http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/the_valley/15778073.htm There is a $30 million SJ budget surplus. I really doubt it is something that can be available for the SSS related project. No one has mentioned anything in the article about soccer or anything. There seems to be higher priority. It is interesting to see a familar name of Big Soccer in one of the paragraphs towards the end.
I wouldn't be so sure, considering that all Lewis Wolff and John Fisher are asking for is a good deal on land (which isn't something that would take away from the surplus anyway) and some surrounding roadside improvements. How much of that surplus would be needed for those surrounding roadside improvements? GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
What do you think the annual San Jose budget is? A few hundred million? This surplus is tiny. Good luck with that. I sure hope that Wolff doesn't need any of this cash. QUAKES FOREVER!! GO WOLFF!! GO SSV!! - Mark
Its about time the city did something right such as spend it on programs that were short-changed during the budget cuts, or what say...give the money back to the taxpayers. If they dare get a wild hair to put this towards a soccer stadium for MLS they all need to be recalled and fired. There should be absolutely NO taxpayer money spent on this stadium. Remember...MLS left us...screw them.
Also, didn't Marinelayer or someone else here also mention that the city was going to do some roadside improvements/alterations near the downtwon area that was previously earmarked for a baseball stadium anyway? GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
Please! Cities and counties, and states give HUGE tax breaks or incentives of one sort or another, including sweet land deals to major corporations all the time. Why is a sports stadium any different? Would it provide some financial kick to the city?! You bet it would. Might it help turn San Jose into a destination city? My 8 Ball says yes. This is a "Libertarian" idea that we shouldn't be subsidizing stadia or anything else. (Notice how corporate give aways never get discussed!) Don't be silly. Ten or fifteen years from now people will say: "That soccer stadium was a great investment!" Just like they do for the San Jose Arena. In any case, Wolff says that he doesn't need any taxpayer's money. He's going to want a decent deal on land, or a swap, or maybe some road and signage improvements, but that's not a big enough deal to worry about. QUAKES FOREVER!! GO WOLFF!! GO SSV!! fuaeg! fumls! - Mark
Back in the spring when I was writing council members, one of them (it was not Chavez) responded to me that the city did have a responsibility to help provide entertainment for its citizens. If the city can find the money to help fund such things as operas, symphonies, and theatres etc., then there should be a little something available to help attract sports teams.
I've previously posted and still agree that there should be some tax credits granted. Just because there is a $30 million surplus that it does not need to be spent on a soccer stadium...especially a soccer stadium for a league that has once already burned this city and market. They have left us once...it could happen again. Lew Wolffe is looking to move the Oakland A's. Don't tell me that he won't move a San Jose franchise of the MLS if he doesn't get what he wants in the future. I personally think that the money would be better spent on making crosswalks safer, or something a bit more legit than a soccer stadium. If Lew Wolffe is going to own the team, he's got the funding and the backers to build the stadium.
I don't think anyone is suggesting they spend most of the $30 million on a soccer stadium. I know of some potholes at Mckee and Toyon that have not been patched for years that I would like to see fixed before they put any money to a stadium. Also, I can't envision the scenario where Wolff would build a 100 million dollar stadium..and then abandon it. And Lew does not want any money for a stadium, just the expensive land on which to build it.
In this case, the $34 million is surplus. It should be used for more critical needs, I agree. And some of it should be put aside for a rainy day. As for the City providing for entertainment, the city does that to make the city both more livable and enjoyable for the residents, but also to attract businesses. If your city has theaters, a symphony, sports teams, and so on it attracts visitors from other nearby and distant cities. And when those folks spend money in your hotels, restaurants, museums, and for event tickets, your city gets to tax them. So effectively, becoming a tourist or entertainment destination means that you get to tax non-residents. The symphony, ballet, museums, and such lose money. These institutions have traditionally been supported by wealthy folks "for the good of the community." However, in Silly Valley, the newly rich do not believe that they have such a public obligation, so they don't supports the arts very well. So the City has to pick up the slack. If San Jose intends to become a first class city, then it needs to supports it's arts and various forms of entertainment. There needs to be something in the city that attracts people from elsewhere. A very good argument can be made for building a soccer stadium and making San Jose a soccer destination. Happily, Lew Wolff wants to pay the bills, but the city should do what it can to make sure that it happens. QUAKES FOREVER!! GO WOLFF!! GO SSV!! fuaeg! fumls! fusjsu!!!!! - Mark
Exactly! Lew Wolff has said this since Day One, so why in the world is there still talk in this thread of "tax money shouldn't be used on the stadium" when Wolff himself has long ago ruled out that option? GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
Its true everything has been silent for a few months. The thing is maybe that is a good thing? I see the trucks down there near the fairgrounds site but it doesn't look like anyone is even ready to start as Sepp Blatter says, "get the picks and shovels out".
