April 7, 2006
Back to the Future 'Stick
The Gavster reemerged from hobnobbing with Scientologists to announce that he was going to try and have a court rule whether or not a 1997 measure calling for the building of a new Candlestick park and other development still holds. The measure was passed back then, but was put on hold after Eddie DeBartolo got in trouble with the Feds and after people realized that the measure was just as sucky as most people thought. If it can be sent to court and if the court says "yay", speculation is that the city will start building the sucker, despite the fact the measure is almost ten years old and, as everyone seems to be pointing out, goes against the normal process of city governance.
For those wondering just what the city process would be in something like this, here it is: measure is proposed, community meetings are held and held some more to get feedback and the measure is drafted. Then more community meetings are held as complaints are raised that enough meetings have been held. Finally, the measure goes up for a vote and thousands of dollars are spent trying to say either that the measure would cause poor people getting rich and sky-high tax revenues or is really part of a secret plan by a cabal of neo-cons bent on having San Francisco taken over by single Evangelical Yuppies. If Measure doesn't pass, go back to the beginning and repeat the process. If measure is passed, lawsuits are quickly filed and the measure is put on hold while suit and counter-suit makes it's way through court. Once it makes it's way through court, demonstrators launch protests and the Board of Supervisors put the kibosh on the plan until more community meetings are held and changes are made. After it finally makes it through the Board of Supes (if it does at all), a new measure is quickly proposed calling for repealing of previous measure. Go back to Step 1.
With protestations mounting against Gavin's maneuver, Gavin and Flaks o' Gavin quickly went out and did they're oh so cute hemming and hawing to say it's not what it looks like and that they're merely just doing this for shits and giggles and to see just what would happen in case they thought about doing something. Oh, Gavin, why can't you learn that if you're going to go out there and totally circumvent everything, you don't act all guilty about it? Didn't you learn anything from Willie? Anyways, this was all countermanded by Carole Migden who is sponsoring legislation in the State Assembly that will allow the measure to go to court. MIgden told the State Assembly that she's proposing it because if it was voted on again, it would be extremely expensive and probably lose. Which is probably right.
The vote in 1997 was one humdinger of an election, about as rigged as "American Idol." It featured the opening of polling places at times they weren't supposed to be open, phantom voters, get out the vote organizations made up of crack dealers and criminals, secret polling places, people voting twice, and our favorite-- poll workers decked out in 49ers gear. It was, in a word, awesome. And totally covered up.
Either way, we say the chances of this all happening and the thing gets built this way somewhere between "dream on, white boy" and "not a chance in hell."
|
That was a wonderful impression of how the City works.
The 49ers are obviously under amateur ownership; any owner worth their salt would be threatening to move the team every three hours or so.
Jon: The "City" wont build the stadium, nor pay for it - - *the Forty Niners will*. That seems to be a pretty large error in your post. Get your facts straight.
The bond measure that was passed in '97 simply said that $100 million in revenue bonds would be sold by the City (and applied to what would amount to only about one fifth of the cost of the stadium). The debt service for these revenue bonds (an extremely commonplace bond type for this City and all others) would be paid back by tax revenue from the stadium and the proposed mall that was also supposed to be built alongside the stadium. The mall, like the stadium, would be built with 49er and commercial investment dollars (except for the $100M towards the stadium from the bonds).
The only thing that the Niners/Newsom/Migden are trying to clarify with the State measure and subsequent court ruling is essentially:
"Would it still comply with the intent of the bond measure that voters passed if the proposed mall was replaced with housing instead?"
This is because everyone is thinking the mall idea may not be fiscally feasible anymore, and because the City and our State Representatives such as Migden know that we need housing more than we need a mall. Essentially they are trying to make the project more feasible and in concurrence with what the City and its residents want and need at this point (which is obviously different than in '97).
For a "sports writer", you sure dont seem to know much about whats going on now with the Niners stadium project.