Santa Clara councilman Will Kennedy says City loses in 49ers Stadium Deal
KennedyIn an interview with PublicCEO.com Santa Clara city councilman Will Kennedy explained why the Santa Clara 49ers stadium is a bad investment for the city of Santa Clara. He says "There would be more money in the general fund if we did not build." Will Kennedy, along with Jamie McLeod voted against the Santa Clara 49ers stadium deal on June 2nd, 2009 after the term sheet was presented to the city council, while the Stadium Five voted unanimously for it.
As councilman Kennedy points out, one of the problems of the stadium is that it takes money from the Santa Clara Redevelopment Agency that could have gone to paying back the city's General Fund from money that was borrowed. Kennedy points out that according to a report by a city consultant , the city's General Fund would end up with $98 million if the stadium is not built, versus $31 million if it is built. The stadium causes the city to have less General Fund money - $67 million dollars less. And this figure doesn't include General Fund losses that will take place if a future Santa Clara city council votes to use General Fund money to bail out a bankrupt Santa Clara Stadium Authority.
Another problem with the stadium deal that Will Kennedy points out is that it extends the incredible rent subsidy given to the 49ers for their practice facility out another 40 to 60 years. How much of a subsidy do the San Francisco 49ers get for their 11 acre practice facility? They pay less for 11 acres than it would cost to rent a 4 bedroom house in the same area - $22,000 per year. Per acre the San Francisco 49ers are paying 1 percent as much as what the Hyatt Hotel down the street pays.
Will Kennedy
Will Kennedy is a lawyer.
Will Kennedy on massive 900 Kiely Boulevard project
On 8/18/2009 Will Kennedy gave his justifications for approving the massive 900 Kiely Boulevard high density development (note that he never says that it is what the people of Santa Clara want - he was not governing from a democratic standpoint - but from a Kleptocratic or Aristocratic one):
Thank you The uh two fact that have uh guided my thinking uh on this issue have been first prior to this development idea coming along there was a hospital there, as opposed to open space. And the reason I mention that is because uhm I think we've all been trying to uhm avoid a situation where there's a drastic increase in traffic and activity uh for the neighbors. Cuz they bought their properties thinking uhm they're going to have a certain situation and we don't want to drastically uhm change that. uhm my view of this project from everything I have read and heard is that it roughly approximates the uh traffic and other activity that was existent at the Kaiser site. And in fact may even be a little less in some ways. Uhm so For that reason I think that it's roughly uh roughly approximates and I think it's fair to the neighbors. Uhm, it would be a different matter if prior to this everything was open space and everybody moved into the neighborhood expecting that and had this drastic increase. The other fact that uhm has affected the way I think about this is that the area has been zoned uhm uh for 26 to 36 units per acre. And this uhm although there was a little uhm controversy about exactly those numbers this is roughly at the lower end of the zone as opposed to the higher end. Uhm so I think that's uh uh a positive fact. And I do also want to acknowledge that the developer has made uhm several concessions along the way and they've been mentioned uhm by my colleagues up here on the dais. Uhm several of them and I want to acknowledge those so I will be supporting the motion tonight.
