signed the petitions. We were not shown the true costs.”

 

A member of the broadcast media tells Santa Clara Plays Fair that pro-stadium people have called the station to say, "How dare you show the other side."

 

January 30, 2012

The City of Santa Clara sues its own citizens in Santa Clara County Superior Court to try to prove that the citizens do not have the right to vote on whether or not a city agency should take on $850 million in loans for the benefit of a private party.  The court sets mid-June as the court date.

Later that week, SCPF hires an excellent attorney, Matt Zinn of Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger LLP,  to defend our right to vote.

 

February 6, 2012

The 49ers Stadium Company (StadCo) files a court brief as a party of interest. StadCo sues not only Santa Clara Plays Fair but also the Stadium Authority, showing their willingness to sue not only the citizens of Santa Clara, but also the City itself. They ask for a court date of March 5th because ballot materials for a June election are due on March 9th.  The judge moves up the date to March 5, 2012.

 

February 13, 2012

The SJ Mercury News runs an inaccurate letter to the editor, which states that a judge has ruled that the referendums can't happen. That's false. The court case isn't until March 5th.  The SJ Mercury News runs a retraction the next day.

 

February 14, 2012

Santa Clara's City Council votes 5-1 (Kennedy votes no, McLeod is absent) to issue $878 Million in contracts for stadium construction, despite the pending lawsuit.  Council Member Will Kennedy dissents, stating that the council should wait another 3 weeks until the court case has been heard.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=8544453&pid=8544452

 

February 15, 2012

The Santa Clara Weekly runs the same false letter to the editor that appeared in the SJ Mercury News the previous day.  The Weekly continues its personal attacks against Santa Clara Plays Fair in editorials, articles, and letters to the editor.

 

Northside Santa Clara residents report that the Youth Soccer Park is now marked as a construction zone.

 

February 22, 2012

Santa Clara Plays Fair's attorney files SCPF's court brief.  Here's the link to all three court filings (the city's, StadCo's, and SCPF's):

http://santaclaraplaysfair.org/index.php/component/content/article/35-whatownerswonttell/111-referendumcourtcase

 

Despite the pending lawsuit, the media continue to write only about pre-construction work at the stadium site and ignore the lawsuit.


February 29, 2012

Stadco's response to SCPF's attorney's court brief is due.

 

March 5, 2012

Scheduled court date.

 

March 6, 2012

Scheduled City Council meeting.

Timeline Sept. 2010/Dec. 2011 Stadium Gameplan Exposed

September 2010

SCPF discovers that the Police Chief of the Santa Clara Police Department has been providing free police escorts to/from Candlestick, the Coliseum, and the airport for the 49ers for several years without the knowledge of the taxpayers, city manager, or the approval of the city council.  Ultimately, the city requires the 49ers to reimburse the city for the police escorts, and establishes a policy for payment for the police escorts.

 

Fall 2010 City Council Campaign

Mahan, Matthews and Kolstad run as a slate. A union political action committee puts out a slate mailer on their behalf, essentially promising that they will vote 'yes' on stadium-related issues:

The 49ers CEO and 49ers contractors continue to donate to help keep our council majority pro-stadium:

  • $1500 contributed by 49ers stadium contractor Devcon employees to Patricia Mahan in her run for city council.
  • $2250 contributed by 49ers CEO Jed York and 49ers stadium contractor Devcon employees to Jamie Matthews in his run for mayor.
  • $2000 contributed by 49ers CEO Jed York and 49ers stadium contractor Devcon employees to Pat Kolstad in his run for city council.
  • $5000 paid for a mailer on behalf of Jamie Matthews, Patricia Mahan, and Pat Kolstad by unions which will benefit from the stadium.

