Santa Clara Stadium for the 49ers, Measure J (June 2010)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The City of Santa Clara Stadium measure for the 49ers Stadium, also known as Santa Clara Stadium Taxpayer Protection and Economic Progress Act, or Measure J, was on the June 8, 2010 ballot in Santa Clara County for voters in the City of Santa Clara. Two separate efforts to ensure the stadium's construction were executed--a ballot measure that qualified the ballot through the petition process, and a ballot measure referred to the ballot by the Santa Clara City Council. The measure was approved.[1]

Ballot language was approved by the City Council with a 4-3 vote, while the June 8 election date was approved unanimously. The plan voters were asked to approve involved spending $937 million to build a stadium in Santa Clara to house the San Francisco 49ers, and possibly a second team. The proposed stadium would seat 68,500, and would be topped with solar panels.[2][3][4]

Organizers submitted 8,000 signatures to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters’ office on January 12, 2010. City council decided to draft ballot language based on the citizen initiative. Language was proposed at the February 9, 2010 meeting by a committee that included city manager Jennifer Sparacino.

However, a last minute motion saw City Council member Jamie Matthews propose his own language. The motion was passed with the 4-3 council vote, leaving Matthews' language to appear in front of voters on the June 8 ballot.

According to the County Registrar's office, the cost of the ballot measure and election would be more expensive than originally thought. In December, the projected cost of adding the measure to the ballot was approximately $190,000. In February 2010, it was estimated that the cost would be $390,000. Again, however, the City Council did decide on February 9, 2010 to add the measure to the ballot.[5][6]

Election results

Measure J
Approveda Yes 14,628 58.20%
These final, certified results are from the Santa Clara County elections office.


According to reports out of Santa Clara, even though voters had approved of the measure, financial obligations still had to be fulfilled in order to get the stadium project underway. Naming rights to the stadium had been an issue with other franchises in the National Football League, which was a significant source of funding in the San Francisco 49er's plans. Reports were also stating that some NFL executives and stadium gurus were concerned that the team would not be able to generate enough money to initiate the stadium plan. According to one anonymous NFL executive, "Even though they won this election, they are going to have a hard time getting this project financed." Another executive chimed in, saying, "They are counting on money that's not really there right now." However, 49ers owner Jed York stated that the price needed to build the stadium, $937 million, was not an issue in executing the new stadium. York stated, "If we didn't feel comfortable with that number, we wouldn't have worked for three and a half years on Santa Clara and spent close to $4 million winning an election."[7]

Text of measure

The question on the ballot:

Shall the City of Santa Clara adopt Ordinance 17.20 leasing City property for a professional football stadium and other events; no use of City General or Enterprise finds [sic] for construction; no new taxes for residents for stadium; Redevelopment Agency funds capped for construction; private party pays all construction cost overruns; no City/Agency obligation for stadium operating/maintenance; private party payment of projected fair market rent; and additional funds for senior/youth/library/recreation to City's General Fund?[8][9]


Two efforts took effect in order for the ballot measure to be placed in front of Santa Clara residents:

Model of proposed stadium
The city sponsored measure. On December 9, 2009, the Santa Clara City Council voted unanimously to refer a pro-stadium ballot question to the June ballot. Santa Clara Vice Mayor Jamie Matthews said: "For the very first time, we're shifting accountability from the council to the citizens to make the final decision. For us to set the date certain so that people have the opportunity to decide and vote on this, that's probably the most significant date of all of them." A lawsuit filed by an adjacent theme park could have potentially stalled the ballot measure. As a result, on December 15, 2009, the city council voted 5-2 to place the measure on hold in order to see how the citizen initiative developed. Ballot language based on the citizen initiative was approved in February, placing the measure on the June 8 ballot.[10][11]
A citizen-initiated measure that was independent of the city's efforts was started by the group Santa Clarans for Economic Progress. Notice of the initiative was filed on December 10, 2009, according to the 49ers' vice president of communications Lisa Lang. Lang also stated that the National Football League team would fund the initiative effort. From the two required California Form 460 filings submitted through March, 20, 2010, the NFL did not contribute any money to the initiative effort. Over 99% of the $1.4 million in funding had come from the San Francisco 49ers and their new affiliate, Forty Niners Stadium, LLC.[12][13] The initiative required a submission of 6,000 signatures of registered city voters in order to be placed on the ballot. Signatures were submitted in January 2010.

