To Whom Do The City’s Entitlements Belong?
Last week, I argued that providing for the construction of a new stadium through the use of city entitlements is a course of action that should be approved by a vote of the people. If the city council can facilitate a deal that generates $80-90 million to fund a stadium, why can’t they do a similar deal to fix the city’s streets and parks? The City of San Jose has a street resurfacing backlog list of some 300 miles. How many miles do you suppose will be taken off that list this year given the city’s $16 million budget deficit?
Where’s the logic in granting entitlements that would generate some $80 million for a new stadium to get back a pro soccer team that left town because they couldn’t draw enough support here in the first place? And as far as the San Jose State football program is concerned, the Mercury News reported that the program lost money this past year despite their very successful season.
What if the city kept this prospective deal for itself? Take the $80 million and buy Mr. Wolff’s option to bring back the Earthquakes and San Jose could own the franchise outright. (I’m guessing the franchise fee is in the $15-20 million range).
The city could then give San Jose State $10 million for additional improvements at Spartan Stadium. The remaining balance (approx. $45-50 million) could be used to close this year’s deficit ($16 million) and the rest could be used to repair the city’s broken streets and run-down parks.
As the city would own the Earthquakes soccer team, all kids under 12 would receive free admission. Spartan Stadium would be packed and the potholes would be filled!
Pete: The city can’t run itself right. Parks & Wreck is a nightmare. How could it possibly run a PROFESSIONAL soccer club?
Your idea would never work and suggests that you have relatively little knowledge of why the previous earthquakes actually left. You are significantly underestimating the cost of renovating Spartan – $10 million isn’t going to upgrade the facility that noticably and it still isn’t going to be the correct size for soccer. And by giving away tickets in a venue where San Jose State controls the concession and parking revenue, you are almost gaurunteeing that the new city owns sports team will be a ongoing money-loser and a drain on the general fund. How does that make sense?
If you want to use entitlements money to pay for things other than soccer, thats fine. But please don’t throw out outrageous ideas like this as real options.
1) Free admission does not recoup funds. Fire your economics teacher.
2) I believe someone joked before about preservation of Spartan. Now you’re actually suggesting it? Wasting money on renovating a dump will only prolong the problem and maybe not even that. Arguing against the worth in new stadium, no matter the sport, in downright stupid in this day and age. People like clean and shiny.
3) You seem to have ignored the proposed playing fields planned for the surrounding areas of the stadium. Do these qualify as public parks even if they don’t have a swing set?
4) Like #3 said, you have little understanding of what went on before. I suppose you suffer from the common disease which declares that any sport you don’t watch, nobody else watches.
5) A city should never own a team. Too many residents would blow the presumed costs way out of proportion (kind of like now) and it would fail immediately. Leave it to businessmen who’ve actually learned a bit more than just how to swindle your poor little town of a million people.
#4 is dead on the money on all five accounts.
Pete Campbell said this: “a new stadium to get back a pro soccer team that left town because they couldn’t draw enough support here in the first place.”
Since Pete obviously doesn’t know what actually happened, someone will have to explain it to him. #3 and #4 almost did, but not all the way. Attendance or lack of support had nothing to do with the team leaving. The owners just didn’t want to be in this market and they felt Houston provided a better opportunity for which to get a new stadium that they don’t have to completely pay for but still maintain control of. Right now, they have put monumentally more money into marketing the team there then they ever would have here. Why? Probably because they don’t have to deal with a bunch of backward-thinking farmer’s town dingleheads with ridiculous farmer’s town ideas like trying to “renovate” Spartan Stadium.
Which brings me to the next thing. “Renovating” Spartan is like putting three band-aids on an amputated foot. The place is a dump. It was built in 1933 when San Jose’s population was 60,000 people. Sports fans are much more discerning these days. They want air-conditioned luxury boxes. They want a stadium that will still be a modern facility twenty years from now. They want the whole project tied to youth soccer fields to help grow the sport and have a vision for the long term.
Spartan hasn’t been modern since the 1950s. No rational person or team owner anywhere would possibly consider “renovating” Spartan as an option. You’re throwing your money away. The only way to “renovate” Spartan would be to flatten the whole stinking thing and start over.
The entire scenario gels exactly with what SJSU is doing these days: rebuilding its relationship with the city and working on collaborative projects, like the library for example.
It never ceases to amaze me: Whenever something good happens in this town, somebody somewhere finds something to complain about. Like Lew Wolff said: if people in San Jose found a cure for cancer, somebody somewhere would vote against it.
So, Mr. Campbell, before you go out and bash the whole thing, please get your facts right.
Pete-
It’s interesting how people can look at the same set of facts and come to opposite conclusions.
The Earthquakes leaving and SJSU Football finishing the season in the red both have a direct correlation to the inadequacies of Spartan Stadium. That’s a good case for a new stadium.
Fans are more likely to buy tickets when the stadium is a destination in itself. Case in point: The Giants new ballpark.
On a somewhat related note: There is an interesting story in the Business Journal that says the San Jose Giants minor league team will have to leave when the A’s come to Fremont. Too bad. Thge SJ Giants games are a lot of fun and quite affordable to working families.
I enjoy your articles on SJI.
Everyone:
I’m calling for this question to be put to a vote of the people. That’s all. If the majority of the people of San Jose want $80 million of entitlements to be directed towards building a new stadium, rather than re-building our city, that’s fine…you won’t hear another peep out of me.
I happen to believe that 80% of the people will side with my position rather than #5’s.
But I have to thank #5 for writing one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen on this blog: “Attendance or lack of support had nothing to do with the team leaving. The owners just didn’t want to be in this market…”
Great stuff!
Pete Campbell
Then I’ll call for a vote of the people every time one thin dime is spent for any city expenditure. It’s the people’s money, let the people vote on everything.
