Browntggrr Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Santa Clara Moves To Preserve Funds For 49ers Stadium Project The Santa Clara City Council met Tuesday night in hopes of finding a way to convince Governor Jerry Brown to preserve $40 million in state funding for a new stadium for the 49ers football team. The council voted 7-to-0 to approve a resolution which makes council members the governing stadium authority of the proposed $937 million stadium. But it did not happen without some heated discussion. "You are misusing our money and I think it needs to stop," said Santa Clara resident said Deborah Bress. "I think what you're doing in your attempt to end run will be overrode by the governor." Howard Gibbins of Santa Clara argued that the city council needed to keep the money from state coffers. "We all know Jerry Brown is going to take it from us," said Gibbins. "Be ready for it. He's going to steal our money and balance his budget off our backs." Last year Santa Clara voters approved the stadium project by a 58 percent vote and authorized the spending of up to $40 million in redevelopment agency money. But now Governor Brown is proposing doing away with redevelopment agencies. "That money has been committed by the community for the community and I'm not happy that the state would want to take it to solve their financial issues," said Fred Santillan of the Santa Clara 49ers Booster Club. http://www.foxreno.com/news/26962113/detail.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndyGuy4KI Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Santa Clara Moves To Preserve Funds For 49ers Stadium Project The Santa Clara City Council met Tuesday night in hopes of finding a way to convince Governor Jerry Brown to preserve $40 million in state funding for a new stadium for the 49ers football team. The council voted 7-to-0 to approve a resolution which makes council members the governing stadium authority of the proposed $937 million stadium. But it did not happen without some heated discussion. "You are misusing our money and I think it needs to stop," said Santa Clara resident said Deborah Bress. "I think what you're doing in your attempt to end run will be overrode by the governor." Howard Gibbins of Santa Clara argued that the city council needed to keep the money from state coffers. "We all know Jerry Brown is going to take it from us," said Gibbins. "Be ready for it. He's going to steal our money and balance his budget off our backs." Last year Santa Clara voters approved the stadium project by a 58 percent vote and authorized the spending of up to $40 million in redevelopment agency money. But now Governor Brown is proposing doing away with redevelopment agencies. "That money has been committed by the community for the community and I'm not happy that the state would want to take it to solve their financial issues," said Fred Santillan of the Santa Clara 49ers Booster Club. http://www.foxreno.c...113/detail.html What does this mean for Great America? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 If the city's view prevails and the team decides to locate there, probably not good for the northern California park. If the Governor is able to prevail and the redevelopment agencies are no longer in business, that MIGHT mean the northern California park might survive at least a bit longer. My prediction remains as it has for some time, look for FUN to unload this place as soon as it can do so at a reasonable price. Parks on leased lands don't usually survive. See also Kentucky Kingdom. Or Bell's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndyGuy4KI Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 If the city's view prevails and the team decides to locate there, probably not good for the northern California park. If the Governor is able to prevail and the redevelopment agencies are no longer in business, that MIGHT mean the northern California park might survive at least a bit longer. My prediction remains as it has for some time, look for FUN to unload this place as soon as it can do so at a reasonable price. Parks on leased lands don't usually survive. See also Kentucky Kingdom. I am wondering if they are setting themselves up to try and sell it to to 49ers for their project. Since they seem to be removing more rides, the better they look to sell the land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 They don't own the land. It is leased from Santa Clara.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndyGuy4KI Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 They don't own the land. It is leased from Santa Clara.... Oh I see. I wonder when that lease is up and if they will renew? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 The lease runs until 2039. See also: http://santaclaraca.gov/ftp/csc/pdf/49ers-Letter-from-Cedar-Fair.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastersRZ Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 And the lease dates to the days of Kings Entertainment Co. I`ll dig more up on it tomorrow. (Need to locate my trusty word file). Although, Great America has lasted quite a while on leased land. I think the writing is on the wall. Especially, with Cedar Fair taking an impairment charge on Great America. And they are shipping out Invertigo to another property. Kind of similar to what they did to Geauga Lake shortly before it closed. So who would get the B&M invert if they decide to relocate that ride? