Post by TheShadow on Mar 20, 2007 19:16:13 GMT -5
www.insidebayarea.com/
STATE LEADS WAY IN SAYING NO TO TAX HIKES FOR STADIUMS
By Mike Swift - MEDIANEWS
California is a tough place to build a stadium.
The state's three National Football League teams play in three of the league's older stadiums. And the country's second-largest television market, Los Angeles, hasn't had a pro football team for more than a decade, in part because of taxpayers' opposition to subsidizing a new stadium. One team executive said those problems threaten the NFL's future in California.
With the 49ers due to present their stadium proposal to Santa Clara within a month, the job of building a stadium in California is only getting tougher. Construction costs have skyrocketed. The state's taxpayer initiatives make it highly unlikely that the standard stadium finance tool used elsewhere in the country - a dedicated tax - would work here. And if two recent votes are any guide, California voters' antipathy toward taxpayer-subsidized stadiums is increasing.
For pro teams that want a new venue, this past Election Day may have been a Waterloo. In Sacramento, voters by an 4-1 ratio trounced a sales taxes increase for a new arena for the NBA's Kings, while Pasadena voters similarly crushed a proposal to renovate the Rose Bowl to attract an NFL team.
"There have been losses in the past, but they have always been close," said Stanford sports economist Roger Noll, who says California is the leading edge of a growing national antipathy to taxpayer financed stadiums. "Maybe California has gone from 55 percent against to 80 against, while the rest of the country has gone from 40 against to 60 against. But it's still against."
The 49ers are well aware of the trend, which is part of the reason the team has vowed to find a way to build a stadium in Santa Clara without new taxes. Even so, it could turn into a political issue. For instance, the team would need voter approval to change the city charter if it wanted to tap the city-run utility reserve fund to help finance a stadium. The city's small size means the 49ers also could face a referendum on the stadium, whether new taxes are involved or not. A petition drive would need fewer than 6,000 signatures, between 10 and 15 percent of Santa Clara's 39,200 voters, to force a special election vote on a stadium issue.
American taxpayers have paid more than $4 billion to subsidize new stadiums for NFL teams since 1992, according to a recent California legislative analysis. None of it came from California pocketbooks. Public money or land was used to help finance the two most recent California stadium successes - AT&T Park in San Francisco and the Staples Center in Los Angeles. But the bulk of the financing in those projects came from private sources, a template the 49ers must match in Santa Clara and the Oakland A's in Fremont.
`Frivolous ventures'
Elsewhere, taxpayers have subsidized most of the newest NFL stadiums, according to data collected by the National Sports Law Institute of Marquette University. But California's Propositions 13 and 218 require two-thirds of voters to support a special tax levied specifically to finance a specific project, such as a stadium.
That has kept officials from backing "frivolous ventures like public stadiums," said Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The Sacramento "measures got stomped into the ground because people said public entertainment is not our priority for our tax dollars."
49ers officials and lobbyists say they aren't worried about recent stadium rejections in California. A poll commissioned by the 49ers in January showed 73 percent support for a stadium among Santa Clara voters, but voters have yet to see the financial plan.
Jude Barry, a political consultant working for the 49ers, said the overwhelming rejection of a quarter-cent sales tax hike in Sacramento may have been due in part to Kings owners Joe and Gavin Maloof's indifferent support.
"Sacramento is different from Pasadena as it's different from Santa Clara," Barry said. "I'm not sure you can discern trends based on one election in those cities."
California's three NFL teams - the 49ers, the Oakland Raiders and the San Diego Chargers - are the only NFL teams that play in stadiums originally built in the 1960s; more than half the NFL's 32 teams play in stadiums built or extensively renovated since 1995. The Raiders' McAfee Coliseum went through more than $120 million in renovations, adding luxury suites and club seats, new scoreboards and other amenities, when the Raiders moved back from Los Angeles in 1995.
An older stadium generally means a less wealthy team - newer stadiums feature luxury suites, club seating and other features that allow teams to extract revenue from wealthy fans. Some California executives argue the NFL needs to put the California teams on an even footing with the rest of the league, where taxpayers typically provide two-thirds to three-quarters of stadium construction costs - or risk seeing the NFL leave California.
"I think it's a real question," said Mark Fabiani, who is leading the San Diego Chargers' quest for a new stadium. "You can't expect that indefinitely into the future teams are going to be able to survive stuck at the bottom of the league. ... Over time you can't be in that situation, yet there doesn't seem to be a solution for the California teams."
The Chargers have been working toward a new stadium for nearly five years, and are studying sites around San Diego. Meanwhile, the team has seen cost estimates mushroom from $450 million to as much as $750 million to $1 billion.
"We are well aware of the difficulties facing the teams in California," said Brian McCarthy, an NFL spokesman. "The teams are playing in stadiums that are not economically viable. We are evaluating a number of different options to stadium funding leaguewide and are aware of the need for new stadiums in California."
Empty threat
Theoretically, the 49ers or Chargers could use a tried-and-true strategy to push for new stadiums - threaten to move. But no NFL team has moved since 1997, and Noll said the days of teams playing one city off another to get a stadium may be fleeting.
"These credible threats aren't so credible anymore," he said. "There was a wave of enthusiasm to bring both baseball and football to Portland, and that's died down now. No local government is going to subsidize a stadium in L.A. Memphis was a possibility that seems to have died. They may well have made a mistake in the last expansion in that they have eliminated all of the cities that lack a team that might be willing to pay dearly to get one."
The finance proposal that emerges in Santa Clara is expected to use a combination of city-owned land that would help the 49ers pay for the stadium, utility surpluses or other non-tax means.
"I think you're seeing these more creative deals because there's more public opposition, both from the general public and from elected officials," said Neil deMause, co-author of "Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money Into Private Profit." "I think California is by far in the lead on that."
