Post by TheShadow on Apr 30, 2010 16:21:19 GMT -5
www.mercurynews.com
By Howard Mintz
If the June vote to build a $937 million stadium in Santa Clara winds up close, an X factor in deciding the outcome could be the long-term prospect of the San Francisco 49ers sharing their new NFL address with the Oakland Raiders.
The possibility of Raider Nation descending on Silicon Valley for football Sundays does not carry the same weight in the current political campaign as potential taxpayer costs or traffic, but it is on the radar of Santa Clara residents who must decide whether to back a new stadium for the 49ers. And there are reasons for that: The deal between the city and 49ers allows for a two-team stadium, and the NFL has embraced the idea of sharing home fields in two-team markets such as the Bay Area.
A San Jose Mercury News-KGO poll released this week found that more Santa Clara voters don't like the idea of the Raiders sharing the stadium with the 49ers than the number of those who would favor the project more if the Silver and Black is part of the deal. A third of likely voters would be less inclined to vote for Measure J if the stadium is shared by the Raiders, while 27 percent would be more likely to vote for the project if there is a second team, the poll found.
The remaining third of voters generally don't believe it makes a difference in their vote. Overall, the poll found likely voters favor the stadium by a 52 percent to 36 percent margin, with 11 percent undecided.
The Raider image and the prospect of twice the number of NFL games — and double the amount of potential parking and traffic headaches — may be a black mark in the minds of some voters, but the addition of a second team to the stadium deal does carry benefits for the city, which would stand to gain financially and reduce its investment in the cost of building the stadium.
Still, voters such as Crystal Wolfe, who plans to vote Yes on the measure and is an ardent 49ers fan, nevertheless says she "will pray" the Raiders never call Santa Clara their home.
"The Raiders have no respect for the 49ers," the 34-year-old Santa Clara resident said. "Why should we share a stadium with them when they have no respect for the team or the fans?"
Other likely voters say the Raiders coming to town just doesn't matter as they weigh the merits of building a 68,500-seat stadium on a parking lot adjacent to the Great America theme park. Amy Randall, an undecided voter, says she's more focused on the relative costs and benefits for the community, not the potential for two NFL teams playing in the stadium.
"It isn't a big factor," she said.
The Raiders issue stems from a provision in the deal struck last year between the city and 49ers, which allows a second team to sublease the stadium. If that were to occur, the Raiders are widely considered the logical second tenant. The NFL since last year has encouraged the 49ers and Raiders to consider a joint stadium, similar to what has unfolded in New York, where the Giants and Jets will open a new stadium together next season.
The chances of the Raiders teaming with the 49ers are about as predictable as the Raiders' revolving-door quarterback situation. Raiders owner Al Davis is widely believed to prefer a new stadium in Oakland, and thus would likely only turn his eyes southward if that does not materialize. Oakland and Alameda County officials have already launched a study on options for a new stadium for the team, and Raiders officials insist they are concentrating on the East Bay.
"Our energies in the Bay Area are focused on Oakland," said Amy Trask, the Raiders' CEO.
Trask declined to speculate about Santa Clara, but is tired of hearing about depictions of unruly, drunken Raiders fans who show up in ghoulish garb, as opposed to the portrayal of 49ers fans as a more placid wine-and-cheese crowd. "It is time to stop stereotyping and generalizing about Raiders fans," she said. "Our fans deserve better."
49ers officials, meanwhile, say they have a good working relationship with the Raiders, but stress that nothing is happening in terms of them negotiating to come to Santa Clara as opposed to Oakland.
The opponents of the stadium have devoted relatively little attention to the Raiders issue, focusing more on arguments that the deal could leave city coffers vulnerable in future years. But they have summoned up the idea of rowdy Raiders fans filtering into Santa Clara neighborhoods on game days, and Councilman Will Kennedy, a Measure J foe, points out that the 49ers, not the city, control whether to sublease the stadium to the Raiders.
The financial benefits of the 49ers luring the Raiders do cut against the grain of the critics' chief arguments against the deal because the city stands to reduce its investment substantially under those circumstances. In fact, if the Raiders sign on to a Santa Clara stadium at any point, the city immediately gets its $42 million redevelopment money returned, the largest single portion of the $114 million public contribution to stadium construction. And the city stands to get $10 million more in rent over the life of the stadium lease if the Raiders bring the Black Hole to Santa Clara.
But stadium supporters aren't exactly advertising the Raiders possibility, either. It's nowhere to be found as a selling point in the 49ers glossy, expensive political campaign, although 49ers president Jed York recently told Bay Area News Group: "It's in the term sheet, a second team is carved out in the term sheet. Nobody is trying to hide that in any way."
Even some strong stadium supporters are lukewarm on the Raiders moving south. Mayor Patricia Mahan, a leader in the pro-stadium campaign, said doubling the days that would have football games in town brings twice the traffic, noise and parking issues for residents.
"If I multiply by two, I have some hesitation about that," she acknowledges. "I really don't know."
As the June 8 vote approaches, many of the city's voters, even those apprehensive about the Raiders playing in Santa Clara, appear to view the issue as an unfortunate side note to the central question of whether it is good or bad for the city to host a new NFL stadium.
"If this had been proposed by the Raiders in the first place, it never would have gotten this far," said Kenneth Moyers, a longtime resident who plans to vote Yes on Measure J. "But, frankly, I don't think the Raiders will leave Oakland. No way. It's not going to happen."