Mayor Patricia Mahan stated that a citizen initiative was a better way to get the issue to a vote than a city sponsored initiative. According to the mayor: “It is less susceptible to the legal challenges that way. When the voters speak, the voters speak. We really just want to make sure it’s binding.”[14]

The city council reconvened and discussed the issue February 9, 2009, drafting language based on the citizen initiative. If the petition effort was unsuccessful, the city council would have proceeded with their own ballot measure. According to Garratt, before the initiative was deemed successful: "In any event, we will have a stadium measure on the June ballot. If the Council decides to pursue the city ballot measure, we would have until the first week of March to have things all buttoned up for a June election.”[15]

Proposal details

According to a "term sheet" released by the city, as well as by reports by City Staff approved by the City Council, a $937 million stadium deal between the 49ers and the City of Santa Clara would be comprised of these shares of costs:

Pie Chart of Shares of Stadium Costs
  • A City/RDA/Hotels contribution totaling $114,000,000 (not including debt service or interest):
    • The City of Santa Clara's Redevelopment Agency would put in $42,000,000 directly.[16]
    • The City's electric utility, Silicon Valley Power, would be forced to spend $20,000,000 to move the Tasman electrical substation away from the stadium site.[17]
    • A $17,000,000 share was chargeable to the RDA for the completion of a parking structure holding a mere 1,900 automobiles of the some 20,000 which would arrive in Santa Clara on NFL Game Days.
    • A new hotel tax would add $35,000,000.
  • A public stadium authority would be created to sell $330,000,000 million worth of construction bonds and partnership contributions (not including debt service or interest). This would be repaid by the sale of naming rights, personal seat licenses (here called "Stadium Builders Licenses"), and a ticket surcharge.
    • The public stadium authority would pay for the stadium's operating costs and the team would pay rent to the authority to offset those operating costs.
  • The 49ers and the NFL would pay the remaining $493,000,000 million. The team maintains that it would pay for any construction cost overruns.

The share amounts pictured were confirmed and agreed to in June 2009, by the San Francisco 49ers.[18]

City council approval

On May 12, 2010, the Santa Clara City council voted 5-2 in favor of a 2% hotel tax that would generate revenue for the proposed stadium. The tax would include the eight hotels that were in vicinity of the proposed stadium and Great America Theme Park. The tax was expected to generate about $35 million of the $937 million that would be needed for the stadium. The tax would then be implemented on the first game at the stadium, which would be either July or August of 2014 and would last for about 40 years.[19]

Environmental impact

An Environmental Impact Report was released for the project in mid-November 2009. The report indicated:

  • The Bay Area Air Quality Management District expressed concerns about greenhouse gasses and dust emitted during construction.
  • The Santa Clara County Water District was concerned about the impact on bridges and levees, and wanted more information.
49ers team headquarters in Santa Clara
  • Residents in the area near the proposed stadium feared "the value of their homes will plummet."[20]
  • "Just about every agency within earshot of Santa Clara City Hall said they were concerned about traffic, traffic and more traffic."[20]

The Environmental Impact Report details:

  • The traffic congestion
  • The closure of two major roads north of U.S. 101 on game days - road closures not done at Candlestick Park, nor planned for any Hunters Point development.
  • The requirement that the private businesses joining the private parking district for the stadium clear their own employee parking lots at 3:00 pm on game days

City Council planning

On March 8, 2010, the Santa Clara City Council planned to convene to consider approving a long-term plan to alleviate potential environmental affects in relation to the construction to the stadium. The proposed solutions included a way to solve traffic congestion near the proposed new stadium and minimizing smoky atmosphere that would result from tailgating barbecues in the parking lots. The council planned to vote on the steps, which the professional football team must abide by if voters approve the measure. The Santa Clara City Council considered approving a final road map for curing potential environmental impacts from the proposed San Francisco 49ers stadium project, ranging from devising a traffic congestion plan to limiting the smoky fallout from pregame tailgate barbecues.[21]