You think the wheels of government grind slowly now…just wait!
Hey—- before everyone gets bent out of shape about this—we should find out what the details proposed are and perhaps then, after review and discussion, a logical and business decision can be made. You know, now with an “open government” and all the sun shinning in—perhaps the negotiations would be open to public comment and recommendations. You know—-out of this could come a solution that could benefit the city as well as Mr. Wolff.
I don’t know about everyone else—but I haven’t heard all the details of the proposal and from what I read—neither has anyone else. Let’s see and hear what they are first—then we can determine a course the city should take.
Concerned Citizen
Pete,
The comment you thought was so hilarious was actually pretty much accurate. The last owner didn’t want to be in this market unless they could get a publicly funded stadium. The remainder of the sentence you quoted alluded to that.
I do have some questions about the deal though. First, what kind of return would the city would see on this deal. What are the expected increases in tax revenue that a new stadium with more events would provide? How do these revenues compare to the money created from rezoning the land?
I also don’t know much about the parcel that has been identified for rezoning. Is the proposed use compatible with city services and what is the expected increased cost associated with providing services at the site?
Mr. Campbell,
San Jose is a large city with a long history of development. Tell me this…how many times has rezoning occurred in our city’s history? How many people have gotten FILTHY RICH off turning orchards or former cannary’s into tract homes/condos? Perhaps a vote should be held to determine what KB Homes should do with their profits made at the former Del Monte Cannary site…I’m pretty sure KB wouldn’t mind using their cash to fill SJ potholes (yeah right!). Look, Mr. Wolff wants entitlements granted to make profit. But rather that use the profit to invest in Baja beach condos, he wants to build a state of the art soccer/football stadium for thousands of South Bay residents to enjoy…again, WHAT’S WRONG WITH THAT?!
#11 Anthony…Couldn’t have said it any better…Thanks for your insightful comments…Tom Colla
The last year of the Quakes in SJ saw them 5th in average paid attendance in MLS, when you eliminate doubleheader games involving world-famous non-MLS teams from the average. The real reason the Quakes were moved was because owner AEG wanted a championship-caliber squad to charm Houston into buying them a free stadium. Houston is a more crucial expansion point for AEG’s concert venue empire than the San Jose market, where the non-AEG Shoreline Pavilion is well entrenched.
Quakes support is still strong in San Jose; it will become obvious when a blue-shirted army shows up at City Hall to give the City Council the political cover to approve this deal. Myself, I’m a bit put off about having to basically pray at the altar of a local real estate developer in order to return San Jose to MLS. In other nations, a new club can be started by fans and work their way up through minor leagues and someday reach the first division. Not under the (American) franchise model of pro sports, alas. I’ll probably watch some games at New Spartan anyway…
Pete-I would argue that the entitlement value above the existing zoning and general plan regulations need to be shared by the developers/property owners with the City. The developer/property owners need to be compensated for their efforts and initiative to seek the rezonings and general plan amendments to obtain “highest and best use” in response to the market forces pushing up the land value, but the community “pays” for that increased entitlement above the existing general plan and zoning because the new entitlements will surely lead to added service burdens and impacts to the community (e.g. schools, parks, public safety response times, traffic congestion/decrease Levels of Service, increase strain on utility infrastructure, etc.). It’s an entirely different story than if a property owner or developer wanted to use a property based on the existing zoning and general plan at the time they acquired it.
If you’re looking for a mechanism of how the City can do this and tap the value of the entitlements, the existing California Planning, Zoning & Development laws for the State already allow Cities to enter into Development Agreements with Applicants where the developer can grant concessions in exchange for locked in City entitlements. These concessions can take many forms including monetary payments to or building public facilities for the City granting the entitlements. What the developer gets in exchange is Certainty and and the ability to lock in fees for up to 10-yrs.
Anthony-I’m not questioning your love for San Jose. I just think you need some additional info. Development Agreements can also include potholes if there is mutual agreement between a City and Developer to do that. It is not unusual for a developer to agree to new signals, road repairs/upgrades or other public improvements to get the Development Agreement approved by a City. If you want examples look at the Development Agreements that HP, Applied Materials, The Irvine Company, Kaiser, and 3Com have done in Santa Clara.
The other thing I’d like to point out for the San Jose Inside Blogosphere is that Mayor Chuck Reed is a trained professional attorney who specializes in land use law and is well respected for his past practice. He is well aware of how Cities can use development agreements for some of the same public-private partnerships that were touted during the BART study sessions last week. The question is whether he and the City Council want to use Development Agreements to capture some of that value that in the past was squandered?
Thats a GREAT idea! Especially kids under 12 getting in free. That would fill alot of empty seats, and make it more affordable for families to enjoy a game, and attend more often. Possibly resulting in more adult ticket sales, since it’s now more affordable to go to a game, and not have to pay for child care. Also i would bet that consession stand sales would increase, since the kids in those extra seats would also be adding to the sales of sodas, hot dogs, popcorn, peanuts, etc.
But chances are that the status quo at city hall, would never even consider looking into such a deal.
On another note, if San Jose’s arts institutions like the opera, ballet, and theatres, are all claiming to be strapped for cash, and constantly begging for money and grants, then why did the ballet just spend $10,000 on a private party for themselves at the Fairmont Hotel this weekend??
I understand it was quite the party that spared no expense on a private suite, flowers, caviar, multiple ice sculptures, and lots of lit candlesa every where. It supposedly even included a martini bar and a mixed cocktail bar, and the expensive champaigne was flowing freely.
Quite a party! But $10,000? It would be nice to see those over priced tickets, donations and grants put to alot better use.
Pete – you really should look at your article before posting it, and research some of your points before opining on them – you would serve your readers and this board much better were you to present complete and accurate information.
