By Robert Haugh
SFGATE did a lengthy story on how the 49er-backed Councilmembers are trying to eliminate the right of Santa Clara voters to elect our police chief.
It’s a really good long report by SF Gate’s Sports Editor Dennis Young. Readers of Santa Clara News Online and the San Francisco Chronicle know the story already.
SFGATE got the 49ers to deny that they are pulling the strings of the 49er Five on this issue just like they have on all other issues important to the team.
“The 49ers themselves deny they have anything to do with all this. ‘We value the partnership of the local police,’ a 49ers spokesperson told SFGATE. ‘This is an issue for Santa Clara officials and voters to resolve.’”
But no one really believes the team and owner who tried to steal the soccer park, has initiated all seven lawsuits against the City, and was criticized by a Grand Jury for meeting with 49er Five weekly to plot strategy on votes before City Council meetings.
SFGATE reports:
It is unusual that Santa Clara elects its police chiefs. Again, it’s the only city in California that does so, and one of just a tiny handful in the United States. The dozen or so members of the public who spoke at the June 6 hearing were all against ending the practice, though. “Jed York wants to pick our police chief, he wants someone that he can control … and you guys just can’t even admit it,” resident Debbie Tryforos said.
SFGATE also does a good summary of how the team has stiffed the City.
Way back in 2010, when the Niners and Santa Clara struck their stadium deal, the sides agreed that the city would receive half of the net revenue from non-NFL events at Levi’s, like concerts and soccer games. But after initially paying out about $5 million dollars a year — roughly what was projected in the deal — in the first four years of the stadium’s existence, the Niners have paid next to nothing since. Most of the legal disputes between the city and team have been resolved, but the “performance rent” issue is one of the last remaining ones winding its way through Santa Clara Superior Court.
Gillmor and her allies say the nonpayment of performance rent has blown a 10-figure hole in Santa Clara’s budget since 2018. “We could hire policemen, pave our roads, open our senior centers with that money,” Gillmor said.
This is the first major report by SFGATE on the 49ers’ attempted takeover of Santa Clara. It’s interesting how two San Francisco papers are covering the story and San Jose publications are missing a big story in their backyard.
The San Francisco Chronicle’s Ron Kroichick and Lance Williams recently won an award for their stories from the California Newspaper Publishers Association (and the almost-as-important Leg Drop Award).
The Chronicle and SFGATE are owned by the Hearst Corporation but they have separate newsrooms.
SFGATE, unlike the Chronicle, is free to read and not behind a paywall.
Let’s hope both publications keep up the coverage of what a respected ethicist publicly called out as “the most egregious collapse of ethics of any institution I’ve worked with in three decades.”
Santa Clara might as well fly the 49ers flag atop City Hall if the Council appoints Police Chiefs.
Response to Buchser Alum in view of “Right Under Your Nose”‘s comment:
Buchser Alum,
You advance the community with thoughtful and civil discussions and viewpoints.
The author “Right Under Your Nose” probably has COCAINE “Right Under His/Her Nose.”
If one wrestles with pigs, expect to get muddy. That is why the Santa Clara WEAKLY has FEW to NO comments… Santa Clarans DESPISE that “alleged” community muckraking rag of a ‘newspaper’. We know it is a mouthpiece for Yed Joker.
I GUARANTEE that the Forty-Whiners are paying $$$ to get the pulse of this community… and reading OUR comments…. so expect inartful commentary to become more prevalent.
Viva Santa Clara!
“He [Nikolai] has said that the traffic and security needs at Levi’s require far more police staffing and spending than projected, and the 49ers have been withholding the “performance rent” while the team foots the bill for the cost overruns.” Police staffing and spending is part of variable overhead and calculated before realizing net revenue. If rising costs outpace revenue then it is probable net revenue will be reduced or eliminated. This is basic financial planning, accounting, and budget forcasting. The only thing that will increase net revenue is to increase gross revenue (concerts, truck rallies, etc.) while maintaining or minimizing costs.
“We could hire policemen, pave our roads, open our senior centers with that money,” Gillmor said. Santa Clara doesn’t need anymore policemen, the senior centers are fine, and the roads are better than most. If Gillmor and the rest of the council want to save money and reallocate those savings to other areas, they can halt city-wide future pay raises for a few years. City employees are paid more than peers in neighboring towns so a pay freeze wouldn’t take anything away and will let others catch up to Santa Clara. And cost savings could be used to expand senior services.
‘If Gillmor and the rest of the council want to save money and reallocate those savings to other areas, they can halt city-wide future pay raises for a few years.’
Give it time. No doubt the 49ER 5 and their puppet masters have a plan.
Finance 101,
This is not an abstract classroom exercise but a real life situation with extensive history.
The real history is that the stadium yielded over 2.5 million dollars per year in performance rent for the city from 2014 through 2017. From 2018 onward the city basically got zero dollars in performance rent.
There has been SCPD staffing and expenses for stadium operations from the start. Did these expenses suddenly go up in 2018? I have not seen or read any claim made to that effect.
I have seen various substantiated allegations of the Forty Niners playing fast and loose about spending on expenses and documenting them as per how someone would be taught to keep financial records in Accounting 101.
The question is whether or not the Forty Niners have been managing the stadium competently or not. Also whether or not the Forty Niners have been managing the stadium honestly. And with regard to these questions there is also the question of whether or not the city has ability to see complete financial records documenting the management of the stadium that the city owns or if we the people must to some extent just simply take the Forty Niners word for some areas of stadium finances.
Buchser, the city makes all the contracts, agreements, and financial reports available online. https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/santa-clara-stadium-authority
Anyone who waits around for the city or 49ers to break it down to a fourth grade comprehension level is either too stupid or lazy to be debating the topic on a blog site. Show some smarts or initiative and go read those documents.
Right Under Your Nose,
The answer to my question is not on the city website.
Furthermore full access to the facility management financial systems for the stadium that the city owns and the Forty Niners manage as a management vendor is not asking the Forty Niners to break things down to a fourth grade comprehension level but the Forty Niners do not grant that and the council majority ended litigation to end the effort to gain direct auditing abilities.
Read my question again. The pages you linked contain legal agreements not financial statements much less detailed ones.
And expecting the Forty Niners to keep full records of all expenses that get factored in to determine net income that we split as performance rent or to obey rules for authorized spending limits is not breaking things down to a fourth grade comprehension level but basic Business 101 but the Forty Niners have failed on those counts a multitude of times in the past.
Amazing! 2 news sources from SanFran covering an incredible national story in Santa Clara. Where are the local news people? Disgraceful!
1983. POA ASKED FPPC TO OUTLINE ITS LIMITATIONS ABOUT ENDORSING CANDIDATES.
2016. POA SENT A MAILER CRITICAL OF BLUPAC ATTACKING SEVERAL CANDIDATES INCLUDING JAIN.
Response to Buchser Alum:
Buchser Alum,
Thank you for moving our community’s conversation forward. The level of engagement on this site (opposed to the bought-for, paid-for “Weakly” rag) ought to signal the increasing level of distaste of a certain coalition of anti-Santa Clara positions and ideologies.
With great deference to your opinion, you state that you have “not seen” evidence that “the Forty Niners are behind the effort to make our police chief an appointed position.” Please tell me that you can accurately identify council members that desire to allow our citizenry to elect and decide WHO handles GUNS to protect our city.
I will agree with you if Hardy, Becker, Chahal, Jain, and Park ARE FOR PRESERVING our city’s right to ELECT the mighty power to wield weaponry to protect and serve.
But YOU already ought to know the answer. Evidence? Who backs Hardy, Becker, Chahal, Jain, and Park? Please consider WHY the 49er Five do what they do AGAINST Santa Clara.
No “smoking gun” evidence is needed.
Then, you suggest that if the “Forty Niners are behind this then they will put money behind this and we will know for sure.” It will be too late.
I ask you to provide solutions rather than throwing one’s hands up and saying “we’ll know if Russia is serious if it invades Ukraine.”
The time to act is now!
News flash
City reports Burt Field had a clean record as commissioner. NO COMPLAINTS EVER FILED AGAINST FIELD.
Jo,
I had hoped that I made it clear that I just about expect that the Forty Niners want a police chief friendly to them and have a hand in this as I assumed that they had a heavy hand in the firings of city manager Santana and city attorney Doyle.
And I sure am not arguing that anyone wait for concrete evidence that the Forty Niners are behind this. I simply said that I have not seen concrete evidence that they are behind it yet.
I have a lot of concern that the chief of police could have some ability to make some decisions that benefit the Forty Niners financially.
But outside of this concern I do think that we should make some changes to who qualifies to be considered as a candidate for police chief. I do agree with the point that requiring Santa Clara residency in order to run for election limits the number of candidates massively. And I must also admit that requiring public election massively limits the number of candidates too.
And I also do not think it is a good thing for the city for the police union to have an overwhelming role in the process of choosing the police chief. Part of what a police chief’s job needs to be is to discipline the few police who are bad or who behave badly and the police union’s entire reason for being is to protect police officers from discipline even if the police officer has behaved wrongly.
I think it is important to make sure that the Forty Niners do not abuse the city financially including in accounting of SCPD resources for stadium operations and I also think that we should have a process that allows us to choose from many more and more qualified candidates than our election process has allowed us.
I have not seen any evidence that the Forty Niners are behind the effort by the council majority to make our police chief an appointed position. I do not mean that I think they are not behind it but only that I have not seen evidence of this. I would not at all be surprised if the Forty Niners support this and have talked to the council majority about this.
We shall see when this is on the ballot next year. If the Forty Niners are behind this then they will put money behind this and we will know for sure.
You obviously can’t see the forest for the trees.
I agree with Buchser Alum regarding the lack of evidence. Texts between Jain and Becker show a hatred for Nikolai.
How deceitful and treacherous. Leave it to the voters while we overwhelm the election with paid TV ads and glossy, lie filled, fliers to every house several times a week. If you believe half of what you say, stay out of it.
‘We value the partnership of the local police,’ a 49ers spokesperson told SFGATE. ‘This is an issue for Santa Clara officials and voters to resolve.’”