Great America

Aerial photo of Great America, whose owners were suing Santa Clara over the 49ers stadium deal

A lawsuit had been filed by the corporate owners for a nearby theme park, Great America. The owners sued on the basis that the pact between the city and the professional football organization was illegal due to that fact that the agreement should not have been finalized before the release and approval of the environmental report. The owners of the theme park, Cedar Fair Entertainment, stated that the deal threatened the rights of the park since the stadium would be constructed adjacent to the new stadium if it was approved. Cedar Fair filed the lawsuit on December 7, 2009 in Santa Clara Superior Court.[22]

Both sides had been downplaying the lawsuit. City officials were to work with Cedar Fair, implying that the lawsuit would not be a major obstacle in placing the measure on the June ballot. According to City Manager Jennifer Sparacino: "They want to continue to work with us to resolve their concerns. We've said all along that we're working to meet our obligations to the theme park."

According to Geoffrey C. Etnire, Cedar Fair attorney, the owners would drop the lawsuit if talks with the city went well. Etnire stated: “We hope that we will now be able to put this lawsuit on a back burner.”

In an even more confusing twist to the stadium plans, Cedar Fair, the company that owned Great America, attempted to sell parks (including Great America) to Apollo Global Management, a private investment firm that is based in New York.

According to Mayor Patricia Mahan when addressing concerns about the potential lawsuit relating to new ownership: "I'm not sure what this means. But I do know that ownership is key." When asked about the 49ers Stadium situation and the lawsuit, Apollo Global Management spokesman Johnathon Gasthalter: “No comment. At this point, that’s all I’m saying." Apollo Global would pay $2.4 billion for Great America and other amusement parks across the country.[23][24]

Cedar Fair's attorney Geoffrey Etnire stated that the sale of the company was only a change in ownership and would not have an immediate impact on the lawsuit. In addition, Cedar Fair spokeswoman Stacey Frole also stated that she nor the company anticipate that a change in ownership would slow negotiations relating to stadium construction.[25]

The deal between Apollow Global and Cedar Fair was dropped on April 5, 2010, and Cedar Fair retained ownership of Great America.[26]

During the week of May 3, 2010, the lawsuit filed by Cedar Fair Entertainment was thrown out by a Santa Clara judge. This lawsuit claimed that the agreement between the team and the city violated the state environment laws. A second lawsuit was pending a decision, which stated that the Environmental Impact Report completed was inadequate. The lawsuit was filed on April 12, 2010.[27]

Deborah Bress

Deborah Bress, an opponent of the measure, filed a lawsuit during March 2010, claiming that the city attorney's analysis of Measure J was biased and understated the city's financial contributions to the proposed stadium project. According to Bress's lawsuit, "The total for Santa Clara as a direct subsidy for the stadium is $114 million, without bond and loan interest. This number should appear in the ‘impartial analysis.’” The purpose of the filed lawsuit was to completely remove Measure J from the June ballot, or at least have the city change the title and ballot language. Deputy City Manager Carol McCarthy, who was the city's attorney, stated, "The city does not believe that the suit has merit."[28]

A court hearing was scheduled to be held on April 1, 2010 in Santa Clara County Superior Court. The claim in the lawsuit stated that the language in the ballot was leading voters, which would make the proposal easier to pass than not. On April 5, 2010, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Mark Pierce dismissed the lawsuit, stating that Bress did not provide evidence sufficient enough to show that the ballot language would mislead voters and should not be removed from the ballot.[29]



