Soccer Stadium Should Be Put to a Vote
On March 9th, the SF Chronicle reported that developer Lew Wolff is moving closer to a deal with the city and San Jose State that would bring a new soccer/football stadium to San Jose. The article states:
The city would rezone land that Wolff and the A’s either currently or will control from commercial to residential so he could sell it at a large profit. The group would use $80-90 million of the profits to build a stadium for the Earthquakes. “We’re trying to use entitlements as currency,” Wolff said.
The Chronicle story went on to say that San Jose would get pro soccer back, “without having to get a ballot measure passed for a new facility because no public money would be involved.”
Just a second. This decision should be made by the people of San Jose. If upwards of $80-90 million can be generated by rezoning city-owned land, then it is incumbent upon the San Jose City Council to find the optimal use for the money as defined by the priorities set by the people. $90 million could go a long way towards repairing our city. Is a new stadium a social need or a private want?
The city already has an ordinance on its books that requires voter approval before any public money can be used to build a sports venue. Why is this project allowed to circumvent the clear intent of the city’s ordinance? Even the developer, in his own words, defines city entitlements as “currency!”
The city’s currency belongs to the people. They alone should determine how it is spent.
Pete Campbell’s droning is about as boring as watching a bad scocer match. He writes about a city’s currency belonging to the people, and then he defends Chuck Reed in all sorts of publications. Reed has a staff, like the incompetent Aramndo Gomez, who said last week at a meeting at Milpitas City Hall that he is smarter than all the residents combined. Just because Reed let’s you wash his car every morning, Pete, does not mean Reed really believes in this milksop you try to pass off as an ode to public input. When I used to shop, near my ex-wife’s home, at Town Country, you sure liked to give us all a different view of the world.
I recall something regarding some of the land that would be used for the project, it currently belongs to History San Jose; does anyone know if that is correct? Jerry R., you should be on top of this one. If that is indeed the case, wouldn’t voters need to OK the new use for the land, from the museum to that of a soccer stadium?
Admittedly, I don’t know Mr. Wolfe, but he’s a powerhouse of $ and influence. Yes, San Jose will probably benefit from a soccer stadium, but that’s probably an aside compared to who may benefit the most.
A zoning change will require a GPA, an EIR, a planning commission vote and a council vote. The public can weigh in at each one of these steps and even sue to block the change, but putting this to a pubic vote is costly and is nothing more than a popuarity contest. The voting populous will never take the time to understand the impacts of the project on the GP or the community.
Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that the public is incapable of studying all the facts in a race to notice when a council candidate is clearly signing up to be a developer stooge and that community leaders are condoning the developer-lobbying-culture by endorsing candidates that discuss proposed project in advance of elections and then take campaign contributions from developers.
Maybe this downturn in the housing market can slow the influence, then again if Bill Clinton is shaking hands with Larry Stone, this culture is here to stay.
“It may be the most stunning and creative attack ad yet for a 2008 presidential candidate—one experts say could represent a watershed moment in 21st century media and political advertising.
Yet the groundbreaking 74-second pitch for Democratic Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, which remixes the classic “1984” ad that introduced Apple computers to the world, is not on cable or network TV, but on the Internet. ” – SFgate – online home of the San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo
Hillary like Dan Quayle compares herself to Jack Kennedy while believing she can ride Bill Clinton’s popularity to Presidency
Lloyd Bentson said it best – Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy. and voters in 2008 will say – you are not Bill Clinton
Pete—Thanks for another thoughtful piece. Looking forward to Mondays on SJI now that you seem to have that spot. However, it’s not clear that the city owns Wolf’s land. Sounds like he owns it and wants it rezoned—or upzoned to a more valuable use? That may, or may not be a good idea, depending on where it’s located. If it’s a good idea to change zoning, and he can then sell it for more $$ to give up for a soccer stadium, than that would likely be in the public interest. Need more info. George Green
Jay,
Do you have some kind of personal issue with Pete? Seems like some of what you say in your posts to Pete’s columns are rather mean spirited, and off topic. Some of what you say is based on fact. What gives?