There are times like these when I can only say: "Hurrah, for my friend, Goodsie!" He can manage to get things back to square one and keep people straightened out.
As stated earlier, Earthquakes LLC is most likely waiting until after the November elections, which only makes sense. Why get into any serious discussions with people who may be out the door at the end of the year? My guess is that they have had some informal meetings with the various municpalities, and the fact that they still list downtown, the fairgrounds, and Santa Clara as potential sites means they came away with these meetings with the impression that these governments were receptive at some level to getting a stadium built. Stay tuned.
I didn't think the city would or should spend the $34 million on a soccer stadium itself, but may be something related....as some of you suggested...road/traffic improvement near the future stadium site. That kind of work is good to the city and its people in general. Plus, Lew Wolfe seems to indicate that he will build the staidum himself and he is not asking my money. I am just wondering if some part of that surplus will be used on infrastructure or facility that the future stadium may benefit from.
Considering they have spent all kinds of money foolishy and sometimes for no reason, that doesn't seem like that much money.
The street I live on is crumbling. ALL of the streets in my neighborhood have been resurfaced twice in the last 6 years except MINE. This is because my street is in such bad shape (according to the city), resurfacing will not do the job. Unfortunately, SJ has no budget left to repair the streets in this condition (400 miles in all). So, spend the surplus and fix the streets!
You figure the City Council would want to erase our current status as "City With Most Awful, Laughably Crappy Roads", so some of this money likely would go there. No way to lose political points on that one. Right Cindy? Right Chucky? BTW, Chucky's gonna be the new mayor (oh well, whatever), so don't dream about him doing any dances concerning attracting professional anything around here. This will have to be Lew Wolff's baby.
He may or he may not be the new mayor. The most recent poll I read (from a few weeks back) has it pretty much neck and neck. I think at this point it will be determined by the dynamics of the voter turnout.
But, then I heard about another poll, done after the one you mentioned, where they polled "likely voters" that had Reed 11 % points ahead.
The "likely voters" thing means people who voted last time, it does not necessarily reflect who will vote this time. The real question here is what is driving voter turn out this election cycle? You have a governor's race yes? and some state propositions no doubt, and every US House seat is up. Any senate races in California this year? (It's shocking how quickly I've forgotten when the California Senator's need to stand for re-election!) If voters are pissed and looking for change, Reed gets an advantage. If voters are pulling for one party over another, that may play well for Cindy. Even assuming that Chuck becomes Mayor, he still has to deal with a largely unchanged city council. One hopes that Chuck isn't as stupid as RonGone. He may not want to spend any city money on a sports stadium, but he won't be averse to saying yes to a good deal for the city. I bet that Lew Wolff will make it easy for Chuckie to say yes. QUAKES FOREVER!! GO WOLFF!! GO SSV!! fuaeg! fumls! - Mark
Yeah, I think it all depends on how you define "likely voters". For the "neck and neck" poll they included "608 registered voters who voted in the last general election or were newly registered to vote." "Only those who said they would be voting in the November election for mayor were interviewed." If you poll only people who voted in the primary (they are all "likely voters", right?) it's likely that it will be more heavily weighted toward Reed. But the dynamics of the turnout are different for general elections vs. primary elections, and I think the "neck and neck" poll tried to take that into consideration. http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...+mayor+election+poll&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1 And, to echo markmcf8, I don't think a Reed victory would necessarily be a fatal blow to a Wolff stadium deal in San Jose.
I agree also. Reed is portrayed by many as the "pro-business" candidate, and I believe he did initially support the ill-fated deal that was offered to SVS&E. If elected I think he will stick to hiis guns about not using general fund money for stadium related costs, but, look for other sources of funding to make it happen.