  • Santa Clarans for Economic Progress, a registered campaign committee funded almost entirely by the San Francisco 49ers or their affiliate - Forty Niners Stadium, LLC, whose founding members were three former Santa Clara officials and leaders, stated their intentions to begin the initiative process on December 9, 2009 in order to place the vote on the June ballot. According to Pat Kolstad, a former city councilman: "The sooner voters decide whether they want a stadium in Santa Clara, the better.” Along with Kostad, the group also included another former city council member in Ardyth Parle, and former superintendent of the Santa Clara Unified School District, Don Callejon. Aldyth Parle later withdrew her support for the initiative, saying she had been mislead into believing that it was the only way to get a vote on the stadium, not realizing that the city council had already prepared a ballot measure.[30][31][32][33][34]
  • Mayor Patricia Mahan had gone on record to also state her support for the stadium and for the measure's placement on the ballot.[35]
  • The Santa Clara City Council endorsed the citizen initiative for the new stadium. According to Mayor Mahan: "To me, this initiative process really puts it to the test. If one-third of voters want to put it on the ballot, then I find it compelling."[11]
  • Two mayors from nearby cities stated their support for the stadium issue being put up for public vote, citing a need for more economic growth in the region. Sunnyvale Mayor Anthony Spitaleri and San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed argued that tax dollars would be boosted across the country, which would subsequently lead to "economic stimulus."[36]

According to Mayor Reed: "I'm focused on creating the jobs that drive the retail. The key is disposable income and having our driving industry be successful, creating jobs and paying people a lot more money that they can spend on retail."

Mayor Spitaleri stated: "We're not stand-alone cities anymore. We really need each other, and everyone needs to help each other. If one city does well, if one of us does well, I guarantee we'll all do well."

  • A list of people who were for the measure could be found on the Yes on J website, which can be found here.
  • The National Football League issued a statement of support for the new stadium in Santa Clara. According to the statement, issued on April 29, 2010, "The NFL Super Bowl Advisory Committee ... supports the plan to build a new stadium in Santa Clara and will support and encourage a Super Bowl bid for a game to be played in the proposed new stadium.”[37]


Arguments made by the Yes on J campaign read as follows:

  • "Santa Clara will benefit significantly from its investment. The project will bring thousands of new jobs and generate hundreds of millions of dollars in annual increased economic activity to our City and our region."
  • The city of Santa Clara would continue to own the property that the stadium would be built on, and would get "fair market value rent," which includes $155 million in rent based profits. Also, guaranteed rent payments would rake in $40 million to the city's general fund.
  • The website stated that the stadium would be environmentally friendly, with its usage of solar power, recycled water, and its design to reduce energy usage.
  • "The City’s investment in the stadium triggers over $26 million in net new funding for our local schools after all stadium approvals are final."
  • Supporters claimed that the stadium would generate $249 million for the local economy. This reportedly included $26 million for local schools and millions for city coffers. All for only $79 million in city costs.[38]
  • The $249 million that supporters were arguing the stadium would generate, reportedly came after only $79 million in city costs.[38]
  • According to Lisa Gillmor, member of Santa Clarans for Economic Progress, when commenting on opponents' claims of hidden costs of the stadium, "There are no hidden costs for this stadium project and it's clearly stated in the ordinance which will become law when it's voted on June 8th."[39]



  • Santa Clara Plays Fair was the main group that had formed to oppose the measure. Bill Bailey, treasurer of the group, said that the council should not have put their measure on hold while waiting for developments on the citizen initiative. According to Bailey while speaking to the council members: "So which is it to be: A ballot process manipulated by the San Francisco 49ers or a ballot measure controlled by Santa Clarans?" Earlier in December 2009, Bailey referred to the council when they were reviewing the Environmental Impact Report: "Because the council wants a stadium, they are going to certify the EIR no matter what it says."[40][41] Bailey also cited the City's own reports clearly stating that the stadium subsidy will cause General Fund losses of $67,000,000 over the extended lifetime of the Redevelopment Agency.[42]
  • Some residents had stepped forward in opposition to the public subsidy of the stadium's construction, and along with Santa Clara Plays Fair, had made clear their opinions at City Council meetings throughout 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. Santa Claran Erlinda Estrada echoed these sentiments when she stated: "The 49ers want to ensure they get their own way. They don't care whose feet they stomp along the way."[11]