Dear George (#6)
I don’t know who owns the land either. on Feb 28,07, the MERC reported, “He also wants to explore raising money for part of the stadium’s cost by winning a residential zoning change on an unidentified piece of industrial property.”
I wonder if the parcel that the city/RDA was assembling for a baseball stadium (near the arena) doesn’t play a part in the equation. (just wondering).
Also, regarding someone else’s comment about a vote being costly. All the council has to do is put it on the ballot of an already scheduled election. (Nov or next Feb).
Pete Campbell
Wonder Woman:
I don’t know, but I will find out!
They seem to be taking away most everything at History Park including the maintaince of the landscaping so it wouldnpt suprise me if they took the land also!
Jerry R
#6 is right. Now, Wolff will not say what parcel of land he’s talking about, naturally, since it’s a real estate deal that must be kept secret. But it’s either land he already owns or is about to purchase. That’s what I’m guessing. He will do what is in the public’s interest. He’s not some ruthless developer who wants to build at the public’s expense. He wants the stadium project to be something beneficial for all. Again, I’m guessing…
Screw the soccer deal! San Jose failed to support twice. We must get the baseball team in downtown San Jose!
#10 you might already know who
that you are either – tax subsidized developer wanting more land rezonings to increase your profits or uninformed dumbass who believes developers and politicians do “what is in pubic interest ” rather than ” what is their own self interests”? Wollf took millions from San Jose and is coming back for more tax millions Giving more tax dollars to developers, corporations and sports events like Grand Prix as we have done for years makes San Jose worse not better
Your give em more tax subsidies to fix San Jose attitude is why San Jose has so many fiscal, traffic, ethics and city service problems
Yes San Jose has lots of problems most of them money related. But our little nieghbor next door seems to be always flush with cash, fixes every pothole and negotiates with major sports teams (with a $200MM energy tax fund) It seems as if Santa Clara could be Pleasantville.
But theres a little secret and a loophole of unfair competition. It began back in the late ‘80s with electric deregulation. But dereg only went part way and it only affected the Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) like PG&E and not the municipals like Santa Clara Electric (now Silicon Valley Power).
Muni’s unlike the IOU’s get to buy cheap federal power (like Bonneville) and this keeps their electric prices down in that city. much cheaper than we pay here with PG&E.
With dereg PG&E had to sell off its generation like Moss Landing and 20 some odd dams in the Sierras. And now PG&E buys power back from companys (out of state) from the very same power plants that had been built and operatiing for years. How you put a middleman in there and make it cheaper for the consumer I’ll never figure out.
With dereg the muni’s like Santa Clara could buy additional cheap federal power, more than they ever need, and sell it on the spot market and make a nice sum. They even have an in house trading team that works at this full time!
Add to this the large corporations that like doing business in Santa Clara because of reduced energy costs (and the costs are significant) and there is additional tax base.
If anyone thought that Santa Clara was just an efficient little burg, dismiss the thought. They have found an unfair advantage to the rest of the county and socking it away in order to finance football stadiums or fix more potholes.
If we had some on the bell state legislators this bunged up dereg loophole would be addressed so that everyone in the county has equitable energy bills and an equal distribution of the tax wealth.
San Jose can not afford major league baseball or football because we wasted billions on bad tax subsidy deals, mismanagement and downtown during Silicon Valley boom years while well managed smaller Santa Clara and Fremont will get our sport teams
#3
History San Jose doesn’t own any land. They are just the non-profit that has the contract to operate the History Park. The land is owned by the City. The land you may be talking about is behind Kelley Park. It was used by The San Jose Historical Museum many years ago for living history Civil War reinactments. It was also a part of the Museum’s and Kelly Park’s old master plan to develop the area as part of the History Museum. That all changed after the Museum went from “The San Jose Historical Museum” to “The History Park” run by History San Jose. They converted part of the land to a parking lot and now are talking about converting more to public soccer fields.