November 2, 2010 City Council Election

Jamie Matthews council seat is vacated when he takes over as mayor. Mayor Patricia Mahan hops to a council seat to start her 17th consecutive year on the council (seat hopping bypasses the 8-year term limits for council and mayor.)  Despite a strong showing (about 46% of the vote) by two non-incumbent council candidates, the pro-stadium council ignores those candidates.  Instead, to fill the vacant seat, pro-stadium council members appoint 49ers stadium campaign spokeswoman/former council member Lisa Gillmor. The pro-stadium majority of 5 continues.  (Mahan, Moore, Matthews, Kolstad, Gillmor)

 

November 13, 2010

The city has spent $612,068 from the General Fund on city staff salaries for work on the stadium thus far, while voters were promised that there would be 'no cost to our General Fund.'

 

January 1, 2011

Newly elected Governor Jerry Brown states that he plans to eliminate redevelopment agencies so that property taxes in RDA areas can flow to cities, counties, and schools.  Despite the impending elimination of RDAs, Santa Clara's City Council moves forward with making commitments of RDA monies for the stadium.

 

February 22, 2011

The City Council passes an SB 211 Amendment to extend the number of years over which the redevelopment agency can siphon off property tax dollars for stadium construction; those dollars would otherwise have flowed to Santa Clara's General Fund.  The SB211 Amendment triggers AB1290 payments - the RDA kickback to the school district is set in motion.

The Council forms the Stadium Authority, the composition of which is identical to the City Council. There is no independent oversight of the Stadium Authority, and no system of checks and balances in place.  The Stadium Authority is formed as a joint powers agency between the city and the RDA, even though the Governor plans to eliminate RDAs.  The City Manager, City Clerk, and City Attorney are the executive manager, secretary, and counsel for the Stadium Authority.

 

March 21, 2011

To hide money from Governor Jerry Brown, whose goal is to eliminate redevelopment agencies, the Stadium Authority and RDA give the 49ers $4 Million in RDA money for 'safekeeping' despite 53 letters to the council in opposition (and none in favor.)

 

July 2011

Without a vote of the people to amend Measure J, and because the Governor has proposed eliminating RDAs, the City Council creates a new agency to replace the RDA as part of the joint powers agreement which created the Stadium Authority.

 

July 12, 2011

The Council grants Joe Montana's Hotel Group an exclusive negotiating agreement regarding property on Tasman Drive across the street from the proposed stadium site.

August 28, 2011

An independent traffic study published on the SF Chronicle shows that:

"A study conducted by a Walnut Creek traffic consultancy contends the 49ers' proposal overestimates available parking, underestimates how many people will drive to the games and exaggerates the proposed stadium's proximity to mass transit"


"Given the lack of progress securing agreements on parking, the Santa Clara site will clearly end up with substantially less parking than was estimated in the (49ers' traffic management plan)," the study reads. "In addition, the plan to use private parking areas will most likely require a substantial number of additional security personnel to manage tailgating and ensure the security of any private properties that are utilized."

 

November 15, 2011

Without a final stadium contract in place between the City and the 49ers, the City Council approves proceeding with $10 million worth of 'make-ready' pre-construction work for the Stadium site.

 

December 2011

The RDAs across the state, including Santa Clara's RDA, sue the state of CA to try to prevent Governor Brown's elimination of RDAs from occurring.  The  CA Attorney General's office defends the state's position, and  the CA Supreme Court upholds Governor Brown's legislation, AB 1X 26, which eliminates RDAs.  The CA Supreme Court strikes down AB 1X 27, which would have allowed RDAs to continue to exist in a 'pay to play' scheme.  The outcome is the worst possible outcome for the RDAs, but the best possible outcome for cities, counties, and schools starved of property tax dollars because of RDAs.

Timeline May/June 2010 Stadium Gameplan Exposed

May 5, 2010

Santa Clara's pro-stadium elected officials continue to hide the existence of the Stadium Authority and its debt/loans. Mayor Patricia Mahan and Council Member Jamie Matthews wrote an editorial in the Santa Clara Weekly: "Over 92% of this project is paid for by the NFL, the 49ers, and other stadium revenues."