Opponents argue that although the 49ers/NFL had also promised to pay for operating cost overruns, according to Neil deMause, an NFL stadium expert, the agreement the city proposed did not address what would happen under these circumstances:

Santa Clara Plays Fair
  • Revenue shortfalls, such as those which were likely to occur if, for instance, the naming rights to the stadium sold for less than anticipated in the proposal, or did not sell at all.
  • Would there be additional public infrastructure costs?
  • Would the team get any tax breaks?
  • "What penalties will the team be subject to if it tries to break its lease early and move, to avoid the kind of mid-lease shakedowns we've seen in other cities?"

The main campaign committee against the measure, Santa Clara Plays Fair, argued the following points on their website:[43][44]

  • "Through the year 2026, our General Fund will lose $67 million because the stadium will divert property tax dollars from the redevelopment area towards stadium construction debt; those funds are supposed to flow to our General Fund."
  • "The city staff Term Sheet Presentation of June 2, 2009 (slide 48) shows the $67 million loss."
  • "Unlike Candlestick or the Oakland Coliseum, the Santa Clara site is not right off of a freeway. Traffic will cause 'significant impacts' on up to 17 freeway segments for weekday evening events at the stadium (the EIR says 'significant unavoidable impact')." (EIR refers to the Environmental Impact Report)
  • A breakdown of, and argument against, the $444 million in stadium costs that were to fall on the city of Santa Clara if the measure was approved can be found here (dead link).
  • Professional football stadium deals in Cincinnati and Indianapolis had presented financial problems for both the cities, according to the group.[38]


See also: Polls, 2010 ballot measures

Polls conducted in relation to the ballot measure before the election were:

  • A poll conducted by the San Jose State University's Survey and Policy Research Institute between the dates of April 13-15, 2010 showed that 52% of those polled were in favor of the new stadium, while 36% stated an opposition to it. 11% were undecided. The survey polled 614 registered voters and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points. The poll was conducted on behalf of the local ABC7 News and the San Jose Mercury News.[45][46][47]
  • Lindholm Research of Oregon conducted a survey in February 2010, showing a half-and-half split of 200 Santa Clara residents who were polled on the actual ballot language, and not on the funding issue.[48]
  • A poll of Santa Clara residents conducted by Survey USA for the local CBS station, showed that 54 percent stated that they opposed the city's plan of using funds from redevelopment money, hotel room tax and the city utility tax for a stadium, and 40 percent favored using public money to pay for a portion of the new proposed stadium. The poll surveyed 500 Santa Clara citizens in January 2010.[49]
  • 58% of respondents in a poll conducted between June 2-June 9, 2009, by the San Jose Business Journal said they approved of the stadium deal as proposed by the Santa Clara City Council and the San Francisco 49ers football franchise. 31% of respondents opposed the idea. The survey was an online poll, thus leaving no accurate record of number of people who voted.[50]
  • Another poll of Santa Clara residents by Survey USA, conducted in June 2009, asked Santa Clara residents "Do you think it's a good idea or a bad idea to use public money to build a new stadium for the San Francisco 49ers?" 62% of Santa Clarans stated that it was a "Bad idea," 30% stated that it was a "Good idea," while 8% were "Not sure." The margin of error was plus or minus 4.3 percentage points and asked 500 adult Santa Clara residents.[51]
Date of Poll Pollster In favor Against Undecided Number polled
May 22-24 2010 SurveyUSA for KPIX-TV 56% 40% 4% 577
April 2010 ABC 7 News/SJ Mercury News 52% 36% 11% 614
February 15-16, 2010 Lindholm Research of Oregon 45% 45% 10% 200
Jan. 2010 Survey USA 40% 54% 6% 500
June2-June 9, 2009 San Jose Business Journal 58% 31% 11% N/A
June 2009 Survey USA 30% 62% 8% 500



Front entrance of 49ers headquarters

A study that was commissioned by the San Fransisco 49ers showed the following results:[52]

  • Creation of an estimated 700 jobs during construction
  • Creation of 5,000 when project was completed
  • Rake in about $249 million in annual economic activity.


