League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
	Santa Clara County, CA June 8, 2010 Election
	Measure J Lease of City Land City of Santa Clara Lease of City Land - Majority Approval Required Pass: 14,628 / 58.20% Yes votes ...... 10,505 / 41.80% No votes See Also: Index of all Measures

Arguments For Measure J

Arguments Against Measure J

YES on Measure J. YES for the stadium. YES for Santa Clara. Measure J is more than just a tremendous economic opportunity for Santa Clara. It makes our city an even better place to live, work and play. Yes on Measure J brings $249 million in annual economic activity, creating thousands of desperately needed new jobs for local workers who are bearing the brunt of the recession and are struggling to get back to work. Yes on Measure J provides $26 million that our schools urgently need to battle a crippling deficit that's costing teacher and staff jobs. It contributes tens of millions to the city's General Fund, which funds vital services including police, fire, library, senior and youth programs. And we can achieve these tremendous benefits without putting the city at risk. Our City Council and budget staff insisted that the legal ordinance text contain ironclad taxpayer protections that completely safeguard our General Fund and our residents from stadium costs. Everything is covered, including construction costs, operating costs and bond payments. NO NEW OR INCREASED TAXES on city residents. Our General Fund collects at least $40 million in rent AND the City maintains ownership of the land. The stadium will be a community asset that creates new entertainment options for residents. Plus, national broadcast of stadium events will be a potent marketing tool to showcase Santa Clara. That's why Measure J is enthusiastically supported by a coalition of leaders who understand and believe in Santa Clara including four past Mayors and seventeen former and current City Councilmembers; Sheriff Laurie Smith; the Santa Clara Unified School District Board; the Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce; Santa Clara Police and Firefighters Associations; and thousands of residents. Please join us in putting the power of YES to work for Santa Clara. Yes on Measure J. http://www.SCforProgress.com /s/ Patricia Mahan Mayor, City of Santa Clara /s/ Elaine Alquist State Senator /s/ Don Callejon Superintendent, Santa Clara Unified School District - Retired /s/ Barbara E. Ratcliffe Past Chair, Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce /s/ Donald "Manny" Ferguson Police chief, City of Santa Clara - Retired Rebuttal to Arguments For The claim that the stadium will not cost Santa Clarans anything just isn't true. The stadium subsidy causes a $67 million net loss to the General Fund. This is after all future stadium revenues are counted (i.e. rent, event profit, additional taxes collected). If this was a good deal for Santa Clara, it wouldn't show an overall negative return on investment. No new taxes are now proposed, but to cover the $67 million loss we will eventually have to raise taxes or provide less city services. And the $67 million figure doesn't even count the loss caused by the sweetheart rent deal. The "money for schools" claim is also misleading. While the Santa Clara Unified School District will get an additional $22 million (in today's dollars) the money doesn't come from the 49ers or the stadium. It comes from the city's redevelopment fund - the same fund used to build bike trails, libraries, and fire stations. The loss to the City is three times the benefit to the School District. Stadium supporters claim that operating costs are "covered" by "ironclad" protections. The fine print shows that the 49ers get to decide how much they pay in operations and maintenance costs. The city cannot force the team to pay more if the maintenance is insufficient. Although the city is not legally obligated to make up the difference, who else will? Let's use public money for public purposes. Please vote no on Measure J. /s/ Charles R. "Charlie" Arolla Former Chief of Police, City of Santa Clara /s/ Anne Creighton Commissioner, Santa Clara Senior Advisory Commission /s/ Mary Emerson Business Operations Manager /s/ Doris Modesitt Former Chairwoman, Santa Clara Senior Advisory Commission /s/ Karen L. Hardy Teacher and Former Commissioner, Santa Clara Planning Commission

The city's economic report shows that when all stadium costs and revenues are added up, the costs greatly outweigh the revenues. $67 Million General Fund Net Loss. The City's economic report shows that our General Fund will lose $67 million as a result of the stadium. This is because money which would otherwise flow into the General Fund is diverted to the stadium. It might be worth dealing with the traffic and parking issues if the stadium were profitable, but why spend money on a deal which is projected to lose money? Negative Return on Investment. Santa Clara is required to direct $114 million to the stadium project, and provide the land. In return, Santa Clara receives only $57 million from various sources -- less than half our contribution. The 49ers won't lose money on the stadium. Why should we? Sweetheart Deal on City-owned Land. The stadium deal requires Santa Clara to extend the unbelievably low rent that the 49ers have on their training center. The 49ers only pay Santa Clara about $26,000 per year for 11.2 acres. Three nearby businesses pay Santa Clara $1.4 million, $1 million, and $0.5 million per year for properties less than half as big. Why should the 49ers pay only 1% of what others pay? Small Economic Impact Doesn't Justify Subsidy. Most stadium jobs will be low-wage and part-time. Only 7% of construction jobs will go to Santa Clarans and about 1% of construction spending will occur in Santa Clara. The stadium will account for only 1/1000 of Santa Clara's economy. Many Santa Clara companies provide much more to our city's economy, and better jobs, without asking for a subsidy. Football is a great sport, but public safety, streets, libraries, and parks are more important. Please vote no on J For supporting documents: http://www.SantaClaraPlaysFair.org. /s/ Will Kennedy Councilman, City of Santa Clara /s/ Jamie McLeod Councilwoman, City of Santa Clara /s/ William A. Gissler Former Mayor and Councilman, City of Santa Clara /s/ Judy Boccignone Former City Clerk, City of Santa Clara /s/ Michele Ryan Teacher and Chair, Santa Clara Plays Fair Rebuttal to Arguments Against Opponent's assertions about Measure J fail to provide a single element of proof. For a clearer picture, please consider the objective facts on Santa Clara's website: http://www.santaclaraca.gov and carefully review the strict protections and benefits in the ordinance you are voting on. Measure J generates $249,000,000 annually in regional economic benefits and 2,200 jobs (CSL study, 4/4/07). Measure J directly contributes an estimated $155 million in performance rent payments (KMA presentation, 6/2/09) plus $40,000,000 in guaranteed base rent payments (ordinance 17.20.020(f)), plus up to $10,000,000 in new funds for senior, youth and library programs (ordinance 17.20.020(m)). Measure J triggers $26,000,000 to Santa Clara Schools (City agenda report 6/2/09). Measure J contains ironclad taxpayer protections that legally protect the City from construction cost overruns (ordinance 17.20.020(k)) and maintenance costs (ordinance 17.20.020(j)) and prohibit new taxes on city residents for the stadium (ordinance 17.20.020(i)). Santa Clara's General Fund is explicitly protected (ordinance 17.20.020(b and c)). The benefits of Measure J are not speculative. Based on our past successes creating our own utility company; preserving Great America; building our world class Convention Center, and creating economic powerhouses like the North of Bayshore Business District, voters can have confidence that Santa Clara has done it before and will be successful again with this project. For opponents to suggest that Santa Clara's City Staff, who are fiscally prudent and exacting, would recommend a bad deal for Santa Clara is simply wrong. Please join hundreds of Santa Clarans who've publicly endorsed Yes on J. See and hear their reasons at http://www.SCforProgress.com. /s/ Donald R Von Raesfeld Former Santa Clara City Manager (1962-1987) /s/ Elise DeYoung Vice President, Santa Clara Unified School District Board of Trustees /s/ Carl Guardino President and CEO, Silicon Valley Leadership Group /s/ John McLemore Former City Councilmember, City of Santa Clara /s/ Dawn Lucero Parent Teacher Student Association President, Santa Clara High School

Full Text of Measure J

Full Text