Note that CA Elections Code Fair Campaign Practices states that campaigns should be: "free from dishonest and unethical practices which tend to prevent the full and free expression of the will of the voters."

 

Every Wednesday Santa Clarans receive the Santa Clara Weekly, which presents an extremely biased pro-stadium point of view, such as the following quote which was reproduced in a SCEP campaign mailer:


18 months later in Dec. 2011, when the stadium contract is revealed, voters will discover that our Stadium Authority is signed up for an enormous mortgage of $850 Million dollars in loans.

 

May 2010

Pro-stadium council members/mayor continue to appear in SCEP mailers/ads which are designed to deceive voters into thinking the 49ers/NFL/stadium revenues will be responsible for 92% of the stadium construction costs (>$823 Million). The following misleading information is sent to voters repeatedly:




(Hence, it will come as a great surprise and betrayal of the voters when, in December 2011, the Council reveals that Santa Clara's agency, the Stadium Authority, will take on $850 Million in loans to construct the stadium.  No loans were ever disclosed in Measure J.)

 

May 2010

A reporter for a major paper tells Santa Clara Plays Fair in regards to the massive deception of Santa Clara voters and the hiding of the stadium construction costs: "You're sitting on a huge investigative story, and no one will write it for you." Why? Because reporters are afraid of losing access to the team.

 

Santa Clara Plays Fair, supported by Santa Clarans, has the funds to put out only one mailer during the campaign, approximately 1 month before the election.  It's a post card in caution tape colors.  On the back side, the mailer shows voters the Term Sheet stadium construction costs of a $114 Million direct subsidy from Santa Clara plus $330 Million in debt from our Stadium Authority (total of $444 Million), plus the $67 Million loss to our City's General Fund.

 

May 12, 2010

In response to the mailer sent by Santa Clara Plays Fair, which told the truth about the $444 Million from Santa Clara and the Stadium Authority, the Santa Clara Weekly provides false information to voters: that the $444 million contribution to stadium construction from Santa Clara and its agencies (Redevelopment and Stadium Authority) would be 'paid by the 49ers'.


Mayor Mahan went so far as to create an instructional video to show people how to mark their absentee ballots to vote 'yes' on the stadium: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkAmxW_C2BM


May 11, 2010

Although the election has not yet occurred, the SC City Council approves the 2% hotel tax hike to provide $35 million for stadium construction, and moves forward with spending $20 million of Santa Clarans electric utility funds for the unnecessary relocation of the Tasman Electric Substation to create parking spaces.

 

May 16, 2010

At a debate at the Muslim Community Association, Mayor Patricia Mahan provides false information to the audience (Youtube). She states that the sweetheart deal on the 49ers training facility rent was in exchange for the 49ers paying hundreds of millions of dollars for the infrastructure leading up to the training facility.  That's not true. The lease required the City of Santa Clara to pay for the infrastructure leading up to the training facility.

 

May 20, 2010

The hoodwinking of Santa Clara voters continues in the press. In a KTVU Channel 2 report, Lloyd LaCuesta echoed the false pie chart of costs put forth by SCEP and pro-stadium council members by saying: the city of Santa Clara puts up $114 million, "and the 49ers would pay the rest."

 

May 22-24, 2010

Survey USA conducted a stadium poll of 577 Santa Clarans for KPIX-TV:

56% for

40% against

4%   Undecided

 

June 8, 2010 Stadium Measure J Election

Yes  14,628   58.2%

No   10,505   41.8%

Total votes 25,133

Voters who didn't vote approximately 22,000.

 

There are approximately 117,000 people living in Santa Clara.  Less than 10% of our population signed us up for hundreds of millions in debt.

Amount the 49ers spent to win Measure J = almost $5 Million ($350 per yes vote, the most ever spent in the United States on an election.)

In addition, the City of Santa Clara spent $390,000 from RDA property tax dollars on ballot materials for Measure J.