Santa Clara has utility money for utilities, and perhaps their city council would like to ask the Grand Jury about that.
it could be said that the lobbyist-culture at city hall created scores of instances when the city’s rezoning process created tens of millions of dollars and profits. this is all without a vote of the people.
the difference here is that there actually is a benefit to residents.
I’m not the greatest fan of MLS/The Earthquakes coming back to San Jose…My heart will always lay with the dream of experiencing our national pastime under a warm downtown San Jose sun (Giants territorial rights be damned!). But in this instance, I am fully in the Quakes/SJSU camp in stating that Mr. Campbell is utterly wrong in his opinion. Rezoning happens all the time across this great country of ours. If the city somehow rezone’s land owned by Mr. Wolff, who then “flips” it to a housing developer, makes millions, and then uses a portion of the profit to build a state of the art soccer/football stadium that many in San Jose will enjoy…SO WHAT! No city-wide tax increase or raiding of the general fund to build a sports stadium, NO FOUL!
Old San Jose is very close to correct: it is the City that owns and controls the land… it is rumored that there were problems with that parking lot and also some problems with the IR – something about “critters” that live in the area. I hear that it will require a change in the master plan.
Another!
Thank you #15 and #18. Just seems that in the long run the area deemed to store San Jose’s history will lose. Certainly the city needs to look forward to house history that is being made today and that which will be made in the future. Perhaps the inhabitants of this city have become so transient, they don’t care about the preservtion of San Jose’s history as those of us who have long established roots.
And the hits just keep on coming. Our city “leaders” have another historic building in their sites for demolition. IBM Building 25 is on life support. If the public does not speak out now it will soon be too late. Let your councilmember know that history is not expendable in San Jose. Lowe’s Home Improvement has refused to save the historic building and so far the city has rolled over for every demand Lowe’s has made. If you don’t do anything about this now then we will soon have another posting about another lost historic building in SJ.
Civil War reenactments? “Museums” at Kelly Park? IBM buildings? 1) San Jose had nothing to do with the American Civil War. 2) If you want a museum, convert the old MLK library and make a real museum worth visiting. 3) If Sarah Winchester had built the IBM campus with as much charm as her house, maybe we’d have a reason to keep the father of all dull business parks for which we’re known statewide.
Some of you think anyone with money is coming to swinfdle your quaint little town of its livelihood. There’s no too-good-to-be-true monorail deal here. It’s a modest-sized soccer stadium for a team in a still-growing league. That’s it. If there’s money to be pocketed behind our backs, it lies elsewhere.
You live in a city with almost a million people. Start acting like it.
Oy.
New stadium, no tax money from city or state coffers, huge opportunity for more visitors to more events at a brand-new state-of-the-art stadium, and true to form for San Hosers, people are still finding a reason to throw rocks.
Folks, some of you need to realize that this is not just a “new soccer stadium” we’re discussing here, nor is it the big, bad developer come to rape the Olde Towne Square – it is also a replacement for the crumbling, WPA-era Spartan Stadium.
The University is ceding land adjacent to the existing stadium for the stadium, so the zoning issues are microscopic at best. No neighborhood is going to be severely impacted by this project that isn’t already impacted by the existing stadium in the first place.
The University may also cede some land for the development of a youth soccer complex near the existing Bud Winter Field site at S. 10th and East Alma.
The financing of this deal is taking place without removal of existing tax money from the city or state coffers.
And as much as Mr. Campbell would like to believe it to be so, no potholes are going to go unfilled because of this deal, because the financing of this deal is predicated on future property value – e.g., its change in value when zoning is changed from light industrial to residential.
This garment-rending on the part of the anti-development crowd is just sad to see, and does not serve this blog community well.