STATE LEADS WAY IN SAYING NO TO TAX HIKES FOR STADIUMS
By Mike Swift - MEDIANEWS
California is a tough place to build a stadium.
The state's three National Football League teams play in three of the league's older stadiums. And the country's second-largest television market, Los Angeles, hasn't had a pro football team for more than a decade, in part because of taxpayers' opposition to subsidizing a new stadium. One team executive said those problems threaten the NFL's future in California.
With the 49ers due to present their stadium proposal to Santa Clara within a month, the job of building a stadium in California is only getting tougher. Construction costs have skyrocketed. The state's taxpayer initiatives make it highly unlikely that the standard stadium finance tool used elsewhere in the country - a dedicated tax - would work here. And if two recent votes are any guide, California voters' antipathy toward taxpayer-subsidized stadiums is increasing.
For pro teams that want a new venue, this past Election Day may have been a Waterloo. In Sacramento, voters by an 4-1 ratio trounced a sales taxes increase for a new arena for the NBA's Kings, while Pasadena voters similarly crushed a proposal to renovate the Rose Bowl to attract an NFL team.
"There have been losses in the past, but they have always been close," said Stanford sports economist Roger Noll, who says California is the leading edge of a growing national antipathy to taxpayer financed stadiums. "Maybe California has gone from 55 percent against to 80 against, while the rest of the country has gone from 40 against to 60 against. But it's still against."
The 49ers are well aware of the trend, which is part of the reason the team has vowed to find a way to build a stadium in Santa Clara without new taxes. Even so, it could turn into a political issue. For instance, the team would need voter approval to change the city charter if it wanted to tap the city-run utility reserve fund to help finance a stadium. The city's small size means the 49ers also could face a referendum on the stadium, whether new taxes are involved or not. A petition drive would need fewer than 6,000 signatures, between 10 and 15 percent of Santa Clara's 39,200 voters, to force a special election vote on a stadium issue.
American taxpayers have paid more than $4 billion to subsidize new stadiums for NFL teams since 1992, according to a recent California legislative analysis. None of it came from California pocketbooks. Public money or land was used to help finance the two most recent California stadium successes - AT&T Park in San Francisco and the Staples Center in Los Angeles. But the bulk of the financing in those projects came from private sources, a template the 49ers must match in Santa Clara and the Oakland A's in Fremont.
`Frivolous ventures'
Elsewhere, taxpayers have subsidized most of the newest NFL stadiums, according to data collected by the National Sports Law Institute of Marquette University. But California's Propositions 13 and 218 require two-thirds of voters to support a special tax levied specifically to finance a specific project, such as a stadium.
That has kept officials from backing "frivolous ventures like public stadiums," said Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The Sacramento "measures got stomped into the ground because people said public entertainment is not our priority for our tax dollars."
49ers officials and lobbyists say they aren't worried about recent stadium rejections in California. A poll commissioned by the 49ers in January showed 73 percent support for a stadium among Santa Clara voters, but voters have yet to see the financial plan.
Jude Barry, a political consultant working for the 49ers, said the overwhelming rejection of a quarter-cent sales tax hike in Sacramento may have been due in part to Kings owners Joe and Gavin Maloof's indifferent support.
"Sacramento is different from Pasadena as it's different from Santa Clara," Barry said. "I'm not sure you can discern trends based on one election in those cities."
California's three NFL teams - the 49ers, the Oakland Raiders and the San Diego Chargers - are the only NFL teams that play in stadiums originally built in the 1960s; more than half the NFL's 32 teams play in stadiums built or extensively renovated since 1995. The Raiders' McAfee Coliseum went through more than $120 million in renovations, adding luxury suites and club seats, new scoreboards and other amenities, when the Raiders moved back from Los Angeles in 1995.
An older stadium generally means a less wealthy team - newer stadiums feature luxury suites, club seating and other features that allow teams to extract revenue from wealthy fans. Some California executives argue the NFL needs to put the California teams on an even footing with the rest of the league, where taxpayers typically provide two-thirds to three-quarters of stadium construction costs - or risk seeing the NFL leave California.
"I think it's a real question," said Mark Fabiani, who is leading the San Diego Chargers' quest for a new stadium. "You can't expect that indefinitely into the future teams are going to be able to survive stuck at the bottom of the league. ... Over time you can't be in that situation, yet there doesn't seem to be a solution for the California teams."
The Chargers have been working toward a new stadium for nearly five years, and are studying sites around San Diego. Meanwhile, the team has seen cost estimates mushroom from $450 million to as much as $750 million to $1 billion.
"We are well aware of the difficulties facing the teams in California," said Brian McCarthy, an NFL spokesman. "The teams are playing in stadiums that are not economically viable. We are evaluating a number of different options to stadium funding leaguewide and are aware of the need for new stadiums in California."
Empty threat
Theoretically, the 49ers or Chargers could use a tried-and-true strategy to push for new stadiums - threaten to move. But no NFL team has moved since 1997, and Noll said the days of teams playing one city off another to get a stadium may be fleeting.
"These credible threats aren't so credible anymore," he said. "There was a wave of enthusiasm to bring both baseball and football to Portland, and that's died down now. No local government is going to subsidize a stadium in L.A. Memphis was a possibility that seems to have died. They may well have made a mistake in the last expansion in that they have eliminated all of the cities that lack a team that might be willing to pay dearly to get one."
The finance proposal that emerges in Santa Clara is expected to use a combination of city-owned land that would help the 49ers pay for the stadium, utility surpluses or other non-tax means.
"I think you're seeing these more creative deals because there's more public opposition, both from the general public and from elected officials," said Neil deMause, co-author of "Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money Into Private Profit." "I think California is by far in the lead on that."