June 2010

SCPF had been kept off the air during the Measure J campaign. Apparently, the SF Mayor had been kept off of the air too.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom on CBS Channel 5 was asked whether he'd been talking to the 49ers about a SF plan for a stadium, Mayor Newsom said, "They're entire focus has been on getting the voters.  They've tried to keep me off some TV and radio shows. Ah, cuz they don't want me to talk about this stadium plan (San Francisco's plan).  So they pulled out all the stops."

With respect to Santa Clara's stadium ballot measure, he said: "I don't think there's ever been a bigger investment, on a per capita voter basis, in the history of this country than the amount of money the 49ers spent to get this passed." "I won't sell my soul for 10 games a year. There's no economic stimulus for 10 games a year….Big stadiums aren't used that often."

 

June 2010

Santa Clarans for Economic Progress' website morphs into a 49ers ticket sales website.  SCEP files paperwork with the City Clerk to terminate their committee.  Had SCEP really been for 'economic progress' for Santa Clara, rather than just to function as a make believe citizens' group' to get the stadium ballot measure to pass, they would have stayed together as a committee.

 

Summer 2010

One would think that with Measure J over, that the adult male Santa Claran who harasses anyone opposed to the stadium or to public funding for a stadium would cease his harassment.  But no, the cyberbullying, and harassing phone calls/emails etc. continue unabated. The unfounded complaints filed against people and SCPF continue.   In her fall 2010 run for City Council, Patricia Mahan puts him on her payroll as a campaign consultant.  Why would anyone spend hours a day cyberbullying/harassing Santa Clarans over the stadium issue? It's clearly a form of illness.

The attached documents are:

1) a pdf file of a court brief filed by SCPF's attorney, Matthew Zinn,

2) a pdf of a court filing made by StadCo (the 49ers Stadium Company) against SCPF

and the Stadium Authority, seeking to deny Santa Clarans the right to vote on the

Disposition and Development Agreement and the Joinder, and force the Stadium

Authority to also not allow us the right to vote, and

3) a pdf file of a court brief filed by the Stadium Authority which seeks to prevent

Santa Clarans from voting on the $850 million in undisclosed loans for stadium construction.

 

The Court Date is March 5, 2012 in Santa Clara County Superior Court.

Timeline April 2010 Stadium Gameplan Exposed

April 5, 2010

Because the Measure J ballot does not disclose Santa Clara's $114 million direct subsidy or our Stadium Authority's $330 million in debt for stadium construction as listed in the Term Sheet, a Santa Clara resident files a lawsuit in an attempt to force the city to put the stadium costs on the ballot. Santa Clara's city attorney argues in court that there is no legal requirement in state law for a city-wide ballot measure to disclose the actual costs (sadly, this is true, whereas for county-wide and state-wide ballot measures financial disclosure is required).

 

In a filing with the court, an attorney for SCEP argues that, "There is nothing in the Term Sheet that requires the Stadium Authority to provide $330 million (or any other amount) for stadium construction..." and that the number $114 Million was "plucked out of thin air." (The attorney neglected to mention that Term Sheet Exhibit 14 lists $330 million in stadium debt for the Stadium Authority.  And the $114 Million is the sum of all of the city's direct contributions to the stadium.)

The court sides with the city and no Stadium Authority loans/debt are added to the Measure J ballot. The ballot measure goes to the voters without disclosure of the stadium construction costs.  (Unbeknownst to voters, the council will do a backroom deal to load up the Stadium Authority with $850 Million in debt after the election.)

 

April 6, 2010

Mayor Patricia Mahan appears on ABC 7 television to continue the deception of voters: "The mayor of Santa Clara insists the 49ers will end up paying close to 92 percent of the costs."

 

April 2010

Schools superintendent Steve Stavis and board president Andrew Ratermann send a letter to undecided voters' homes asking for them to vote Yes on Measure J. While the return address shows the names of the superintendent and board president above "Santa Clara Unified School District," the return address isn't the school district's - it's the 49ers campaign Yes on J headquarters in Mervyn's Plaza on El Camino.

