Diamond Dave
06-02-2008, 04:52 PM
By Bill Soliday
If your blood runs crimson and gold and your favorite number is seven squared, a new home would seem to be in order.
That crumbling old barn that has housed your San Francisco 49ers for 37 years just doesn't cut it anymore.
But in an era when homes have been devalued by double-figure percentages, when the NFL is thinking economy for the future in its dealings with the union and when the league's G-3 stadium building fund has been depleted, you wish John and Denise York luck finding a happy new home for their football team.
Might it be in Santa Clara where, if all things fall into place, residents will vote this November on whether to open their arms to the NFL?
Suggestion: Get used to the possibility the words San and Francisco won't appear in your weekly standings. Leave the city, lose the name, it has been suggested in Sacramento.
Could it still happen in San Francisco in spite of roadblocks at virtually every turn for a stadium project in the toxic remains of the Hunter's Point Naval shipyard?
Suggestion: Bring your own helicopter for ingress and egress and forget it, if Proposition F, requiring 50 percent affordable housing in the redevelopment plan, passes this month.
Oh, don't forget Plan C — Brisbane, with a population of roughly a 20th of a sold-out stadium.
How did Brisbane enter this discussion? The 49ers asked. Much of this stadium dance involves covering all bases and keeping all options open.
Which brings up a fourth option.
Laugh at the notion of Brisbane if you must, but the City of Industry, on the eastern edge of Los Angeles County (population 777 in 2000), could be Plan D for the 49ers, perhaps for the Raiders when their lease expires in 2010 — or for any NFL team wanting to move into the second-largest population center of the United States.
While Northern California lurches forward without decisive results, Ed Roski has boldly moved forward independently to bring pro football back to Los Angeles.
In April, Roski, a billionaire builder, unveiled plans for a privately funded stadium to be built in the City of Industry, 25 miles east of downtown Los Angeles. All he asks before breaking ground is for a current NFL team to agree to move into his $800 million baby.
Who might that be? Mostly you hear talk of San Diego or Minnesota, but other teams might want to take up Roski on his offer because of the financial ramifications. Those franchises include Jacksonville, New Orleans, Buffalo and, some say, St. Louis.
Or one of the two Bay Area teams.
"We will be 100 percent ready to start construction in October,'' said John Semcken, Roski's partner in charge of the project. "We will have completely designed, entitled, bid the building out, finished all the drawings, got the permits, finished all environmental reviews down to being able to finance construction ... but for (the lack) of having a team.''
In April, Roski said the first shovel will hit the dirt when a team agrees to move into his palace. For an idea of what it will look like, visit his project Web site, losangelesfootballstadium.com (http://losangelesfootballstadium.com/).
Roski also said if he owned a team with stadium issues, he'd be anxiously awaiting his call. Have those calls been made, and, if so, to whom?
"We are not at liberty to talk about which teams we are or are not talking to,'' Semcken said.
Angelenos have labeled Roski a huckster at worst, a dreamer at best. They are used to all sorts of stadium plans running aground in Irwindale, Carson and Inglewood. But in the eyes of the NFL, this project is not some crackpot concept. Roski was a partner with Philip Anschutz in building the highly successful Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles, a fact that prompts NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to take the plan seriously.
"I've known him for a long time, and he's a credible man,'' Goodell told a group of sports editors in February. "He's got an interesting proposal which we'll certainly take seriously. If there is an opportunity to do it successfully ... that's something we'd take seriously and deal with appropriately.''
Goodell also said expansion isn't an option and that until a franchise is ready to move there, the league preferred to work on the Los Angeles situation "quietly.''
The topic was kept discreet enough that it did not make the agenda at the NFL owners' meetings last month. Roski's people didn't bother to attend.
"They know all about the deal,'' Semcken said.
That did not curtail talk in the hallways, according to at least one club official present at the meetings. Four cities were identified as having "stadium issues," the official said, — listing them alphabetically as Minnesota, Oakland, San Diego and San Francisco.
While the Raiders' stadium situation would seem to be in a holding pattern pending the outcome of a possible move to Fremont by the A's, San Francisco is actively involved in stadium plans, part of which would involve financial aid from the NFL. Although its G-3 stadium building fund is depleted, plans are to replenish it when needed.
An agreement of terms for the $854 million project between the 49ers and Santa Clara is nearing completion with the goal having the language agreed upon by early July in time to make the November ballot. It will not be a binding vote because, by law, it cannot be until final environmental reviews are complete.
"Council has made it very clear even if it is an advisory measure, they will respect the will of the voters,'' said Carol McCarthy, Santa Clara's assistant city manager and spokeswoman for the city on stadium matters.