First off: The funds to pay for this stadium are most decidedly NOT a “city entitlement.” Lew Wolff has gained an option to buy a parcel of land that is currently sitting fallow. With an act of the City Council, the value of that land will increase drastically; Mr. Wolff would then resell that land and use a fair amount of the proceeds to construct a replacement for aging Spartan Stadium.
It’s all based on the one true concept of financial success: Buy Low, Sell High. Evidently that is a foreign concept to some folks on this board.
The fact that each and every house (alleged to be 1500) on this new plot would have state property taxes and Mello-Roos bonds for schools, not to mention and public safety and L&L assessments, all taken at the sale value at the current San Jose real estate valuation – cumulatively in excess of $5000 per unit per house per year – evidently has not crossed Mr. Campbell’s thought path. That’s $7.5M per year going into the tax coffers for at least 20 years.
Next: MLS would not, and will not, return to San Jose absent a new stadium. Repeat: New. Not refurbished, not repainted, NEW. That is not a matter for discussion, it is a fact. Spartan Stadium, as old and venerable as she is, was not and is not equipped for major league sports. It was not in the old NASL days, but standards back then were somewhat more lax. These days, they are not.
So, the prospect of $10M doing anything substantial to Spartan Stadium in terms of gameday experience or professional sports standards is utterly ridiculous, has been covered thoroughly up-thread, and requires no additional comment.
Mr. Campbell’s whole premise in this series of articles seems to be that the Guvmint somehow can “invent” wealth out of thin air, and spread it around, and All Will Be Well. This is not surprising given the liberal bent of most of the adherents on this board.
The trouble is, the Guvmint didn’t have the foresight to secure the option on the Hitachi/I-Star land. The Guvmint didn’t take the time to do the negotiation with MLS or with SJSU.
What the Guvmint did do was take the money its been given over the years and fritter it away on wasteful projects and corporate subsidies.
And so now comes someone with the ability to bring a colossal asset to the community without financial outlay on the part of the community – an asset which would once again put San Jose on the world stage as a booming center of The World’s Game – but the idea is held to be anathema, for the want of an orchard laying fallow with nary a plan for its use except “future retail;” not to mention the fact that some money may end up in the hands of one of those icky developers. (shudder)
And those same naysayers are trying to use the prior bad actions of the city Guvmint to hamstring someone who is actually trying to improve the future of the city, and is managing to do so without the expenditure of public money, or the previously demonstrated financial incompetence on the part of the city staffers and politicos.
I’d like to say I’m surprised, but I’m not.
Pete, it’s not about anything but self-esteem. Our local politicians and movers and shakers sorely lack self-esteem; glitzy new facilities give them cause to call out, “look at us, we’re as good as San Francisco!” In that vein, I wonder if we should hire John Vasconcellos to verify my suspicion that it’s all about feeling good.
JD- Your “facts” are a little light as well.
Here’s the reality…
FACT: The I-Star Parcel is in the Edenvale Redevelopment Project Area.
FACT: The major beneficiary of any added property tax revenue based on increased assessed value for future development on this parcel will go to the SJ RDA to fund its staff and redevelopment activities. Most likely, the increase will help it pay off the RDA’s existing bond debt and lawsuit settlements.
FACT: The tax revenue that the City of San Jose (not the SJ RDA, which is a separate legal entity and has separate staff), the County of Santa Clara, the local school districts, and the local utility districts is “frozen” based on the assessed value of the property at the time that the Edenvale RDA Project Area was formed. This is callled: TAX-INCREMENT FINANCING by the RDA. These non-RDA entities will not get any additional property tax revenues from development of this parcel unless revenue sharing “pass-through” agreements are negotiate with SJ RDA or the project area was expanded or merged with another project area which would trigger some revenue sharing.
FACT: Development on this parcel will have the impacts I noted in post #14. That means: 1) the City will have to extend police, fire, and other services; 2) the schools will have to absorb the additional students, 3) the roads will have additional congestion and wear from the additional traffice, and 4) the utilities will have to come up with additional service capacity without the benefit of the required property tax revenues because of the RDA diversion.
FACT: Mello-Roos assessment districts, which could fund some of these services & required facility upgrades with “special assessment or benefit districts”, are not widely used in Santa Clara County by most housing developers because potential buyers react pretty negatively to having to pay extra hundreds of dollars a month in addition to the basic HOA fees associated with new planned developments. They really make marketing the future homes tougher—especially when there are other sites that don’t have Mello-Roos or special districts. Additionally, the voter approved Proposition 218 makes special districts tougher to establish and continue over time.
FACT: The parcel is not just a vacant weed patch. Within the past two years, I-Star applied for and obtained City development approvals to construct several hundred thousand square feet of additional commercial and office space on the site. This makes the site more to retain for employment generation since SJ is also considering rezoning the Sony Campus in North San Jose to residential to make way for an Irvine Company mega-apartment Complex and the City keep losing its industrial lands.
FACT: San Jose has a jobs to housing imbalance while its neighbors like Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas have more jobs than housing.
FACT: With the exception of $1.5M+ luxury homes, the revenue from residential development is a net loss for cities compared to industrial or commercial development.
FACT: Only 15% of San Jose land is devoted to employment generation while over 60% of the City’s revenues to provide services for its residents come from the businesses located on that land.
FACT: SJ digs it self deeper into a financial hole with every acres of employment generating land that it rezones to residential.
Okay, then, Asian Voter – You seem imply the following:
1) That the construction of a new stadium for SJSU athletics, as well as for a renewed MLS team and probable new WUSA team, would be a net long-term negative for the City of San Jose (the ENTIRE city, not just your precious District 2) if the “price” paid for said stadium is the rezoning of 80 acres or so of land to residential from commercial/retail – e.g., no money, no loan guarantees, no bonds, just a rezoning of land.