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KIfan1980 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Hmmm - maybe someone could Photoshop it into the "Planning" space Kings Island is Teasing to see if it fits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Bombay Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I want their skyride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 One of the reasons Gov. Jerry Brown is so willing to do away with local redevelopment agencies is the infamous Raiders stadium debacle that he inherited as mayor of Oakland."Oakland and Alameda County are spending $25 million a year, over a 20-year period, to repay a bond on a stadium that the owners now say may not be usable. That troubles me," Brown told us during a visit to San Francisco to push his budget plan. "My general view is we have to put education first and entertainment second," Brown said. Not that redevelopment dollars were actually used to pay for the 1990s Coliseum makeover that lured the Raiders back from Los Angeles and added the towering Mount Davis to the East Bay landscape. The $197 million construction bond was backed by the city's and county's general funds. But redevelopment money often does come into play in stadium construction. The 49ers' proposed stadium in Santa Clara would depend on it. So if it goes away, where does that leave the Niners or the Raiders, who may also want a new home? "Use the ones over at Berkeley and Stanford - they are good stadiums," Brown said. Besides, he added, "Private enterprise should be able to survive on its own, as witnessed at Pac Bell (AT&T) Park." As for the redevelopment funds Brown himself used as mayor to remake Oakland's downtown? That was then, he said, and the budget crisis in California has changed everything. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/07/BA0E1I4D3K.DTL At one time I believed the CA governor was playing hardball directly at CF to lower their buy-out on the GA contract. Now, I believe he is playing hardball with 2 of the 3 NFL teams in CA, as sending a clear message to the 3rd. Each needs/ wants a new NFL stadium, and by the governor's comments, it seems rather clear no money will come from public funds. Although, that attitude can change quickly if the right buttons are pressed. LA wants a team and at least 6 NFL teams want new stadiums. If a city ponies up the money for one of the current teams to move out of CA (or if one of the other NFL teams find a new home other than LA) the governor may have his arm twisted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 (Compare and contrast a state backed bond issue to reopen an amusement park on state fair ground lands when the private investment community has been unwilling to invest...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 How's this for the latest redevelopment agency shell game? In an ad hoc meeting Monday night, the Santa Clara City Council voted to transfer $4 million in redevelopment agency funds to a San Francisco 49er entity, Forty Niners Stadium LLC, for "make ready" work on a new 49er stadium that may never get built. Yes, it was a way of getting around Gov. Jerry Brown's proposed axing of state-funded redevelopment agencies, including Santa Clara's, which is supposed to contribute $40 million to the imaginary stadium under a ballot proposition passed in June. "I understand that the state is in a tremendous situation where they are trying to balance their budget, but these are local dollars," Mayor Jamie Matthews told KTVU. "This is an action that we are taking on behalf of the citizens." Actually, putting redevelopment money into private hands - the 49er entity is the chief bankroller of the $937 million project - is another twist in the now-you-see-it-now-you-don't game played by municipalities since Brown announced his plan in January to abolish redevelopment agencies and redirect the money to local agencies, such as school districts, for things like education and health care. "There is clearly a shell game going on," Natalie Cohen, head of municipal research at Wells Fargo & Co., said in a report published last week entitled "Redeveloping California." In addition to floating $700 million in new redevelopment bonds after Brown's budget proposal came out, Cohen wrote, "local units have rushed to write new redevelopment agreements to lock down funding ahead of the (budget) bill, as well as transfer assets out of the RDAs." That includes the Santa Clara Redevelopment Agency assets - $137 million and 178 acres of land - which the city transferred into its own coffers this month. Apparently, that wasn't enough for city officials. Although the bulk of the ballot-approved money for the stadium was already accounted for in the form of an earlier $21 million bond issue, they felt the need to put startup money - for "utilities" and "fire hydrants," said Matthews - into a private lock box, out of public reach altogether. "In order to protect the money, we have to take away one more argument from the state," he told the San Jose Mercury News before Monday's snap vote. However, there is a risk attached to such maneuvers, Cohen's report warns, referring to a statement last month from Brown's spokesman, Evan Westrup: "The governor's proposal allows for a thorough review of the actions cities and redevelopment agencies have been taking to sequester and fast track funds. If violations of the law are found, subsequent action can be considered and/or pursued." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/22/BUMT1IGA9R.DTL&type=business Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thekidd33 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Could some please...interpret...what all is being said in this article/filing. http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20CACO%2020110406058.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR Edit: Correct me if I'm wrong (my legal-ese is decidedly poor)but is CF basically stating that the city/county entered an agreement with the 49ers (or an agent thereof) to use the land that Great America currently sits on? Thus violating the terms of the lease between CF and the city? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalefan Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 The 49ers don't need a new stadium. Besides, they suck anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rcfreak339 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 The 49ers don't need a new stadium? Have you ever even seen Candlestick Park? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted April 13, 2011 Author Share Posted April 13, 2011 Could some please...interpret...what all is being said in this article/filing. http://www.leagle.co...LWAR3-2007-CURR Edit: Correct me if I'm wrong (my legal-ese is decidedly poor)but is CF basically stating that the city/county entered an agreement with the 49ers (or an agent thereof) to use the land that Great America currently sits on? Thus violating the terms of the lease between CF and the city? Yes, someone could interpret that. This lawsuit was narrower than that. In it, Cedar Fair contended that an environmental review was necessary before the City and the redevelopment authority (and presumably the 49rs) could proceed with any stadium plans. Cedar Fair lost in the trial court. They also lost in the appeals court. I discussed this earlier here: http://www.KICentral...ndpost&p=423748 Lance Hart made a very similar comment about not being able to interpret the decision! Park News - (4/13/11) My legal-eze is a bit weak… so does someone want to translate for us all just what is being said here about a lawsuit between Cedar Fair and the City of Santa Clara over the proposed new stadium project? ttp://www.screamsca...eat_america.htmThere is no legal advice contained herein. If you have, or think you may have, a legal problem, you may wish to consult a competent attorney in the jurisdiction where the matter arose. Any interpretation of the accounts of this case is meant solely for the use, edification and entertainment of readers of KICentral, and can be used for no other purpose without the express, written consent of the author herein. Good luck with that last part! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thekidd33 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 So I guess my question at this point would be if, as it would seem from recent statements/interviews/conference calls, CF is trying to sell the park why would they want to stall the stadium development? Kinzel stated that CF is trying to sell the park to the 49ers, though if there is no stadium built in that location that sale would seemingly not happen. If CF (and perhaps that is a bigger if then I have been assuming) is really looking to rid itself of CGA wouldn't they want the stadium deal approved as quickly as possible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted April 13, 2011 Author Share Posted April 13, 2011 If a party has or even may have the legal right to stop something (and they were trying in this case and perhaps in other ways as well), it is often a good idea to just pay them off to get them to go away. Also, Mr. Kinzel's sale statements came after the company had lost this case in the trial court. Terp, just sayin' (and reminded of one of his old prof's favorite sayings "Pay no attention to what they say, watch what they DO.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thekidd33 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Gotcha, as always, thank you Terpy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 The 49ers don't need a new stadium. Besides, they suck anyways. The 49ers most certianly need a new stadium. While the product on the field may not be good, new NFL stadiums are not only to see a football game, but for a fan "experience". Candlestick, which is the 2nd oldest NFL stadium, does not provide fans with any "experience". There are many options for the new 49ers stadium, but only one is currently being considered. Behind closed doors, the NFL is pushing for a joint stadium between the 49ers & Raiders. Unfortunately that log jam is called Al Davis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thekidd33 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 ^That's the first I have heard of the joint stadium idea but I can only imagine what a fit Al Davis through when he first heard the idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.