Feelings around town run strong both for and against the project. To appease the naysayers, the 49ers insist no portion of Santa Clara's general fund will be at risk. Early odds on passage seem to run about 50-50.
If Santa Clara votes no, if Hunter's Point is miles from getting the nod and if Brisbane is a pipe dream, where do the 49ers go next? South?
According to Semcken, if they wait for a November vote, they could be too late.
"I would say if they were not ready to talk to somebody until after that, they would be behind the 8 ball,'' he said.
Meaning another team could be in Roski's pocket by then?
"Yes," Semcken said, allowing the one word answer to hang in midair for a effect. "I'm not saying the deal will be signed and delivered by then, but everybody loves the deal. There are no politics in (it). Zero. That part of the project is in the past.''
All that presumes the 49ers are inclined to consider the unthinkable and leave the Bay Area. On the record, they say they are not.
"We are very focused on staying in the Bay Area,'' 49ers spokeswoman Lisa Lang insists. "That is where we are putting all our energies, efforts and resources.
"We are not looking elsewhere. This is our market. This is our hometown. This is our legacy. We have played in San Francisco for 60 years, and nothing will ever be able to replace those memories. We are very focused on making this work.''
To that end, 49ers owner John York and son Jed York have been involved in friend-making projects in the South Bay. Choosing a nice number, they helped build the 49th home for low-income families in Santa Clara County through Habitat for Humanity.
They have also organized "neighborhood chats'' with citizens groups to answer questions and gauge the public pulse over stadium plans.
The city says its bid to get a ballot measure up in November has nothing to do with Roski's potential Los Angeles threat.
"That hasn't crossed our radar at all,'' McCarthy said. "The 49ers have made it clear to us we are their No. 1 choice. We're not getting distracted by other things.''
If Roski can't lure the 49ers, what about the Raiders? Not surprisingly, the response was a firm "no comment.'' However, Semcken says there is still a huge Raiders fan base in Southern California.
"Some people say don't bring back the Raiders, some say bring (them) back,'' he said.
"Some say they'd love to see the Vikings here. Other people say don't get the Chargers, we like them in San Diego. We do realize our market down here is 2.5 times what the market is up there, and you've got two teams while we've got none.''
Meanwhile, there is little doubt the NFL is still interested in having a team back in Los Angeles — which lost the Rams and the Raiders after the 1994 season — but only under the right circumstances.
"We only have one chance to get it right, '' said Brian McCarthy, NFL vice president of corporate communications.
That goes for everyone.
If your blood runs crimson and gold and your favorite number is seven squared, a new home would seem to be in order.
That crumbling old barn that has housed your San Francisco 49ers for 37 years just doesn't cut it anymore.
But in an era when homes have been devalued by double-figure percentages, when the NFL is thinking economy for the future in its dealings with the union and when the league's G-3 stadium building fund has been depleted, you wish John and Denise York luck finding a happy new home for their football team.
Might it be in Santa Clara where, if all things fall into place, residents will vote this November on whether to open their arms to the NFL?
Suggestion: Get used to the possibility the words San and Francisco won't appear in your weekly standings. Leave the city, lose the name, it has been suggested in Sacramento.
Could it still happen in San Francisco in spite of roadblocks at virtually every turn for a stadium project in the toxic remains of the Hunter's Point Naval shipyard?
Suggestion: Bring your own helicopter for ingress and egress and forget it, if Proposition F, requiring 50 percent affordable housing in the redevelopment plan, passes this month.
Oh, don't forget Plan C — Brisbane, with a population of roughly a 20th of a sold-out stadium.
How did Brisbane enter this discussion? The 49ers asked. Much of this stadium dance involves covering all bases and keeping all options open.
Which brings up a fourth option.
Laugh at the notion of Brisbane if you must, but the City of Industry, on the eastern edge of Los Angeles County (population 777 in 2000), could be Plan D for the 49ers, perhaps for the Raiders when their lease expires in 2010 — or for any NFL team wanting to move into the second-largest population center of the United States.
While Northern California lurches forward without decisive results, Ed Roski has boldly moved forward independently to bring pro football back to Los Angeles.
In April, Roski, a billionaire builder, unveiled plans for a privately funded stadium to be built in the City of Industry, 25 miles east of downtown Los Angeles. All he asks before breaking ground is for a current NFL team to agree to move into his $800 million baby.
Who might that be? Mostly you hear talk of San Diego or Minnesota, but other teams might want to take up Roski on his offer because of the financial ramifications. Those franchises include Jacksonville, New Orleans, Buffalo and, some say, St. Louis.
Or one of the two Bay Area teams.
"We will be 100 percent ready to start construction in October,'' said John Semcken, Roski's partner in charge of the project. "We will have completely designed, entitled, bid the building out, finished all the drawings, got the permits, finished all environmental reviews down to being able to finance construction ... but for (the lack) of having a team.''