2) That the addition of roughly 1500 homes into a city of close to 950K population would constitute a colossal drain on already overloaded public services.
3) That San Jose is evidently devoid of industrial land which pays for city services, and yet we have discussed on multiple occasions here on SJI just what happens when some retail establishments want to set up in San Jose (Lowe’s), juxtaposed with what the city has to ‘pay’ up front in order to get businesses to locate to San Jose (Sobrato building). Are you sure that the problem isn’t the lack of land in San Jose but the lack of a pro-business climate in San Jose that may otherwise exist in the surrounding ‘burbs?
My question to Asian Voter, and to others who share his/her viewpoint, is this: You’re quite good at pointing out pitfalls, but what is your solution to this problem?
Can you not see that a replacement for Spartan Stadium can and will be a net long-term asset for the city? Or is the price being asked (or any price for that matter) just too high?
You’re finally starting to get it, JD. Some things simply aren’t worth the price. We can’t take care of what we’ve got now and adding service draining projects to our plate isn’t going to fix what is broke. Just like with our personal budgets, sometimes there are things we want but we just can’t afford them. Or, sometimes we can afford the initial purchase (car, boat, etc.) but we can’t afford to use or maintain it.
We are so out of balance between jobs and housing and with deferred maintenance and buildings we can’t staff or maintain, that there is no good answer to this conundrum.
This does affect the entire city, not just one district. The sooner we (citizens and the council) understand that decisions are not made in isolation the better off we will all be.
In the meantime, let’s enjoy what we have and take care of it. At such time that we have this city back on its feet then we can look at luxury items like stadiums and rezoning industrial land, etc.
#11 :
Can’t believe a day would dawn when I would be agreeing with Anthony “soccer sucks, just because I say so, so be it” Dominguez on these blogs. But horray!!
Pete, you have some bad inforamtion here. The Earthquakes did noy leave because they could not draw a crowd. They had the secord or third highest attendanec in the MLS. They left because the City of San Jose would not give AEG (the former owners) a free staduim.
I agree that we would be better off spending the $80 million to fix our streets, sewers, parks, etc.
#19 – Yes, District Denizen, I am indeed beginning to “get it.”
What I “get” is a bunch of people so all-consumed with their NIMBYism (even to the extent of BANANAism) that they can’t – or more accurately, won’t – bring themselves to even consider a bigger picture.
The impact of this housing development on the city infrastructure, taken relative to the size of the city, is miniscule at most – a maximal probable addition of 7500 residents in a city whose size is approaching 1,000,000 souls. The potential payoff is huge in terms of public visibility for the University and for the City. I’m not saying it will be an unqualified success as has been the HP Pavilion, but the upside to this project far outweighs any negative impact to the city and its services IMHO.
It is regrettable that some in the Edenvale area are now rejecting this idea out of hand simply based on a transitory perceived housing/industrial land balance, not considering that San Jose, by virtue of being one of the (by square mileage) largest cities in the state, still has a colossal amount of developable (yet still vacant) land within its city limits for industrial purposes.
But woe to anyone who merely suggests doing anything considered “outside the box,” which this proposal most definitely is.
Yep. What I “get” is that there are some folks who, had they been residents of a certain city 45 miles to the north about 10 years ago, would have shoved their heads in the sand, would probably have suggested proposed cosmetic improvements to Candlestick Park, and would have allowed time and tide to pass away (not to mention The City’s hallowed pro baseball team) because of a rezoning fight.
#21 – BMB: I would repeat here that the “$80 Million” does not exist now – and thus it cannot be spent “to fix our streets, sewers, parks, etc.”
Right now, the only way that $80M will come into being is if someone buy a chunk of land zoned for retail, gets it rezoned for residential, and resells that land at a higher price. Again: Buy Low, Sell High. The only way the $80M comes into existence is if a developer buys the residential land and develops it into houses – which will put you in direct contravention of the wishes of “Asian Voter” and “District Denizen.”
Unless, of course, you’re actually suggesting that the city of San Jose take the land from the current owners and resell it to generate the $80M? If so, I’m sure there are several attorneys who would love to take on a 5th Amendment case pro bono.
The bottom line: If Wolff buys the land and then resells it, he’ll take $80M and reinvest it into the public infrastructure of the city, rather than socking it away in an offshore account in the Cayman Islands. That reinvestment in the public infrastructure will have positive tax ramifications for the city in general for years into the future. I fail to see much wrong with that.
#17, You are one smart person! You hit the nail on the head. Ever think of running for office in San Jose? You would get my vote.
#18, A partial solution to our problem should be, council promising not to re-zone any commercial property to residential until our jobs to homes ratio is in balance with the rest of the Valley. Also, Spartan Stadum is in the wrong location. Sending good money on a bad location is a waste. Mr. Wolff needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better idea.
#23 – I can’t disagree with you about the location of Spartan Stadium, but the only way to fix that is to get a time machine and go back to the 1920s, when the South Campus of San Jose State College was formed as a location for athletic fields and (at that time) married student housing and other purposes, and try to get them to change their minds.
In the 1930s, Spartan Stadium was built, and there it has stood proudly at 7th and Alma ever since – and most of the housing in that area (especially between Keyes Street and the Sinclair Freeway) went in mostly after the stadium was completed.
The reason that Wolff wants to use the land adjacent to Spartan Stadium is quite simple, and pretty damn brilliant: It’s effectively free, largely because it’s current owner, SJSU, wants to enter into partnership with Wolff to build a new stadium to replace the old crumbling one. Kinda cuts down on the land acquisition costs, doesn’t it?
