Posted Wednesday, December 9, 2009 11:48 AM | Contributed by Jeff
Cedar Fair has filed a lawsuit that would void a proposal between Santa Clara and the 49ers to build a 68,500-seat stadium on a city-owned parking lot used by the theme park. The suit, downplayed by both sides in the dispute, came shortly before the Santa Clara City Council voted early this morning to put a stadium proposal to its residents in June.
Read more from The San Francisco Chronicle.
From reading the comments in that article, I get the feeling the issue of a new stadium is a highly charged subject matter for Californians.
I doubt anyone here in So Cal cares (or even knows!).
Well, aren't they two different provinces?
How can any city afford to buid a new sports stadium right now? And in california of all places. I thought that state was in big trouble.
I think that money could be used better.
Usually when a professional team wants their home city to pony up to pay for a better stadium, they hold the implied threat of departure for greener pastures over the heads of the citizens. If the Bay area won't pay for a new park, maybe Salt Lake City will. But this strategy doesn't work so well when pretty much every state and major metro area is staggering from slashed tax revenue and double digit unemployment. Except in the rare case of a community that has already built a state-of-the-art sports palace with no team to play there.
You can't just arbitrarily treat everything as "spend on this or a school." That's rarely where money comes from. Something like a stadium is financed by the team, sin taxes, bonds, etc.
^ The city is fronting a good amount of the capital to get the stadium built.
It's perfectly understandable why too. They have it in their heads as spend lots to build a stadium: then rake in millions in potential revenue from taxes generated by stadium admission tickets, parking lot fees, etc. in the future.
Ensign Smith said:
But this strategy doesn't work so well when pretty much every state and major metro area is staggering from slashed tax revenue and double digit unemployment. Except in the rare case of a community that has already built a state-of-the-art sports palace with no team to play there.
Actually a good many metro areas still hasn't seen that 10 percent unemployment rate yet plus even in states where the rate is that high if not higher, that still wont stop those who want a new stadium either. Indiana for example last I checked had one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation but that still didn't stop Indianapolis from building that new Lucas Oil Stadium for their Colts.
^^From reading the discussion, my understanding of Santa Clara's business model is as follows:
Phase 1: Build Stadium
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: PROFIT!
Except Lucas Oil was green-lighted with funding well before the economy took a dive. They were in the middle of their first season in the new stadium when the economy publicly fell out from under us.Last edited by maXairMike, Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:49 PM
^^Best reference to the underpants gnomes EVAR! ;)
I don't blame CF at all on this one. Why should an NFL franchise, with the multi-million dollar ownership, not to mention all the league revenue, merchandising, etc., pay a fraction for leasing the land than what Cedar Fair pays?
They should talk to the folks in Arlington, TX. From what I understand, many of them now regret letting Jerry Jones put in the new Cowboys stadium. I don't know the details myself, but I understand that he kept making more and more demands after the initial agreement went through and the city didn't have much choice at that point.
You must be logged in to post