News


49ers chief hails approval of new stadium in Santa Clara

Newsom calls deal 'shaky,' that S.F. 'stands ready to welcome its 49ers home' when Peninsula funding falls apart

San Francisco 49ers president Jed York Wednesday hailed Santa

Clara voters' approval of a ballot measure to relocate the team to that city with a new $937 million stadium, while San Francisco's mayor issued a statement warning that funding for the project is destined to fall apart.

"I think this is a very, very big day, not just for the 49ers but for the NFL," York said during a brief conference call with reporters Wednesday afternoon.

Santa Clara voters on Tuesday approved Measure J, with 60 percent supporting the proposal, which calls for a 68,500-seat stadium to be built next to the Great America theme park.

York called passage "a giant step," noting the difficulty of getting stadiums approved anywhere in the country. He said the next step is putting together the financing.

The team and the National Football League have agreed to contribute nearly $500 million, and the Santa Clara Stadium Authority and the city of Santa Clara will foot the rest of the bill, according to York.

A new stadium in Santa Clara would replace Candlestick Park, located in San Francisco's Hunters Point, as the team's home venue.

In a statement released by his office Wednesday morning, San

Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said the Santa Clara stadium plan "is built on shaky economic ground, and a significant math problem and financing gaps remain."

Newsom said San Francisco is forging ahead with its redevelopment plans for Hunters Point, which include the possibility of a new stadium there.

"When the Santa Clara plan falls apart, San Francisco stands ready to welcome its 49ers home," Newsom said.

Opponents of Measure J had warned that while a stadium in Santa Clara might make money for the team, it would be a bad financial deal for the city.

Proponents countered that the deal would create thousands of new jobs for local workers and millions of dollars for schools and Santa Clara's general fund.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by The Santa Clara 49er'$?
a resident of Livermore
on Jun 10, 2010 at 10:29 am

Seems like most of these "professional" sports end up costing their cities much more than they are ever worth. Not to mention the traffic snarls, or Seat Licenses.

Look what happened in Oakland.
And those fools let the Oakland Traitors come back for LA,
and fleece them yet again! So are they happy now?
or just Sadder, but Wiser?

I guess Sports Fans can't add?


Like this comment
Posted by Katie D
a resident of Ruby Hill
on Jun 10, 2010 at 2:17 pm

Ok, so we are in a recession, and we decide to build a new stadium for men that run around in spandex with a football?? We could use that monery for something else. Such carelessness. And no common sense, ovbiously. Don't get me wrong, i like sports and all, you need your exercise, but seriously?


Like this comment
Posted by Football Fan
a resident of Beratlis Place
on Jun 10, 2010 at 7:42 pm

Katie D: Your argument is one that women state all the time, especially the spandex part. The fact of the matter is that football is one of the greatest money generators for colleges and pros alike. So it's not such a wise thing to make a ridicule lovers of football (like myself). That would be like saying, "Oh women always want shoes to fill their closet, don't they have anything better to do?" (like my wife). Now with that being said, cities need to be cautious against guys like Al Davis (Raiders) and the Yorks (49ers's). The problem is when voters say Yes in the ballot box, who are we to say No because we think we have a better set of values. It's democracy at work, not a value against spandex or frivolous shoe buying.


Like this comment
Posted by Nosy Neighbors
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jun 12, 2010 at 1:41 pm

Yee Haa! Pleasanton to Candlestick, about an hour & a half. Pleasanton to the new proposed site, around 45 minutes.

Win-win in my book!


Like this comment
Posted by Katie D
a resident of Ruby Hill
on Jun 13, 2010 at 11:47 am

I understand football is important to many, but i think you are missing my main arguement. I think our priorities are mixed up. There are bigger things we need to focus on, rather than moving the 49ers to Santa Clara. Bigger money issues. We are what trillions in debt? And we decided to build a new stadium for football? I hope some of that money is going to our ongoing debt in the United States, and world. Plus, the Raiders and 49ers might have to share the stadium. That's just wrong.


Like this comment
Posted by So great!
a resident of Canyon Meadows
on Jun 17, 2010 at 7:41 pm

Santa Clara approves a new stadium while we are in a recession and Pleasanton can't approve a parcel tax. Maybe we should have gotten the 49ers to move to Pleasanton, and combined a parcel tax with the measure. That would have probably generated more excitement.

So sad!


Like this comment
Posted by SC man
a resident of Danville
on Jun 24, 2010 at 8:21 pm

Katie- You really can’t go bashing on this stadium deal without knowing all the facts to it. Such as putting the money to other uses. This money that SC is putting in is redeveloping money that can only be used in that area of town for projects like the stadium. Try doing some more research and then we can talk.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Couples: "Taming Your Gremlin" by Richard Carson
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,287 views

Battle over downtown Livermore plan heats up
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 499 views