My proposed solution (which would never fly, but here goes) would be to shoehorn a new stadium up onto the Main Campus. All that would be required is the reconstruction of Dudley Moorehead Hall and Hugh Gillis Hall to approximately twice their current size, the destruction of the Boccardo Business Complex (those classrooms and offices moved to the new DMH-HGH complex), an eminent domain takeover of the two square blocks of land surrounded by 11th, San Fernando, San Carlos, and 10th, and a reroute of 10th Street easterly toward 11th. That and 2 or 3 billion dollars and a decade or two, and you’ve got a deal.
Or, we can place a new stadium on a site which already has a stadium, therefore no NIMBY or local zoning concerns, with a willing landlord that is, effectively, gifting the land to Mr. Wolff.
This isn’t a new out-of-the-blue stadium we’re discussing – it is a replacement of an outdated facility. Location, while fun to discuss, has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. For this deal, it’s 10th and Alma, or nothing.
You also spoke of a jobs to homes ratio balance relative to other cities. Which ones – Santa Clara? Cupertino? Sunnyvale? Milpitas? Los Gatos? Saratoga?
Each of those communities has, individually, worked in the past with companies (or in the case of some, NOT worked with companies) to achieve the jobs-housing ratio that they currently enjoy. Which one should be emulated? Some? All? The Average? The Mean?
And if San Jose currently has vacant business-retail land that is not being used (which it does), then what if any effect is there on the thought process here if a miniscule portion of that land is rezoned for the greater good of the city?
#24 JD
Many have explained it to you on this site, but you do not want to understand. You say the “land is free”? It comes at a price, that price is payed by all of the tax payers when Wolff’s housing project creates a drain on our city services. No matter how you spin it, there is no free lunch. Wolff’s proposal is only an attempt to get around a public process. Just like the Grand Prix!
As for what ratio of jobs to housing we should use, why not use the average of all cities in the Santa Clara Valley not including San Jose. Wouldn’t that be fair? As for history and the location of the stadium, in 1937-39 SJS only lost 3 footbal games. They were the highest scoring and lowest scored upon team in the nation, yet there were empty seats in the much smaller original stadium. It was the wrong location from the start. It’s location does not encourage people to shop or eat in San Jose, which would help our tax base. It is not located on light rail or close to freeway exits. Those who come to this rundown section of San Jose, only want to get out of town as soon as possible. This does not put a good face on San Jose. You say “the stadium is for the greater good of the people”.
Then let’s put it to a vote of the people. I would be glad to go along with the will of the people, would you?
#19 – what a wonderful recipe for stagnation! You do realize that maintenance is forever, it’s not a “do/done” proposition. For example, when the Golden Gate Bridge gets a new coat of paint from one end to the other, once the new coat is complete it’s time to start again. It’s a project that never finishes. So is citywide maintenance. By your model, we’d be so bogged down in maintenance that we’d never build anything new, we’d just fix what we have (until it’s so old no one wants it). And that, my friends, is civic stagnation.
#23 :
So by that logic, a number other developers who built arenas in previously rundown areas like MCI Center in Washington DC, Gund arena in Cleveland (or even God forbid, Staple Center in Los Angeles developed by AEG, may peace be not upon them) should all go back to the drawing board, and come up with better ideas, no?
#26: “SJSU, the Earthquakes, and the 49’ers sign a limited partnership agreement to co-develop a modified stadium on the Santa Clara site under the auspices of a joint Santa Clara County Sports Authority.”
So, I take it you are aware of some arrangement under which 49ers are eagerly waiting with open arms to share their new stadium with SJSU and Earthquakes. And share the revenue. Not to mention, they’ve all figured out their schedules and come to the conclusion that none of them would conflict with each other, or have an impact on quality of the playing surface. I mean if you’re privy to some information about all these logistics, please share with all the rest of us, instead of coming up with hollow proposals.
#27 – LLL, please do improve your reading comprehension skills, as it will do you wonders for following along on a topic of conversation. The land to which I referred is the land on which the replacement stadium is to be built – which is now the east parking lot of the existing Spartan Stadium, located at 10th and Alma. The land that is proposed to be rezoned is most decidedly not free – it is currently owned by IStar, but Wolff has an option on it to purchase, subject to city rezoning processes which, to my recollection, is an open process with open meetings at the city council – public input, representative vote of the people, the whole shebang. However, should you or your compadres wish to force a referendum on this, you will guarantee two things: 1) a loss at the ballot box; and 2) the cost to the city of millions of additional dollars because of spite.
As to the empty seats you say were there in the first decade of use at Spartan Stadium, and thus the current location is eternally defective, I would encourage you to invest in a better quality of strawman. The days of knocking down urban buildings for the purpose of sports venues is by and large over in California. The fact that the 10th and Alma area is ill-served by both transportation and mass transit is a testament to the previous failures of prior SJSU administrations and VTA boards. Unfortunately, absent going back in the past to clean up those failures, there is no way you are going to plop a stadium down anywhere in the SJSU vicinity without razing a whole bunch of houses and businesses. When the alternative is to use a site that is, a) already cleared, and; b) already owned by the university, and; c) is already zoned for that type of venue, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out which is a better way to go for a new facility.
Unless, of course, your ultimate goal is no new facility at all, for either SJSU or a nascent Earthquakes franchise. I will leave that to the readers to make that determination.
#23 AV – since you were so precise in your response, I will provide you with (hopefully) an equal amount of precision as to why your ten-point plan is a ten-point prescription for failure.
#1 (Long-term rental lease) – The length of time required for such a development to start generating revenue – and the loss of ALL subsidiary practice fields at the entire 60-acre South Campus area for such a development to be long-term practicable – also makes your idea, while interesting, entirely unfeasible unless there was some way to ameliorate the inevitable goal of shutting down SJSU field athletics (football, baseball, softball, field hockey, tennis) for two years because of lack of field space due to construction.