  • Sports economist Roger Noll had an op-ed published in the San Francisco Chronicle that dissected the fiscal impacts the stadium would have if approved by Santa Clara voters. According to Noll when commenting on the issue of seat licenses being sold by the stadium authority: "A scary feature of the Santa Clara proposal is that it repeats a flaw in the (Oakland Raiders) Coliseum plan: the stadium authority, not the team, will sell the seat licenses. The stake in license sales is huge. If 30,000 are sold at an average price of $4,000, the stadium authority will collect $120 million, but this estimate could be off by 50 percent or more."[53]


Arguments against the study that was commissioned by the San Francisco 49ers team included:

  • The 700 construction jobs disappeared in five years, but Santa Clarans would pay bond coupon and loan interest on that job creation for forty years.
  • The creation of 5,000 jobs was unsubstantiated by any report actually submitted to the City of Santa Clara in public session. Even if the "NFL Game Day" job creation of 2,600 jobs were to be fact, city consultant Keyser-Marston and Associates stated in their report: "The annual Personal Income for those jobs is $17M - meaning that game-day jobs will pay less than $7,000 per year."[54]
  • Keyser-Marston and Associates had also reported that the actual estimated economic benefits to the City of Santa Clara was $41M of the regional total cited above - and that $41M was reported to be less than the amount that the 49ers training center contributes today.[55]


  • The Mercury News did not state an opposition or support for the stadium itself, but wrote an editorial supporting a public vote. According to the editorial: "Obstacles to the $937 million project remain, but the plan is sufficiently fleshed out for voters to decide whether it's something they want for Santa Clara. As long as the question is framed honestly, an initiative is as democratic as a city-sponsored measure."[56]
  • According to a column in Sports Illustrated, the measure would not clear up the future of the NFL Team. The column, written by Ann Killion, referred to another ballot measure on the ballot that was approved, but did not amount to a new stadium. Killion referred to former team owner Eddie DeBartolo when she stated, "Eddie DeBartolo couldn't get a new stadium, despite winning a ballot measure in San Francisco in 1997. It wasn't long after that election that DeBartolo was forced to give up ownership of the team, eventually selling to his sister and brother-in-law, Denise DeBartolo and John York. In late 2006, the Yorks abruptly pulled out of negotiations with San Francisco and declared their true love for Santa Clara." According to other reports, the 1997 ballot measure was approved but never did progress beyond the preliminary stages.[57][58]


TV advertisements began on March 24, 2010, when commercials lobbying for the stadium project started airing on cable networks such as CNN, CNBC, TBS, Bravo, A&E and the Food Network. The commercial, which was created by San Fransisco-based advertising agency Brainchild Creative, showed many political officials in support of the stadium, including Mayor Patricia Mahan, State Senator Elaine Alquist, Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce and Convention-Visitors president Steve Van Dorn and Santa Clara Unified School District superintendent Steve Stavis.[52]

Residents of the city also appeared on the advertisement. According to Lisa Lang, spokesperson for the San Fransisco 49ers, the commercial included residents and officials in order to appeal to local voters. Also included in the commercial was the claim that the measure would create more jobs and generate approximately $26 million for city public schools in the span of 10 years.

Campaign finance


  • Santa Clarans for Economic Progress had spent more than $350,000 on the campaign. The professional football team and their affiliate gave $100,000 in cash and the rest was spent on staff workers for the campaign in 2009, according to campaign finance documents that were filed during the first week of February. The documents also showed that individual stadium supporters in Santa Clara had given a total of $725 to the campaign by December 31, 2009.[59][60][61][52]
  • Santa Clarans for Economic Progress, in their campaign finance report of March 22, 2010, reported that they had spent more than $1,000,000 on their campaign for the reporting period 1/01/2010 to 3/17/2010.[62] Only $35.00 of this total came from Santa Clara residents. The rest came from the San Francisco 49ers affiliate, Forty Niners Stadium LLC.[63]
  • According to financial reports released on May 27, 2010, the 49ers had spent more than $3.6 million towards the campaign for the measure, which came out to $150 per voter, analysts said.[64]


