Lawmaker proposes corporate welfare for NFL club

July 26, 2012

By Joseph Perkins

Elaine Alquist is not a member of the San Francisco 49ers’ Gold Rush gals, but the Santa Clara state senator is the NFL club’s biggest cheerleader.

With but a month left in the legislative session, Sen. Alquist, D-Santa Clara, has artfully crafted a measure that would gift the York family, which own the Niners, up to $30 million toward construction of the tricked-out new stadium they’ve always wanted.

So desperate is Alquist to please the Yorks, to presumably secure her place in the owner’s box during Niners home games, that she actually gutted a bill on teacher credentialing and amended it to free up local redevelopment dollars for the building project.

Alquist felt compelled to go to such extraordinary lengths after the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors denied a request by the city of Santa Clara that the board turn over the $30 million or for the stadium’s construction.

A copy of Alquist’s bill, obtained by the Los Angeles Times, states that the board’s denial created “unique circumstances” — namely, that the York family wouldn’t get the taxpayer subsidy they were expecting to build their new stadium — and, therefore, “this special statute is necessary.”

If the Legislature passes Alquist’s special statute, it will hardly be the first time state lawmakers have bent over backwards to facilitate construction of a new stadium for a privately-owned sports franchise.

Just last year, in fact, the Legislature approved a special statute for a proposed stadium in downtown Los Angeles that granted a waiver from certain environmental laws. And in 2009, state lawmakers approved a special bill for a proposed stadium in the city ofIndustrythat waived environmental mandates.

The argument for the custom legislation clearing the way for the stadium projects in downtown L.A., City of Industry and, now, Santa Clara is that they will foment economic growth and stimulate job creation in the respective cities.

UBS study

But a growing body of evidence suggests that argument is a canard. Indeed, a recent report by UBS finds that “new stadiums and arenas have no measurable effect on the level of real income or employment in the metropolitan areas in which they are located.”

Sure, a new stadium in Santa Clara (or downtown L.A. or City of Industry) will attract sports fans. But, says the UBS report, “Individuals generally maintain a consistent level of entertainment spending, so money spent on sporting events typically comes at the expense of cash spent in restaurants, on travel, and at movie theaters.”

Defenders of publicly-funded sports facilities suggest that it is impossible to retain or attract a professional sports franchise without taxpayer handouts. But that is simply is untrue.

The San Francisco Giants built their $357 million ballpark in 2000 with no public funds. And the owner of the Golden State Warriors is moving the NBA franchise to San Francisco and building a new arena out of his own pocket.

That’s not to say that Alquist and her colleagues in Sacramento should do absolutely nothing to assist owners of professional sports franchises build new stadiums or arenas.

It’s perfectly acceptable for the state to relax onerous environmental and labor regulations that substantially increase construction costs for sports facilities. But it’s fiscally irresponsible to provide taxpayer subsidies to pay for those privately-owned facilities.

No comments

Write a comment
  1. Rex The Wonder Dog!
    Rex The Wonder Dog! 26 July, 2012, 15:44

    The Patiorts tried that black mail in Boston, but it back fired and they, like the SF Giants, paid for their own stadium.

    No public money should ever be spent on BILLIONAIRES…

    Reply this comment
  2. Ted Steele, Associate Prof.
    Ted Steele, Associate Prof. 26 July, 2012, 19:18

    Rex the Poodle—– lol an expert on EVERYthing!!

    0 for 9 baby

    7.75 over 20 ! ™

    Reply this comment
  3. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 26 July, 2012, 19:41

    Blah. Blah. Blah.

    There is nothing to make him happy….

    Boring. Dated..obsolete. stale.

    Reply this comment
  4. Rex The Wonder Dog!
    Rex The Wonder Dog! 27 July, 2012, 00:59

    Teddy 1%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5 BABY!

    Reply this comment
  5. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 27 July, 2012, 03:00

    9-0, going on 10-0 when the sales tax gets CRUSHED Nov 6 baby!!!!!!!!

    Reply this comment
  6. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 27 July, 2012, 07:54


    Reply this comment
  7. Ted Steele, Janitor
    Ted Steele, Janitor 27 July, 2012, 08:38


    0 for 9 ™

    Reply this comment
  8. santaclarawillnotbenefit
    santaclarawillnotbenefit 27 July, 2012, 09:41

    Senator Alquist smells of corruption. This is the second time she has sponsored legislation to assist the Yorks/49ers. What’s hillarious is the fact she voted for the legislative bill which opened to the door for rescinding the $30 million the 49ers are seeking for the stadium’s construction. An oversight board voted to give that money to our schools. Imagine that! A state senator who believes subsidizing a billionaire family is more important than our schoolchildren! She needs to be investigated.

    Reply this comment
  9. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 27 July, 2012, 12:19

    1%%%%%%%%%% baby!

    Reply this comment
  10. Ted Steele, Janitor
    Ted Steele, Janitor 27 July, 2012, 17:02

    Yes…………..Poodle has about a 1% capacity!

    0 for 9 ™

    Reply this comment
  11. Rex The Wonder Dog!
    Rex The Wonder Dog! 28 July, 2012, 01:50

    1%%%%%%%%%%%% BABY!!!!

    Sky fell 😉

    Reply this comment
  12. Ed green
    Ed green 28 July, 2012, 09:37

    Alquist is merely stupid. She does what she is told by the Yorks. Remember, she is only there because her husband died. An example of purchased government.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Fracking in CA

Our colleague Chris Reed has written an article on fracking: Fixing California: Will fracking bonanza be allowed? And here’s a

CA Green Elites Block Economic Recovery

JULY 21, 2011 By WAYNE LUSVARDI In 1970, Tom Wolfe wrote a non-fiction book titled “Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the

Will CA trust SF Bay Bridge re-opening?

After months of controversy over the 36 cracked bolts on the new eastern span of the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge,