On Tuesday, the 49ers won a temporary restraining order which prohibits Santa Clara County from spending the disputed $30 million it is withholding from the team. The judge, who seems to be leaning in favor of the 49ers, has set a trial date of July 27 to rule on the money. If the Niners win, and they may just do that, this would be an important victory for them. To read an article explaining these developments in more detail, please click here.
Lo Sbandato
This is hardly a win. It’s SOP for disputes of this kind. The same thing will happen when the county (or Niners) appeal after the judge’s decision. You can’t let somebody spend funds that are in dispute, but that doesn’t mean one side or the other is right; that the issue is in doubt is the reason a TRO is needed.
July 4th, 2012 2:49 pm
ga's
Lowell…you should know by now that the SJ Mercury News works as “nothing” but the 49ers Spin Doctor, & Mouth Piece. That newspaper along with the city Government of Santa Clara have Lost all Credibility when it comes to the 49ers/Yorks….IMHO.
Btw, If Judge Connelly rules in the favor of the 49ers, the Judgement will most likely be appealed, by the County of Santa Clara.
July 4th, 2012 3:22 pm
JB
If the people voted for the funds to be provided to the 49ers then 7 people have no legal standing to take it away. One can debate the merits of giving public money to build a stadium, but those arguments are for a separate time and place. The city owes the money, which is a small fraction of the total cost for this overwhelmingly private endeavor. The right thing to do is pay out what they owe, not conveniently hide behind children as an excuse to renege on their obligations.
July 4th, 2012 5:48 pm
Santa Claran
The language in the stadium ballot measure J of June 2010 was that the redevelopment agency funds were ‘not to exceed $40,000,000′ for the stadium project. The voters never approved giving the 49ers exactly $40 million. ‘Not to exceed’ means that anything from zero to $40 million meets the criterion of what the voters’ approved.
$10 million in RDA funds has already been spent on the stadium project. That meets the language approved by the voters.
July 4th, 2012 6:56 pm
JB
If it were that simple then the judge would have dismissed the case outright. He didn’t. Besides, it would be inherently stupid and irresponsible for the city to give $10 million to a project when $1 would satisfy the requirement.
July 4th, 2012 8:15 pm
Dennis
Santa Claran, The language is similar to what is used in a line of credit with a bank. You agree on a max amount, pay a fee, and that amount needs to be avaiable to you if and when you need it. If it is not available to you, through no fault of your own, the bank is in default on its’ obligation to you. It is very plain and simple.
July 5th, 2012 7:25 am
Dennis
And to all of you who think the County Board is within their rights to take this money and spend it as they see fit would you feel the same if they decided to give it to another private enterprise as an enticement to locate in Santa Clara County? Just because you happened to like the claimed recipient of the money doesn’t mean their actions are right.
July 5th, 2012 7:41 am
Dennis
UPDATE!
I had lunch with a friend of mine today who is a planning consultant all over the State of California. I asked him what he knew about the 49er lawsuit. He told it is one of several that are going on throughout the state right now. That it just happens to be the most visible. He said there is about a 1 billion dollars at stake. He said that not all the cases are the same. In some places bonds had actually been sold with the RDA as the source of repayment.
The State Legislature originally had a safety net to take care of this problem. Under the original legislation all the RDA’s had to do is pay the schools a certain amount and they could then continue on supporting their obligations. The Supreme Court, however. turned down that arrangement. The court said that the State could end RDA’s but couldn’t make extortive conditions on how they could continue. Now there is one huge mess and no one really knows how it is going to be resolved.
July 5th, 2012 5:28 pm
Santa Claran
Thanks Dennis.
But there’s more to this story. The 49ers knew the RDA money was going away and loaned the money to the Stadium Authority after the Supreme Court’s decision. They were openly asked by a council member at a council meeting if they knew the RDA money could essentially evaporate, and they said yes. Many documents show that the maximum was $40 million but that everyone acknowledged there might never be $40 million available.
And I wish I could show you the 49ers campaign materials. They campaigned heavily on how the stadium would bring money to the schools (through an RDA kickback, not from the team itself, the team owners, or the stadium itself.) Had they not mis-used our schools in their campaign they would not have won. Their yard signs literally said ‘Yes on J. Yes for our schools’ in yellow, blue, and green. No mention of the stadium or team or football.
It is a mis-use of the original vote to say that people earmarked $40 million for the stadium. Had there been a choice, like there is now, between giving money to the schools (their rightful share of property taxes) vs. giving money to the 49ers, the schools would have won.
People here tried to get a re-vote on the stadium project because the financing is so drastically different from what it was when we voted ($950 million in loans taken on by our Stadium Authority when the ballot measure disclosed NO loans) and collected enough signatures to put it back on the ballot, but our city council said no and the 49ers sued the people of Santa Clara to deny us the right to vote. This is the 2nd time they’ve taken away our right to vote. Previously, in 2009 they went to Sacramento and spent $73,000 on lobbyists to have special interest legislation put through (SB43) which took away our right to vote on whether or not the 49ers could override our city charter’s requirement for competitive bidding. They didn’t want us to vote on that because it takes 2/3 to override our charter, so they got the state legislature to write special interest legislation solely for the benefit of the 49ers and to the detriment of the people of Santa Clara.
Many of our city council members have received large campaign contributions from the 49ers/their consultants and contractors/trade unions. Of course these city council members (including our mayor, who serves on the oversight committee) vote yes on everything the 49ers ever wanted.
July 6th, 2012 6:39 am