Santa Clara City Council Votes In Favor Of $937M 49ers Stadium

New 49ers Stadium Deal Will Go Before Voters After Environmental Impact Study Is Completed

The Santa Clara City Council just before 1:30am PT this morning voted 5-2 in support of a plan to build a $937M stadium for the 49ers, "paving the way for it to go before voters in the spring," according to a front-page piece by Cote & Knight of the S.F. CHRONICLE. With the council's approval, the deal now "will go before Santa Clara voters after an environmental impact study is completed," and a draft of that study is "expected to be ready this summer." Santa Clara Mayor Patricia Mahan said that the vote "would likely be" next April. Santa Clara city officials said that there would be "no direct impact on the city's primary spending accounts and no new taxes aimed at residents." Santa Clara Council member Kevin Moore, a "key proponent" of the plan, near the end of the 6 1/2 hour meeting joked to 49ers President Jed York, "Sorry Jed. We got a great deal." York told the council, "It doesn't matter if you are a football fan or not. It doesn't matter if you are a 49ers fan or not. This deal will make Santa Clara a better place to live, to work and to play." But "others on the council didn't think so," as council member Jamie McLeod, who voted against the plan, said, "The deal still has some flaws. It's not quite ready for prime time." The Council chamber, with a capacity of 150, was "standing room only as the panel, for the first time, publicly discussed" the deal, but by the time the council voted, "only a hearty few dozen remained" (S.F. CHRONICLE, 6/3).

GREAT DEAL FOR SANTA CLARA: In a front-page piece for the SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, Denis Theriault notes Santa Clara's contribution to the stadium plan "amounts to a $114[M] public subsidy for the $937[M] project -- far less than what the team had initially sought." Nearly 100 residents during the meeting "strode to the podium to have their say for two minutes apiece," and sentiment "ran overwhelmingly in favor of the stadium plan." But stadium opponents "fretted that the city still earns too small a return for too large a financial risk." Also, Great America theme park "would have to give up a parking lot for the stadium," and park Owner Cedar Fair Entertainment "renewed its concerns about the project as structured." Theriault writes for the deal to have "advanced this far is a testament to the willingness of team officials and city leaders to plow through a series of obstacles -- from the woeful economy to resistance from some residents" (SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, 6/3). Meanwhile, in S.F., Matier & Ross note NFL officials "have already hinted that the only way to guarantee the league's assistance in paying for the stadium may be for the Niners and Raiders to be roommates." Santa Clara Assistant City Manager Ron Garrett: "The plan works a whole lot better for everyone with two teams." 49ers VP/Communications Lisa Lang said that the team is "open to the idea of rooming with the Raiders but insisted the team could go it alone just as well" (S.F. CHRONICLE, 6/3).

END OF AN ERA? In a special to the S.F. EXAMINER, Art Spander wrote S.F. "used to be the place where the action was," but in the 21st century, it became "apparent San Francisco had neither the political maneuvering or the financial support to keep its team within the city limits." S.F. will "still have the Giants and AT&T Park, the anti-pig sty," so "things could be worse" (EXAMINER.com, 6/2).