I suppose now the “preserve our history” crowd is going to come forward and insist that the old Spartan Stadium be salvaged and renovated no matter what the (astronomical) cost.
Better yet – why don’t we just move the sainted “IBM Building 25” – whatever the hell that is – to 7th and Alma, and the preservationistas can have themselves a grand, old pity party whilst they pull the bench splinters out of their butts and bemoan the Tragic Loss of the San Jose That Was.
Yeesh…
22 – Your ignorance is showing. You obviously know nothing about preservation and its importance to the community. You refer to IBM Building 25 and say “whatever the hell it is.” Perhaps if you took the time to learn about the history of San Jose and this building, you would feel differently. You would know how preservation is an economic boost to a community and how it also preserves the character of a city.
Ignorance is not pretty but you can do something about it. I hope you do before you post again.
I completely agree wiith 22…Who gives a rats about IBM building 25 (with a name like that, it must be historical, right?)…Build the Stadium!
24 – See 23.
26 – My original statement still stands. You don’t know what you are talking about. Preservationists have NEVER tried to stop this development. They have tried to work with Lowe’s to incorporate Building 25 into their project. Lowe’s has refused to consider any proposal that would save the building. In spite of that, preservationists have continued to try to find a plan that would allow Lowe’s to build AND to save the building. If you are going to attempt to insult the preservation community at least get your facts straight.
#27 – my facts are indeed straight; however, your emotions on this subject have obviously clouded your ability to perceive anything out of your current mindset.
The request by the PAC to force Lowes to somehow include IBM-25 in the Lowes development was, and is, a poison pill to any developer or merchant trying to construct his business the way he sees fit on land that he owns. The costs involved in retrofitting a 50-year old building to the ADA and other modern retail safety standards of today would be much more than the cost of teardown and rebuild, and Lowes is completely justified in their decision to want to bring the existing building down.
IBM made a good-faith effort in trying, for years, to get a tech-based company or other manufacturing concern to take over that area of the campus, but regrettably failed. After that, they then found a willing buyer. And ONLY THEN, after the Lowes development was announced, and the scope of it became clear, did the PAC file suit – two years after Lowes bought the option on the land.
Now, if the PAC, and its preservationista cohorts here and elsewhere, really and truly cared about what they stood for, then they could gather the money themselves and pay Lowes the fair market value for the land option, lost future revenue, and any legal fees that they have absorbed as a result of this lawsuit.
In short, put your money where your mouth is. If this building is so all-fired important to y’all, then buy the land. As an alternative, try to convince the City (via the ballot box) to buy the land from IBM and Lowes.
However, I’m quite sure that the status quo will do nicely for you instead – keep judge shopping this thing and keep the case in limbo until Lowes goes away and sets up shop in Morgan Hill instead. That way, you don’t have any more yuckey big-box retailers staining up your precious landscape, and San Jose is out hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential yearly tax revenues, not to mention garnering the continuing reputation of being a city where business plans can be sued and stopped at the 11th hour. Everybody wins – but in the long term, San Jose loses.
And as the years pass, your precious Building 25 will continue to quietly rot away, growing nothing but weeds and legal fees.
28 – Thanks for your inaccurate comments. I won’t waste anymore time with you in trying to correct your misinformation. If you ever want the correct information you will be able to obtain it. Anyway, I hope your views do not prevail—if they do we will continue to lose the few historic buildings we have left in San Jose. If your views prevail, then future generations can thank you as to why the only thing left of our past are a few pictures of what used to be here.
sorry to be late to this thread and perhaps this questioned got answered already, but let me put it plainly; Can somebody please explain to me a zoning decision that would so seriously undervalue and underassign property values such that is has to re REZONED to reach its optimal value? Why do we even let the city zone things like this if their decisions are so contrary to optimal and best use?
#23 – I grew up in San Jose – elementary school, high school, and college. My stepfather worked at both the IBM ‘think-tank’ on Santa Teresa Boulevard and at the Cottle Road campus, where “25” is located.