#2 (Co-tenancy) – Considering the difficulty that the York family has had trying to get deals done in the past, I shudder to think what would happen should such an attempt as you outline be tried. However, such an attempt is also DOA, since the university has stated, in no uncertain terms, the following: “We remain steadfastly committed to the tradition of playing football on the San Jose State University campus.” (Source – SJMN, 3/28). SJSU has discussed ‘informally’ with the York family about occasional games at a proposed new stadium to be built in the 2012 time frame, but SJSU is more concerned with the here and now, as should we all be. Furthermore, MLS has decreed that its stadia should not be held in co-tenancy with NFL teams because it would prefer to play in smaller venues that are more crowd-appropriate. There are only three remaining MLS teams playing in NFL stadia; two of them (Kansas City and New England) are also owned by the owners of the NFL co-tenants. Co-tenancy with NFL, MLS and NCAA football does not exist anywhere, and is ultimately impractable. However, extra double-good Buzzword Bingo bonus points are awarded for the use of the word “synergy” when discussing a new project.
#3 (scheduling) – See above. MLS very much encourages grass fields for its stadia. Currently, only one stadium (Houston) has rug. The use level which you propose would result in dirt instead of grass by the middle of October, and mud by the middle of December. Superbowls are not played on mud.
#4 (soccer park) – Part of this development is the development of such a soccer park in the unused portions of Kelley Park (over near the KLIV transmitter towers), and using San Jose Measure P funds for this project.
#5 (Hotels) – Since people are griping about how much tax money SJ will lose because of this deal, why not do it in a manner that encourages the TOT revenue to stay within San Jose city borders? My way does that, yours does not.
#6 (SVP “Loan”) – It’s been pretty much hashed out in the Merc that the “loan” that Silicon Valley Power would have to pony up would result in a rate hike for all the residents of the City of Santa Clara. The result: you will now have an up-or-down vote for this project in TWO cities, not just one. Multi-jurisdictional votes like this never, EVER pass.
#7 (VTA bloated projections) – I have no answer for this, except to say that VTA not having a spur to Spartan Stadium for gameday service is a crock. Then again, VTA bypassed SJ Airport, too.
#8 (SJSU bowl aspirations) – Any bowl aspirations for SJSU are provided by the team and the local support, not by the facility in which it is housed. A new on-campus stadium would double or triple the walk-up sales just on its own merit. I am also working with an on-campus student booster group to start to develop more of a “campus” feel to SJSU; the new dormitories already constructed, plus two that are on the drawing board, should bring the percentage of the university living actually on-campus to 30% or so, with another 25% to 30% living in the immediate area surrounding the university and in Naglee Park. Tromping all those folks up to Great America for football is a prescription for football failure.
#9 (corporate sponsorship) – The replacement stadium will almost definitely have a SJ-located corporate name, probably either Adobe Systems or E-Bay. The college football traditional taboo against such things has been broken with the stadium at Louisville (“Papa Johns Cardinals Stadium”) and the co-tenancy enjoyed by Pittsburgh (“Heinz Field”) and Vanderbilt (Adelphia Coliseum at first, now “LP Field”). A similar situation exists for the basketball arenas at CSU-Fresno (“Save Mart Center”) and San Diego State (“Cox [cable] Arena”).
#10 – Maybe if some people didn’t sue retail stores at the drop of a hat (*cough*Lowes*cough), San Jose would have a better business climate in which to attract such stores to the downtown area. However, since there is such a tussle between the SJ RDA and the citizenry over the application of taxes, such a thing seems an unlikely proposition indeed.
I suppose it gets back to the city still trying to figure out what it is – a collection of individual neighborhoods or a moving, growing, progressing collective city.
Your view, Asian Voter, promotes the individual district view of the city – at least on this issue – while mine tends to gravitate toward the collective entity.
To #26 and all the other farmer’s town NIMBYs here:
>>>SJSU, the Earthquakes, and the 49’ers sign a limited partnership agreement to co-develop a modified stadium on the Santa Clara site under the auspices of a joint Santa Clara County Sports Authority.
Not only is that the most insane, unrealistic, and downright unworkable idea, it is nothing but business suicide all the way down to the guy who mows the lawn. It’s so absurd, that it’s hard to even fathom any businessman who wouldn’t laugh it off of the drawing board. The reason the A’s are moving is because they can’t make money sharing a stadium with the Raiders. The Coliseum is one of only three venues left in the US where a baseball team shares the stadium with a football team. There’s a perfect logical business reason for this. Like the other poster said: fire your economics teacher.
>>>The impact of this housing development on the city infrastructure, taken relative to the size of the city, is miniscule at most.
Exactly. The farmer’s town NIMBY alarmists here are acting as if a tiny amount of condos are going to require six million more police officers, firemen, sewer workers, janitors, union reps, crossing guards, Tupperware parties, PTA meetings or whatnot. If you don’t like this idea, then you buy the freakin’ land yourself and do what you think is better, although for some reason, I don’t think that’s going to happen.
>>>As for history and the location of the stadium, in 1937-39 SJS only lost 3 football games. They were the highest scoring and lowest scored upon team in the nation, yet there were empty seats in the much smaller original stadium.
What does that have to do with anything? No intelligent person anywhere could possibly compare those days with now. It only takes a modest interest in local history to know that in those days, the southern boundary of San Jose was pretty much Curtner Avenue. You can’t possibly compare what was the “right” location then with what’s the “right” location now. Please, people, can we just finally lose once and for all this embarrassing farmer’s town mentality and move into the 21st century?
>>>Those who come to this rundown section of San Jose, only want to get out of town as soon as possible. This does not put a good face on San Jose.