According to campaign finance statements filed on March 22, 2010, the group opposing the stadium subsidy, Santa Clara Plays Fair, accepted $1,908 in contributions from Santa Clara residents against the stadium subsidy a few months before the vote. Bill Bailey, treasurer of the group stated: "There's no surprise there. The way we intend to compete is by talking to actual Santa Clarans."[65]

Time line of events

The following is a time line of relevant dates to the proposed 49ers Stadium ballot measures:[66]

  • November 2006: 49ers announced their interest in building a football stadium in Santa Clara.
  • January 15, 2008: Council told City Manager to enter into negotiations with the team.
  • June 2, 2009: Council approved the Term Sheet for stadium
  • July 14, 2009: 49ers present proposed stadium design to council and public.
  • July 30, 2009: Draft Environmental Impact Report completed and released to public.
  • December 8, 2009: Council certifies the Environmental Impact Report for the stadium project. June 8, 2010 selected as election date.
  • December 11, 2009: Notice of intent to circulate initiative filed with City Clerk called “The Santa Clara Stadium Taxpayer Protection and Economic Progress Act.”
  • December 15, 2009: Council decided to discuss City ballot measure in February 2010. If the citizen petition failed to qualify for the ballot or if Council decided to put their own measure on the ballot, the deadline for that was March 9, 2010 Council meeting.
  • February 9, 2010: Council voted 4-3 in favor of placing the measure on the June 8, 2010 ballot.[6]
  • March 19, 2010: Election officials had given measure official name of Measure J during week leading up to this date.[67]
  • March 24, 2010: First Television advertisement appeared in favor of Measure J.[52]
  • May 11, 2010: Santa Clara City Council approved 2% hotel tax that would generate $35 million for proposed stadium construction. Tax would take effect first game at new stadium, if voters approve the measure.