 

Santa Clarans' mailboxes are bombarded with campaign mailers using the schools. At a time when the district has a budget crisis, and teachers are being laid off, the mailers make boatloads of promises which cannot be kept (the $26 million in RDA money over 16 years will not be enough to meet all of the promises.)

 

Parents report to SCPF that principals at two SCUSD schools send letters home asking parents to vote Yes on Measure J.  A high school parent complains that pro-stadium fliers are being left on end tables in a SCUSD school office. A parent from one SCUSD elementary school posts on the SJ Mercury News comment board that her child came home from school saying that her teacher told her to tell her parents to vote 'yes' on the stadium. That parent contacts SCPF.

 

April 2010-May 2010

Santa Clara's elected police Chief Steve Lodge appears in Yes on J mailers/ads. he also appears in a front page spread on the SC Weekly which states that Chief Lodge endorses the stadium.  (Six months after the election, he will retire and go to work as a highly paid stadium security consultant at $100/hr, on top of his almost $200K/yr pension from the city.)


(Except that there is a $170,000 threshold on public safety costs per game, the number of officers required per game is greater than Santa Clara's entire police force.  Ultimately, 18 months later, the contract the city negotiates with the 49ers will state that public safety costs above the threshold will be paid but will be compensated for with a rent credit on facility rent.)


SC County Tax Assessor Larry Stone also appears in 49ers stadium campaign materials. SJ Mercury News: "Santa Clara County Assessor Larry Stone also accepted tickets worth $350 from the team in August 2005 while he was exploring possible South Bay relocation sites on the 49ers' behalf. The Mercury News discovered that Stone listed the tickets among gifts he received on an economic disclosure form, despite his statement in the San Francisco Chronicle on Thursday that he 'paid for everything that I got from the 49ers.'  "

 

(Except that construction costs which soar above the Term Sheet's $937 price tag won't be considered 'cost overruns' and will be paid for with Stadium Authority loans, not by the 49ers, and the stadium contracts don't say the 49ers are responsible for all operating costs, and there is a cost to our General Fund because of the $67 Million loss.  Voters don't know that because of Freedom of Speech, there is no requirement for truth in advertising in campaign materials, and that our City Council majority partnered with SCEP to say anything to get Measure J to pass.)


April 15, 2010

San Jose State conducts a poll of 614 Santa Clarans on behalf of ABC7 and the SJ Mercury News.  The poll does not disclose the stadium construction costs to Santa Clara and its agencies.

36% against

52% for

11% undecided

 

April 25, 2010

A San Jose Mercury News article shows how successful the 'money for the schools' argument is:

"Craig Blackhurst, a 43-year-old architect, is convinced parking will be a major problem for NFL game days and is also certain taxpayer dollars are going to be spent down the line on the stadium. But he remains undecided because the deal, if it goes through, would free up more than $20 million in redevelopment money for the financially strapped Santa Clara Unified School District, where his two children attend schools. "We need the money in the schools," he said. "I don't feel I have much of a choice."

In a SC Weekly editorial, Council Members Jamie McLeod and Will Kennedy attempt to dispel the myths put forth by SCEP mailers/ads about the source of the $26 million in redevelopment money for the schools.    "The 49ers do not contribute this money, but they are taking full credit. It doesn’t come from them or from the stadium. This money comes from the city."

 

Yet, SCEP campaign consultant Rich Robinson, who earned $23,000 from the Yes on J stadium campaign, posted the following misleading statement on his Facebook page: "The Niners are willing to put $26 million to schools in Santa Clara."


Stating that the 'money for the schools' would come from the stadium or the 'Niners' team is a deception continuously perpetrated by the Yes on J SCEP campaign and its consultants. The $26 million comes from our own property tax dollars from the RDA, and ANY redevelopment project would have triggered the kickback to the schools - the stadium was never necessary to trigger the kickback.