At no time was there ever any special mention made of “IBM Building 25.”
The main reason people are pitching a fit over this particular building is that they are intractably opposed to a ‘big-box’ retailer going in on that spot, and they are cooking up a tenuous, at best, rationale for preservation of a building whose architectural imprint can best be seen on the six dormitories that have been or will be torn down at SJSU.
Preservation strictly for preservation’s sake is generally not a good thing. Were we to take that tack, the old original City Hall would still be plopped in the middle of Chavez Plaza, there would be no joint City-University library, and the areas of the Fairmont Hotel, Federal Building and the Alquist State Office Building would still be a bunch of SRO hotels with its normal clientele lurking about.
As to preservation for the sake of obstruction of a politically unpalatable development?
Well, you preservationistas wrote the book on that one, so why don’t y’all tell us all about it?
29 – Shorter Native: “How dare you contradict me with facts that don’t agree with my mindset?!? Good day, sir!”
30 – RGD, that is one heckuva question. Perhaps it relates to the different relative assessed values of land because of Proposition 13, how one parcel can be “worth” twice or three times as much because it changed hands a couple of times since 1978.
Being in Rosegarden, you probably know that land valuation in the Valley is more of a ‘state of mind’ than something tangible that is easily and accurately tabulated.
But in the end, we must ask: Is a replacement for Spartan Stadium, with the attendant return of two professional soccer teams and the possible return of a college football bowl game, collectively “worth” rezoning of this currently unused land?
FWIW – AT&T Park in San Francisco exists today because of a fairly similar set of circumstances as is being discussed in today’s Murk article regarding the Spartan Stadium replacement. How many people would consider the construction of that particular stadium to be a bad thing?
#22,#26,#28.
Get a clue! PAC is not the group that certified the building as historic, it was the City, State and Feds. I don’t think they have a plot against “Big Box”, but they do have an understanding of the value of historic preservation. PAC fights only for the preservation of buildings that qualify, by government standards, as historic resources. They know it is good for the business of San Jose. As for shopping for judges, Lowes kept appealing the case, in hopes to find a judge that didn’t respect the law. Lowes lost in all three cases. You say “Preservation for preservation’s sake is generally not a good thing.” You are way too emotional about preservationists. You need to back up your argument with facts and statistics. Please cite some examples of when and where San Jose has practiced preservation for simply the sake of preservation. Compare the costs of the project to the value added to the local economy. I’m sick and tired of cry baby whiners that yell and scream about land use issues without knowing what impact they have on the local economy. In order to speak more intelligently about the issue, please read The Economics of Historic Preservation, a study by the Department of Interior and the National Trust, then get back to us.
#21
You need to study up on your local history. You can learn more about the role that San Joseans played in the Civil War in books sold at History San Jose or in the California Room at the MLK. While you are at it, look up New Almaden and its role in the Civil War, then get back to us and share your new found knowledge.
#24 Tom Colla
I hear Fresno has a nice stadium. You may want to look into moving there. They also share your values on preservation.
33: I didn’t mean to give the impression that I actually cared about the Civil War, because I honestly don’t. Looking up San Jose’s role in something that took place primarily back east is extremely self-indulgent and symptomatic of the small dog syndrome that currently plagues us. I have read up on the IBM 25 issue and changed my views there because that actually has quite a bit to do with San Jose. Talking about our role in the Civil War, though, is like bragging about your Irish great-grandfather every March 17th.
#34 Identity Crisis Preserving “Building 25”? Give me a break. Maybe you should look into moving to Virginia City, Nevada…They have preserved every building since the 1880’s…At least I have the guts to sign my name to my comments…Build the stadium! Tom Colla
36 – Maybe you should think about not signing your name to your comments. Ignorance is not something to be proud of.