External links

Suggest a link

Additional reading


  1. San Francisco Chronicle, "What it would take to win at the polls," July 12, 2009
  2. San Francisco Chronicle, "Study examines impact of new 49ers stadium," July 31, 2009
  3. Field of Schemes, "Santa Clara on 49ers: Gah, the cars!," November 16, 2009
  4. East Bay Express, "June Election for 49ers Stadium, and Raiders, too?," December 9, 2009
  5. Mercury News, "Santa Clara: 49ers stadium supporters turn in 8,000 signatures," January 12, 2010
  6. 6.0 6.1, "Santa Clara to consider 49ers stadium ballot measure," February 8, 2010 (dead link)
  7. Mercury News, "49ers still have tough yards left to finish Santa Clara stadium deal," June 9, 2010
  8. [Smart Voter Santa Clara County elections archive]
  9. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
  10. San Francisco Chronicle, "Lawsuit could stall 49ers' Santa Clara stadium," December 9, 2009
  11. 11.0 11.1 11.2 Mercury News, "Santa Clara City Council endorses 49ers initiative proposal for stadium," December 16, 2009
  14. Mercury News, "49ers dig into political playbook for stadium ballot measure," December 9, 2009
  15. Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal, "Citizen effort on 49ers stadium takes lead," December 16, 2009
  16. Field of Schemes, "Could 49ers deal blow up on Santa Clara?," June 1, 2009
  17. "Stadium Term Sheet, Section 2.4, page 3 of 27"
  18. "49ers' York Details Stadium Costs," June 3, 2009 (dead link)
  19., "Santa Clara Approves Hotel Tax For 49ers Stadium," May 12, 2010
  20. 20.0 20.1 San Francisco Examiner, "Concerns mount over proposed 49ers stadium," November 15, 2009
  21. Mercury News, "Santa Clara city council considers plan to deal with 49er stadium impacts," March 8, 2010
  22., "Great America owners sue Santa Clara over 49ers stadium deal," December 8, 2009
  23. Mercury News, "Great America sold, but 49er stadium fight goes on, ever more complicated," December 18, 2009
  24. The Wall Street Journal, December 16, 2009
  25. Sillicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal, "Offer price may lead Cedar Fair's shareholders to block sale," December 25, 2009
  26. SFGate, "Cedar Fair Ends Sale to Apollo as Investors Resist," April 5, 2010
  27., " Judge Blocks, Tackles 49ers Stadium Lawsuit," May 6, 2010
  28. The Examiner, "Lawsuit targets 49ers ballot measure," March 22, 2010
  29. Business Journal, "49ers stadium lawsuit rejected by judge," April 5, 2010
  33. San Francisco Chronicle, "Lawsuit could stall 49ers' Santa Clara stadium," December 9, 2009
  34. Business Journal, "49ers to start Santa Clara stadium initiative," December 9, 2009
  35. Mercury News, "49ers dig into political playbook for stadium ballot measure," December 9, 2009
  36. The Mercury News, "Cupertino, Sunnyvale mayors join others in touting proposed 49ers stadium in Santa Clara as 'economic stimulus'," December 16, 2009
  37. San Francisco Examiner, "NFL: Super Bowl for Santa Clara," April 30, 2010
  38. 38.0 38.1 38.2 San Francisco Chronicle, "49ers stadium vote all about the bottom line," May 10, 2010
  39., "Santa Clara Residents Divided Over 49ers Stadium," May 27, 2010
  40., "Campaign Kicks Off to Win Support for 49er Football in Santa Clara," January 23, 2010
  41. Mercury News, "49ers stadium project set for crucial vote," December 7, 2009
  42. "Staff PowerPoint Presentation regarding Stadium Project Term Sheet. Slide #48," June 2, 2009.
  43. Santa Clara Plays Fair, "General Fund $67M Ripoff" (dead link)
  44. Santa Clara Plays Fair, "Traffic, Parking, Neighborhoods, and Noise"
  45., "Poll shows voters like Santa Clara stadium plan," April 26, 2010
  46., "Poll reveals voter sentiment on 49er stadium plan," April 25, 2010
  47. San Francisco Chronicle, "Poll shows voters like Santa Clara stadium plan," April 26, 2010
  48. San Francisco Chronicle, "Santa Clara voters split on 49ers stadium," March 1, 2010
  49., "Concern Grows Over Stadium Ballot Measure Wording," February 2010
  50. NBC Bay Area Sports, "Poll Shows Santa Clara Favoring 49ers Stadium," June 11, 2009
  51. Survey USA, "Here Are The Results of SurveyUSA News Poll #15430," June 2009
  52. 52.0 52.1 52.2 52.3 Business Journal, "49ers stadium TV ad campaign begins," March 24, 2010
  53. Field of Schemes, "Noll: 49ers stadium public cost could triple," May 18, 2010
  54. "City of Santa Clara Agenda Report, June 2, 2009, Exhibit 6, page 2"
  55. "City of Santa Clara Agenda Report, June 2, 2009, Exhibit 6, page 2"
  56. Mercury News, "Editorial: 49ers initiative in Santa Clara as good as a ballot measure," December 17, 2009
  57. Sports Illustrated, "Future of 49ers unclear no matter which way new stadium vote goes," June 4, 2010
  58. The Sacramento Bee, "New 49ers stadium hinges on vote in Santa Clara," June 7, 2010
  60. "Office of the Santa Clara City Clerk, Campaign Finance Page"
  61. Mercury News, "49ers open checkbook for Santa Clara stadium campaign," February 2, 2010
  63. "Office of the Santa Clara City Clerk, Campaign Finance Page"
  64., "Santa Clara Residents Divided Over 49ers Stadium," May 27, 2010
  65. "Office of the Santa Clara City Clerk, Campaign Finance Page"
  66. City of Santa Clara Official Website, "San Francisco 49ers Proposal for a Football Stadium in the City of Santa Clara"
  67. Silicon Valley Mercury News, "Santa Clara: 49er stadium proposal named Measure J," March 19, 2010