That’s exactly what everyone said when the Arena was being proposed, back when there were no hockey fans anywhere in San Jose. Now, as we can all say in hindsight – the Arena was a great idea, everyone knows who the Sharks are, and it’s one of the most heavily booked venues of its kind for non-sporting events in the country. This is exactly what WOULD have happened with the Earthquakes, and what WILL happen when they do come back in a modern facility.
>>>You say “the stadium is for the greater good of the people”. _Then let’s put it to a vote of the people.
Why? There’s not a dime of public money involved in it. Next thing is you’re going to suggest a public vote whenever someone wants to cross the street.
Look—even Mr. Anthony Dominguez, who as recently as a few months ago was playing the “if I can’t have baseball then you can’t have soccer” card, understands that this whole thing is good for the university AND the city of San Jose.
Sheesh.
#31:
BTW, Kansas City Wizards are not owned by NFL team owners anymore. Only last remaining MLS team also owned by an NFL team owner is New England.
One of the remaining MLS team playing in an NFL stadium – NY Red Bulls already have construction for their own stadium already in progress.
If I remember it right, 2 more teams apart from Houston also play on artificial surface, not grass: NY Bulls and Real Salt Lake. However, both of these teams have concrete stadium plans of their own figured out, or are already in the middle of construction for one (see above).
#23 The pays not worth the agravation? I’ve volunteered for the City in the past and I believe I made a positive difference with my involvement. I just got tired of too often being the “voice of reason” and trying to figure out what the underlying motive some City staffers were hidding when they pushed a particular agenda. It just happens too often for taste.
JD-We don’t have to get nasty to have an exchange of ideas. I’ll pick up your gauntlet and provide a positive solution as you ask.
Here’s my win-win-win scenario that hopefully some smarter folks will fleshout or relay to the Sports SJ or 49’er boosters (Don G. are you out there?):
#1 SJSU signs a long term lease (99-yrs) with Lew Wolfe for the land that he wants to build the SJSU stadium on. Instead of a stadium, he constructs luxury apartments and takes advantage of the increasing employment and asking rents trend (over 12% the last 2-yrs). Its not as lucrative as for-sale housing but its a reasonable return. This is something the Irvine Company did in Sunnyvale with Charlie Olson’s old Cherry Stand Property. The big REIT’s like Prometheus and BRE are making big investments in apartments right now because of the increasing rents and uptick in employement overall in the South Bay. This solution also puts the SJSU property back on the tax roles since SJSU doesn’t pay property taxes but Lew’s Apts would. Unless the property is in a designated redevelopment area, Larry Stone (our sports-inclined tax man), SC County, the schools, the special districts, and San Jose will all receive additional unexpected revenues. If its in an RDA area the revenues get diverted to the SJ RDA.
#2 SJSU, the Earthquakes, and the 49’ers sign a limited partnership agreement to co-develop a modified stadium on the Santa Clara site under the auspices of a joint Santa Clara County Sports Authority. Think of the synergy. Instead of trying to finance two separate facilities, the 49’er boosters, Earthquake boosters, and the SJ sports authority folks can join forces and share resources. SJSU’s contribution will be the long-term income stream from its leased land to help defray some of the costs that can’t be made up by the 49’er and Earthquake parking, ticket, PSL, skybox, and naming rights revenue.
#3 With a shared stadium SJSU can play approximately 6 Saturday afternoon games and one saturday night bowl game. The 49’ers get to play 8 regular season Sunday games, 3 pre-season Saturday night games, 1 Monday night game, hopefully a lot of play-off games and maybe even a 2016 superbowl. I don’t know anything about major league soccer so I can’t speculate about their schedule but my expectation is that it could be worked out with enough lead time.
#4 One bonus for the Earthquakes about the Santa Clara site is that they just built a brand new youth soccer park across the street and the City has hosted huge youth soccer events. What a better way to build major league soccer’s fan base and exposure than to have a pro-soccer stadium across the street from the soccer park reminding kids as they play every weekend that if they work hard and get lucky they could someday play for the Earthquakes in that very stadium.
#5 SJ and Santa Clara hotels & restaurants win because they have more guests with 3 events. Both Cities generate more TOT tax from the added hotel stays.
#6 Santa Clara’s Utility gets to sell more electricity for 3 events to pay back the “loan” that the 49’ers want from its reserves.
#7 VTA is happy because Light Rail & Bus ridership spikes for the 3 sporting events and they finally match their past bloated ridership projections.
#8 SJSU has a better venue to market for its bowl aspirations
#9 Taking a page from Lew and Cisco, the Sports Authority signs up Yahoo, who recently purchased 50+ acres about 1000 feet from the stadium site for a future HQ, and Intel, located 1/2 mile away, as a corporate sponsors to defray additional costs in exhange for placing Yahoo!!! and Intel Duo-Core product placement logo’s thru-out the facility.
#10 the additional apartments in the downtown add additional residents to finally lure some real neighborhood serving retail stores downtown.
#31 JD,
#23 is L,L,L not AV. Need I say more?
#27 – LLL – You say, “You say “the stadium is for the greater good of the people”.
Then let’s put it to a vote of the people. “
Do you hold that standard to every issue “for the greater good of the people”? Or just the issues that you disagree with?
#30 JD
I was talking about the cost of the Stadium land (East parking lot)! The cost of the land is directly associated with the City rezoning the IBM site. No rezone-no stadium. This is the same as me saying I will give you my car “for free” if you give me your home. The car is not free, as the stadium is not free. We will pay for it with our tax dollars to hire more police , fire etc. or pay for it with a drain on our city services. Have I made it simple enough even for you to understand? There is no free lunch here.
#33 – I apologize – I thought KCW was still owned by Hunt Enterprises. I know that The Meadowlands has the ability to flip back and forth, but of late they’ve been on rug. However, I thought the NYRB stadium project was still on a “proposed” basis – have they actually broken ground?
But please don’t get me going on the RLS stadium deal – I have a feeling that you and I will argue long and loud into the night on that one.