#37 That’s your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. If you can’t defend your position without resorting to name-calling, then your position probably isn’t worth defending. Tom Colla
Don’t know what name I called you. If you are referring to “ignorant” that wasn’t name calling—see definition:
ignorant |ˈignərənt| adjective lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated : lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.
Having an opinion is fine, but usually one bases an opinion on fact. You do not seem to be doing that, but you are still certainly entitled to that opinion. I, of course, am just as entitled to disagree with your opinion, particularly if I base my opinion on fact.
#35
Glad to see that you took the time to read and learn about IBM#25. It is an important building. It is always important to keep an opened mind to new information. #36 perhaps you could learn by 35’s example. You should compare San Jose’s tourist statistics to cities that have stong historic preservation policies. Study Boston, Seattle, San Francisco, Santa Fe and San Antonio’s programs. Can you name any great cities in the world, equal to Rome, London or Paris, that do not have a stong historic preservation policy? I also would love to see more sports facilities and pro teams in San Jose. The recent basketball playoffs were a great example of how we can bring outsiders to San Jose. But we have to deliver a unique cultural experience to those visitors in order to get them to return for a vacation or convention. We need a stong tax base so we can afford to build a world class stadium for a NFL or NBA team. We are the tenth largest city in the country, yet they kept having to refer to us as “San Jose, California” You don’t hear them saying Los Angelas, San Diego or San Francisco California. We have had great sports teams in San Jose like the Earthquakes, Sharks, Speed City and womens pro basketball,yet as long as we don’t establish who we are, we will always be a city with “no there there”. If you only aspire for San Jose to be like Bakersfield or Fresno, you are on the right track. If you would like to see San Jose become one of the great cities of at least the West Coast, you need to start respecting what sets us apart from other cites. That is our unique heritage.
When the IBM/Hitachi site was going to be rezoned, housing advocates stepped up to the plate. The question was asked in a public meeting, “Are you just looking to rezone your land and take your $300 million and walk away. They are now building a significant amount of affortable housing for the citizens of San Jose.
#11:
Very funny, given that you’re late to the party, don’t you think? And that would be the “baseball team in San Jose” having been supported for eternity? Were you talking about a stadium for San Jose Giants in downtown San Jose?
I made the decision, as Executive Director of PAC, to sue Lowe’s and the City over the demolition of IBM Building 25. I stand by it, and so do two California courts.
I have no problem with big-box stores in general. I’m a pretty conservative Democrat, a Costco member, and I happily shop at both big boxes and small.
The “costs involved in retrofitting” Building 25, based on walk-throughs I’ve done on the building (has anyone else here done one?) would be relatively small. After all, the building was being actively used up till 1996. A lot of the necessary retrofits are already done.
After we became aware of Lowe’s’ purchase of the option on the land, we tried for two years to get them even to discuss options that would not automatically involve the demolition of the whole building. They shut us down completely, and decided to pursue their original plan unchanged. We informed them well in advance of the legal problems with their approach, and they didn’t listen. That’s the context in which we sued them.
As for “buying the land”, PAC is a small nonprofit with an annual budget (when I was there) of $150,000. Where do you think they could muster the money to buy 20 acres of land in San Jose? The moon?
NO preservation project comes about because a nonprofit fronts up the money. If that were the standard, we’d have no French Quarter in New Orleans, no Back Bay in Boston, no Peralta Adobe in San Jose. PAC saved the Jose Theater without buying it, and that’s worked out pretty well as the Comedy Improv. Your standard would lose us 98% of our historic properties, and I think we would all be the poorer for it if that happened.
I’m writing a piece on soccer specific stadiums and have noticed a trend across the whole of the United States which is this. Soccer stadiums cost a fraction of football or baseball stadiums and usually ask for little or even no public money compared to the vast sums asked for by the other stadiums. Yet the controversy caused by every soccer stadium built in the USA is vast while other sport’s stadiums cause hardly a ripple. As one famous American once said “Hating soccer is more American than apple pie.” Let us hope the world treats NFL better.