The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors is likely to vote by
the end of the month on whether it should voice its opposition to a
state senate bill aimed at keeping the San Francisco 49ers from
relocating to a site near Great America.
San Jose – The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors is likely to vote by the end of the month on whether it should voice its opposition to a state senate bill aimed at keeping the San Francisco 49ers from relocating to a site near Great America.
The bill (SB 49) would restrict cities and redevelopment agencies within 100 miles of San Francisco from funding stadium efforts.
The board’s two-member legislative committee tackled the issue Tuesday, sending a split recommendation forward to the supervisors meeting Feb. 27. Supervisor Ken Yeager supports a recommendation to oppose the bill, while Supervisor Liz Kniss thinks restrictions on redevelopment agencies make sense and said she will not vote to oppose the bill.
At issue is legislation introduced Jan. 3 by State Senator Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) who doesn’t think it’s in the best interest of San Francisco to lose the 49ers, who are fed up with playing at rundown Monster Park, one of the oldest stadiums in the National Football League. Recently, the team dropped a bombshell on fans by announcing tentative plans to move to a site near Great America in Santa Clara, where they hope to play in a brand new stadium built just for them. The team wants to open the stadium by 2012, when its current lease expires.
Regardless of the team’s tradition in San Francisco, Yeager thinks the bill could backfire on the 49ers’ loyal fans, causing the team to jump completely out of the Bay Area and possibly the state to find new facilities.
“When lawmakers try to make a statewide policy to focus on a specific issue, they sometimes don’t notice unintended consequences,” said Yeager, who brought the issue to the legislative committee. “That’s what might happen with this law. The point of it is to stop the 49ers from moving to Santa Clara, but in doing that, the team might move even farther away, or to another state.”
Supervisor Don Gage – who’s not on the legislative committee – said he’s not sure if it’s the board’s business to weigh in on the bill, which is scheduled to be heard on the floor of the state senate March 7. But Gage, an avid 49ers fan who attends a few games each year, said he’d love to see the franchise move closer to its South Bay fan base, especially if a case can be made that a stadium would bring more money to Santa Clara County hotels and restaurants.
“If there’s a case economically of them coming to Santa Clara, then I suppose I’d be in favor of that,” Gage said. “But it’s not a big deal compared with the other issues we have.”
Of course, Gage joked, if the team were thinking of moving to Morgan Hill or Gilroy, it’d be another story.
“Then I’d really vote for it,” he laughed. “Anyway, it’s just wishful thinking.”
The issue of whether or not to support the bill will likely appear on the board’s agenda next Tuesday, said Supervisor Kniss.
While Kniss doesn’t want to see the 49ers leave the Bay Area, and even thinks it would be great if they moved to Santa Clara, she said she supports the portion of the bill that prevents redevelopment agencies from funding stadium efforts. Therefore, she said she won’t vote for the board to oppose the legislation.
“Unless the project is going to be located in a blighted area, redevelopment money is not being used as it is intended to be used,” Kniss said. “Now, if they can say, we’re taking down this old and rundown section of Santa Clara to build a stadium for a professional sports team, then you could make a case for it. But I don’t think that’s the true with the proposed site.”
SB49
Bill would restrict cities and recevelopment agencies within 100 miles of San Francisco from funding stadium efforts.
