Jamie Matthews - dishonest San Francisco 49ers shill

Jamie MatthewsMatthews

At the website of the San Francisco 49ers front group Santa Clarans for Economic Progress, Santa Clara city council member Jamie Matthews goes to bat for the City of Santa Clara subsidizing the San Francisco 49ers:
Next to a picture of a broadly smiling Matthews the question is asked:

On the June 8th Stadium vote: Are the Taxpayers at Risk?

Jamie Matthews responds:

"Not at all. The measure's iron-clad language states that there can be NO new city taxes and NO use of the city's general fund for this project. There will be no cost to Santa Clara residents. Period."

Jamie Matthews
Santa Clara City Councilmember

In a presentation given at the June 2nd, 2009 city council meeting by city employees, a Powerpoint slide on page 48 showed a consultant's estimate of how the city's General Fund will do with or without a San Francisco 49ers stadium being subsidized and tax sheltered by the city. With one football team the General Fund will have 67 million dollars less than if a stadium is not built. With two football teams (the Oakland Raiders have made no public statement regarding a willingness to move to Santa Clara) the General Fund will have $31 million less than no stadium. This is due to money destined for the General Fund being diverted from the city's Redevelopment Agency to the stadium. And yet Jamie Matthews claims there is no use of the city's General Fund for the project??

The city of Santa Clara is currently running a deficit and is projected to run a deficit for the next five years. The stadium causes the General Fund to have less money, per a presentation given by city employees, and yet Jamie Matthews claims with surety there won't be any tax increases (or cuts in services - a cost) due to the San Francisco 49ers stadium project??

The Santa Clara NFL football stadium would last for a minimum of 40 years and a maximum of 60 years per the (non-binding) term sheet that has been prepared. The San Francisco 49ers put some of their employees on unpaid leave for a period of time in the summer of 2009 due to financial problems. There is no guarantee that the 49ers will be able to make their lease payment for all 40 years and the lease is not even with the San Francisco 49ers. It is with their firewall affiliate - Forty Niners Stadium, LLC. What if the Forty Niners Stadium, LLC can't make lease payments and the San Francisco 49ers move to the Oakland Colesium? And Forty Niners Stadium, LLC does not pay all the bills of a proposed Santa Clara NFL stadium. They only pay what the term sheet calls reimbursable expenses. The Forty Niners Stadium, LLC is not obligated to pay what the term sheet calls excluded expenses. Excluded expenses include the debt payments of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority. You won't hear about the Santa Clara Stadium Authority debt from Jamie Matthews or the other Santa Clara politicians shilling for the San Francisco 49ers. You won't hear about Stadium Authority debt from the San Francisco 49ers or their front group Santa Clarans for Economic Progress. It is even hidden in the term sheet, being mentioned in some places, and being left off conspicuously in others. What happens if the Santa Clara Stadium Authority can't pay it's debt which it is supposed to finance from stadium naming rights - which have lost favor in recent years and have gone down in amount (the Oakland Colesium hosts two sports teams and currently has no naming rights deal)? It's either bankruptcy or a bail out from the city of Santa Clara General Fund. Would future politicians even consider bankrupcty? It seems a bail out would be their only choice. That would mean a future hit to the General Fund on top of the hit the report presented by city employees already demonstrated. And yet Jamie Matthews claims there is no risk to Santa Clara taxpayers??

The city is using money from it's redevelopment agency, it's utility reserve fund, and from taxes it is collecting from hotels. The total of all stadium construction expenditures by the city (per the non-binding term sheet) is $114 million dollars. And yet Jamie Matthews claims that there is "NO cost to Santa Clara residents. Period." Jamie Matthews is a dishonest San Francisco 49ers shill. Period. James Matthews shilling for 49ers

Jamie Matthews of Santa Clara welcomes developer money, 49er money and free meals

Whether it's money from high-density real estate developers, money from the San Francisco 49ers, or a free meal from a Santa Clara restaurant, Santa Clara politician Jamie Matthews is ready to accept with open arms.

Jamie L. Matthews - Santa Clara Mayor and three term City Council member

Jamie Matthews Santa Clara City Council Jamie Matthews is either unemployed or chooses not to say what his occupation is on his Santa Clara bio page. Jamie Matthews is a member of the Stadium Five.

Jamie L. Matthews on massive 900 Kiely Boulevard project

On 8/18/2009 Jamie Matthews 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):

There has not been a project that has come before in nine years of being on the council that's an infill project that's been easy. Uhm They all deal with the same issues uh traffic uh fears about number of people that are gonna (habit)? where are people gonna park I believe this plan has addressed those uhm It's certainly, it's certainly not gonna be ever to the satisfaction I did uh chuckle a little bit when the issue of senior housing came forward because we had such opposition to every senior housing project that's come forward. Uhm, regarding traffic and parking that uh, you know it's There's some universal themes uh this is not a This is a decision that I make to make this motion Which I know is not a popular one. But the fact it is that I represent the city as a whole and the best interests of the long term health, our ability to attract and retain the businesses that make, allow us to have the quality of life that we have and the fact that we have intended this to be a residential uh residential area and we've I think we have an excellent product uh including uh a potential bridge and connection for the first time to San Tomas 52 acres being irrigated by recycled water and all the other uhm attributes that I think in balance it's a great project. So those are my comments on the motion.