40 – Ever hear of cumulative effect? Both projects present potential problems. You can’t isolate one from the other. Being concerned about potential negative impacts that are not properly addressed does not make one a naysayer. It makes one a good citizen who wants to live in a city with a decent quality of life.
#35 RIP
Yes, No
#30 JD
“The days of knocking down buildings for the purpose of sports venues is by and large over in California” So did SF and San Diego build theirs on empty lots. Didn’t San Jose in the past two years buy up land by the train station (Stephens Meat) with the intent to build a ballpark? By what information do you base your statement?
I get the feeling that all the whiners here would rather put tax dollars in the bank instead of spending them on anything. Hey, maybe we could even send people out of town by taking away ALL the fun attractions. Then we’d really be saving on police and utilities dollars. Man, I should have thought like this before.
NO MORE FUN, JUST MORE MONEY!!!
I want the rezoning of the Flea Market put to a public vote!
Since plans for a downtown ballpark didn’t even make it out of the on-deck circle I would say that, yes, “the days of knocking down buildings for the purpose of sports venues” is holding true.
The Merc had an article today about the owners of the Berryessa flea market wanting to get their 120 acres rezoned so they could build 2800 residential units. Funny thing though, they didn’t say what they were going to do with all that money they were going to make from it. Nothing about spending it all on a facility that would benefit our local university or the many, many thousands who enjoy the world’s most popular game. So, instead of pissing your poison on a project that will enrich our community, why don’t you naysayers run along now since it appears you have a bigger fish to fry.
There are many components to what makes a city a decent place to live. As a San Jose city council member once replied to me, “the city has a certain obligation to help provide entertainment and recreational opportunities for it’s inhabitants”. Allowing the rezoning entitlements would be a prime example of what the city can do to provide this type of entertainment opportunity. Lew Wolff has pledged that every dollar made from the entitlemints would go toward the construction of the stadium. A stadium that will be enjoyed by tens of thousands of this city’s population.
Besides giving an acre or two for a BART station that may never happen, what is the Bumb family going to do with all the millions they reap from the Berressa Flea Market rezoning?
More and more I hear and read that this thing or that thing should be put to a vote of the people. Do y’all get the idea that a lot of us don’t trust our elected officials to do what’s right FOR US instead of what’s right FOR THEM AND FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTORS?
#45,jmo
You hit the nail on the head. “Pay to Play” Had Mulcahy been elected mayor, we would have had Wolff’s mouthpiece running the City. I hope Chuck Reed doesn’t let us down!
I will be curious about how PLO votes on the Wolff project. We will see if he owes Mulcahy or if he can act independently.
#46:
Give it up already. That part of the equation has already been solved. Find something else to whine about.
#47 LWR
“That part of the equation has already been solved.” Please elaborate.
#48:
The bottleneck for Lew Wolff’s project at the moment is not his dealings with the city council, rather getting revenue sharing agreements between him and SJSU Kassing ironed out.
#49 LWR
Is the rezoning of the IBM land a done deal? If so, which Council people are supporting the rezone?
#50:
Specific names cannot be spilled on a public blog.
Officially, of course the rezoning is not a done deal as it hasn’t even come up in an official city council meeting.
But behind the scenes, it has been ironed out and not a bottleneck. I’m sure you would be aware that bulk of wheelings and dealings happen behind the scenes before they come up in official council meetings.
#51 LWR
Is it legal for council members to get a majority on an issue that hasn’t even gone through the public process yet?
Will Lew Wolff and council end up doing the jail house rock?
#52:
Is it illegal for people to use their sense of perception through informal communication and draw inferences, without going through an official “getting majority” process?
I gotta agree with DD #19. If I can’t feed my kids, I’m not going to go out and buy a Hummer so they and I will feel better when I drop them off @ school.
There’s more to this issue than whether city $$ is spent on stadium construction. City services are woefully insufficient now, and the roads pretty much ALL suck. Adding 1500 more families to that mix doesn’t help the situation.
So, unless LW also agrees to install and maintain the additional infrastructure that will be utilized by the 1500 new families, I think we need to take a pass on this “opportunity” that has been presented to us.
First things first—cops, firefighters, smooth roads, open libraries, performing schools, well-maintained parks. Santa Clara has most of that, so maybe they can spend some public $$ on a team. San Ohaze clearly does not, and needs to get it before we take on any new team.
The positive “public visibility” JD #22 speaks of would be a sham. The viewing public would see a shiny new stadium, but would not see, until they actually visited here to catch a game, the third world roads we have.
It would be a lot like New Orleans, before or after Katrina. You go to “The Quarter” to party and say “cool!”; but the lower 9th ward is a different story altogether.
Even another 7500 people to our sadly deteriorating infrastructure would be a bad idea until we get our house in order.
Put another way, JD, how many people can you pull into the rickety lifeboat before it just sinks?
LLL#23: a “promise” by the council is only as good as the next campaign contribution.
Enough nonsense JM O’Connor! My parents live in South East San Jose/Seven Trees; an area of town that you wouldn’t dare visit. I’m here to report that our streets are just fine! And don’t reference some damn “report” that states otherwise. My eyewitness experiences in Seven Trees and East San Jose claims otherwise. Are there streets in our city that have cracks/potholes that need attention? You bet! But then again, there are many streets in San Francisco that look like they’ve taken a mortar round or two. My point…there isn’t a single city in this country where the streets are lined with gold and that are 100% blemish free. JMOC, why don’t you take your whining, small town attittude to Los Banos or Hollister, thank you very much! Now, let’s get on with the business of making this city great!
#55:
I can infer that you have never seen what “third world roads” look like. By extension I can infer that the rest of your posts are similar hyperbole, meaning you don’t know what you’re talking about.