By Howard Mintz
If the June vote to build a $937 million stadium in Santa Clara winds up close, an X factor in deciding the outcome could be the long-term prospect of the San Francisco 49ers sharing their new NFL address with the Oakland Raiders.
The possibility of Raider Nation descending on Silicon Valley for football Sundays does not carry the same weight in the current political campaign as potential taxpayer costs or traffic, but it is on the radar of Santa Clara residents who must decide whether to back a new stadium for the 49ers. And there are reasons for that: The deal between the city and 49ers allows for a two-team stadium, and the NFL has embraced the idea of sharing home fields in two-team markets such as the Bay Area.
A San Jose Mercury News-KGO poll released this week found that more Santa Clara voters don't like the idea of the Raiders sharing the stadium with the 49ers than the number of those who would favor the project more if the Silver and Black is part of the deal. A third of likely voters would be less inclined to vote for Measure J if the stadium is shared by the Raiders, while 27 percent would be more likely to vote for the project if there is a second team, the poll found.
The remaining third of voters generally don't believe it makes a difference in their vote. Overall, the poll found likely voters favor the stadium by a 52 percent to 36 percent margin, with 11 percent undecided.
The Raider image and the prospect of twice the number of NFL games — and double the amount of potential parking and traffic headaches — may be a black mark in the minds of some voters, but the addition of a second team to the stadium deal does carry benefits for the city, which would stand to gain financially and reduce its investment in the cost of building the stadium.
Still, voters such as Crystal Wolfe, who plans to vote Yes on the measure and is an ardent 49ers fan, nevertheless says she "will pray" the Raiders never call Santa Clara their home.
"The Raiders have no respect for the 49ers," the 34-year-old Santa Clara resident said. "Why should we share a stadium with them when they have no respect for the team or the fans?"
Other likely voters say the Raiders coming to town just doesn't matter as they weigh the merits of building a 68,500-seat stadium on a parking lot adjacent to the Great America theme park. Amy Randall, an undecided voter, says she's more focused on the relative costs and benefits for the community, not the potential for two NFL teams playing in the stadium.
"It isn't a big factor," she said.
The Raiders issue stems from a provision in the deal struck last year between the city and 49ers, which allows a second team to sublease the stadium. If that were to occur, the Raiders are widely considered the logical second tenant. The NFL since last year has encouraged the 49ers and Raiders to consider a joint stadium, similar to what has unfolded in New York, where the Giants and Jets will open a new stadium together next season.
The chances of the Raiders teaming with the 49ers are about as predictable as the Raiders' revolving-door quarterback situation. Raiders owner Al Davis is widely believed to prefer a new stadium in Oakland, and thus would likely only turn his eyes southward if that does not materialize. Oakland and Alameda County officials have already launched a study on options for a new stadium for the team, and Raiders officials insist they are concentrating on the East Bay.
"Our energies in the Bay Area are focused on Oakland," said Amy Trask, the Raiders' CEO.
Trask declined to speculate about Santa Clara, but is tired of hearing about depictions of unruly, drunken Raiders fans who show up in ghoulish garb, as opposed to the portrayal of 49ers fans as a more placid wine-and-cheese crowd. "It is time to stop stereotyping and generalizing about Raiders fans," she said. "Our fans deserve better."
49ers officials, meanwhile, say they have a good working relationship with the Raiders, but stress that nothing is happening in terms of them negotiating to come to Santa Clara as opposed to Oakland.
The opponents of the stadium have devoted relatively little attention to the Raiders issue, focusing more on arguments that the deal could leave city coffers vulnerable in future years. But they have summoned up the idea of rowdy Raiders fans filtering into Santa Clara neighborhoods on game days, and Councilman Will Kennedy, a Measure J foe, points out that the 49ers, not the city, control whether to sublease the stadium to the Raiders.
The financial benefits of the 49ers luring the Raiders do cut against the grain of the critics' chief arguments against the deal because the city stands to reduce its investment substantially under those circumstances. In fact, if the Raiders sign on to a Santa Clara stadium at any point, the city immediately gets its $42 million redevelopment money returned, the largest single portion of the $114 million public contribution to stadium construction. And the city stands to get $10 million more in rent over the life of the stadium lease if the Raiders bring the Black Hole to Santa Clara.
But stadium supporters aren't exactly advertising the Raiders possibility, either. It's nowhere to be found as a selling point in the 49ers glossy, expensive political campaign, although 49ers president Jed York recently told Bay Area News Group: "It's in the term sheet, a second team is carved out in the term sheet. Nobody is trying to hide that in any way."
Even some strong stadium supporters are lukewarm on the Raiders moving south. Mayor Patricia Mahan, a leader in the pro-stadium campaign, said doubling the days that would have football games in town brings twice the traffic, noise and parking issues for residents.
"If I multiply by two, I have some hesitation about that," she acknowledges. "I really don't know."
As the June 8 vote approaches, many of the city's voters, even those apprehensive about the Raiders playing in Santa Clara, appear to view the issue as an unfortunate side note to the central question of whether it is good or bad for the city to host a new NFL stadium.
"If this had been proposed by the Raiders in the first place, it never would have gotten this far," said Kenneth Moyers, a longtime resident who plans to vote Yes on Measure J. "But, frankly, I don't think the Raiders will leave Oakland. No way. It's not going to happen."