In April, Roski said the first shovel will hit the dirt when a team agrees to move into his palace. For an idea of what it will look like, visit his project Web site, losangelesfootballstadium.com (http://losangelesfootballstadium.com/).
Roski also said if he owned a team with stadium issues, he'd be anxiously awaiting his call. Have those calls been made, and, if so, to whom?
"We are not at liberty to talk about which teams we are or are not talking to,'' Semcken said.
Angelenos have labeled Roski a huckster at worst, a dreamer at best. They are used to all sorts of stadium plans running aground in Irwindale, Carson and Inglewood. But in the eyes of the NFL, this project is not some crackpot concept. Roski was a partner with Philip Anschutz in building the highly successful Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles, a fact that prompts NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to take the plan seriously.
"I've known him for a long time, and he's a credible man,'' Goodell told a group of sports editors in February. "He's got an interesting proposal which we'll certainly take seriously. If there is an opportunity to do it successfully ... that's something we'd take seriously and deal with appropriately.''
Goodell also said expansion isn't an option and that until a franchise is ready to move there, the league preferred to work on the Los Angeles situation "quietly.''
The topic was kept discreet enough that it did not make the agenda at the NFL owners' meetings last month. Roski's people didn't bother to attend.
"They know all about the deal,'' Semcken said.
That did not curtail talk in the hallways, according to at least one club official present at the meetings. Four cities were identified as having "stadium issues," the official said, — listing them alphabetically as Minnesota, Oakland, San Diego and San Francisco.
While the Raiders' stadium situation would seem to be in a holding pattern pending the outcome of a possible move to Fremont by the A's, San Francisco is actively involved in stadium plans, part of which would involve financial aid from the NFL. Although its G-3 stadium building fund is depleted, plans are to replenish it when needed.
An agreement of terms for the $854 million project between the 49ers and Santa Clara is nearing completion with the goal having the language agreed upon by early July in time to make the November ballot. It will not be a binding vote because, by law, it cannot be until final environmental reviews are complete.
"Council has made it very clear even if it is an advisory measure, they will respect the will of the voters,'' said Carol McCarthy, Santa Clara's assistant city manager and spokeswoman for the city on stadium matters.
Feelings around town run strong both for and against the project. To appease the naysayers, the 49ers insist no portion of Santa Clara's general fund will be at risk. Early odds on passage seem to run about 50-50.
If Santa Clara votes no, if Hunter's Point is miles from getting the nod and if Brisbane is a pipe dream, where do the 49ers go next? South?
According to Semcken, if they wait for a November vote, they could be too late.
"I would say if they were not ready to talk to somebody until after that, they would be behind the 8 ball,'' he said.
Meaning another team could be in Roski's pocket by then?
"Yes," Semcken said, allowing the one word answer to hang in midair for a effect. "I'm not saying the deal will be signed and delivered by then, but everybody loves the deal. There are no politics in (it). Zero. That part of the project is in the past.''
All that presumes the 49ers are inclined to consider the unthinkable and leave the Bay Area. On the record, they say they are not.
"We are very focused on staying in the Bay Area,'' 49ers spokeswoman Lisa Lang insists. "That is where we are putting all our energies, efforts and resources.
"We are not looking elsewhere. This is our market. This is our hometown. This is our legacy. We have played in San Francisco for 60 years, and nothing will ever be able to replace those memories. We are very focused on making this work.''
To that end, 49ers owner John York and son Jed York have been involved in friend-making projects in the South Bay. Choosing a nice number, they helped build the 49th home for low-income families in Santa Clara County through Habitat for Humanity.
They have also organized "neighborhood chats'' with citizens groups to answer questions and gauge the public pulse over stadium plans.
The city says its bid to get a ballot measure up in November has nothing to do with Roski's potential Los Angeles threat.
"That hasn't crossed our radar at all,'' McCarthy said. "The 49ers have made it clear to us we are their No. 1 choice. We're not getting distracted by other things.''
If Roski can't lure the 49ers, what about the Raiders? Not surprisingly, the response was a firm "no comment.'' However, Semcken says there is still a huge Raiders fan base in Southern California.
"Some people say don't bring back the Raiders, some say bring (them) back,'' he said.
"Some say they'd love to see the Vikings here. Other people say don't get the Chargers, we like them in San Diego. We do realize our market down here is 2.5 times what the market is up there, and you've got two teams while we've got none.''
Meanwhile, there is little doubt the NFL is still interested in having a team back in Los Angeles — which lost the Rams and the Raiders after the 1994 season — but only under the right circumstances.
"We only have one chance to get it right, '' said Brian McCarthy, NFL vice president of corporate communications.
That goes for everyone.