[brandon12]

SAN FRANCISCO -- The San Francisco 49ers ended negotiations with the city about building a new stadium and plan to move to Santa Clara or somewhere else in California, The Associated Press learned Wednesday night.

Owner John York notified Mayor Gavin Newsom of the team's decision earlier Wednesday, a city official close to the negotiations told the AP on condition of anonymity because no announcement had been made.

Team spokesman Aaron Salkin declined to comment Wednesday night. Phone messages left on the office and cell phone of Lisa Lang, the 49ers' vice president for communications, were not immediately returned.

The sides had been talking over the past few months about building a privately financed stadium at Candlestick Point that was going to be part of the city's bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics.

The team's lease at Candlestick runs through the 2008 season, and the team holds three five-year options that could extend it through 2023.

The stadium at Candlestick is one of the most run-down in the NFL, leading the team's desire to seek a new stadium with revenue-generating suites and luxury boxes. The plan to build a stadium also included public housing, retail and office space.

The city was not going to contribute any money to the stadium but was willing to possibly help with infrastructure costs.

The 49ers' headquarters are in Santa Clara, located about 30 miles south of San Francisco.

Los Angeles and Anaheim also are seeking an NFL team. The mayors of the two cities met last month with new commissioner Roger Goodell to offer their competing plans to lure a team back to Southern California.

Los Angeles city leaders want to build a new stadium within the walls of the historic Memorial Coliseum, featuring 200 luxury boxes and 15,000 club seats at a cost of $800 million.

Goodell also met with Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle about his city's plans to sell the NFL 53 acres at the below-market price of $50 million to build a new stadium adjacent to Angel Stadium.

The Los Angeles area hasn't had an NFL team since after the 1994 season, when the Raiders returned to Oakland and the Anaheim-based Rams moved to St. Louis.

Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press

[BTinSF]

If what's needed to keep them in the city is millions in taxpayers dollars, I hope Newsom holds the door open for them as they leave. I think the day is simply over when smart cities are willing to bribe pro sports teams and their wealthy owners with vast piles of public money. And if the wannabees somewhere else in CA are willing to be so stupid, let them.

http://www.raiders.com/images/splash/denver-splash_01.gif

[tech12]

you know I've always wanted to cheer for the raiders...now I have my excuse;)

[Ronin]

Wow, first San Jose gets the A's, now the Niners. The new mayor has already paid dividends, even though technically neither will be in San Jose proper.

Actually, the entire 49ers organization has little connection with the city of SF other than spending a few Sunday afternoons there. As mentioned, the headquarters is in the South Bay, and most of the players live down there themselves.

[Majin]

The Las Vegas Kings and now the Las Vegas 49's... wow they are really cleaning out CA of our pro sports teams.

Very sad.

[nomarandlee]

The Las Vegas Kings and now the Las Vegas 49's... wow they are really cleaning out CA of our pro sports teams.

Very sad.

huh? Las Vegas Kings?

[urbanflyer]

The Yorks are absolute gasbags. Childhood memories of glory aside, let 'em go.

[munkyman]

Don't get me wrong, I think John York is an utter idiot...but the 49ers may just be frustrated with how difficult it is to negotiate anything in the city of SF, and how slow the process is. I'm sure they've gotten a really positive response in Santa Clara, as opposed to nothing but headache in SF. Only time will tell.

Perhaps it's a small microcosm of the continuing population loss and decline of the inner Bay Area (Oakland included).

Or, you know, they could just be trying to negotiate a better deal with SF :rolleyes:

[urban_encounter]

This is just sickening.

There's such a history with the 49ers in San Francisco that they just don't belong anywhere else but SF.

[Buckeye Native 001]

The San Francisco 49ers of San Jose.

Stop copying the SoCal trends, guys ;)

[coyotetrickster]

Don't get me wrong, I think John York is an utter idiot...but the 49ers may just be frustrated with how difficult it is to negotiate anything in the city of SF, and how slow the process is. I'm sure they've gotten a really positive response in Santa Clara, as opposed to nothing but headache in SF. Only time will tell.

Perhaps it's a small microcosm of the continuing population loss and decline of the inner Bay Area (Oakland included).

Or, you know, they could just be trying to negotiate a better deal with SF :rolleyes:

I'm with BT on this. I'm not subsidizing the York Family Trust or Alex Smith's salary with a new stadium. I could careless where they end up. Yes, $800 million to $1 billion is a lot of dollars. Sorry they're timing coincided with a worldwide construction boom, but it ain't my team and the skybox revenue isn't going to fill one pothole on geary, pay for one pre-natal exam at a city clinic or get the Central Boondoggle, er subway built.

[Frisco_Zig]

To me this lose wouldn't be as great as losing the A's and I am a big 49er fan from the crib

Football sort of lends itself to suburban locals with all the parking for tailgaters and long distance fans. Were they not proposing parking stuctures and housing around the stadium? San Francisco and the area have changed so much since Candlestick was built. Maybe a more intensive use of that land is more appropriate now

For me the A's going to a field in Fremont from a potential downtown site in Oakland is a much bigger shame. Baseball is best when the park in an urban neighborhood near tranist. See At&T, Fenway, Yankee stadium etc.

[SoCal Alan]

To me this lose wouldn't be as great as losing the A's and I am a big 49er fan from the crib

Football sort of lends itself to suburban locals with all the parking for tailgaters and long distance fans. Were they not proposing parking stuctures and housing around the stadium? San Francisco and the area have changed so much since Candlestick was built. Maybe a more intensive use of that land is more appropriate now

For me the A's going to a field in Fremont from a potential downtown site in Oakland is a much bigger shame. Baseball is best when the park in an urban neighborhood near tranist. See At&T, Fenway, Yankee stadium etc.

Excellent points. :tup:

[BTinSF]

Comprehensive study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City of the public value of sports franchises here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3699/is_200101/ai_n8942029/pg_14

Conclusion:

U.S. metro areas have had to compete with each other to retain and attract major league sports franchises. The resulting large public outlays to finance the construction of sports facilities have been quite controversial. Proponents of using public funds to finance stadium construction argue that the benefits from increased economic activity and increased tax revenue collection exceed the public outlays. But independent economic studies universally find such benefits to be much smaller than claimed.

So does it makes sense for metro areas to use public funds to attract and retain major league sports franchises? The answer is definitely not if benefits are limited to increases in economic activity and tax revenue collection. A strong case can be made, however, that the quality-of-life benefits from hosting a major league team can sometimes justify the large public outlays associated with doing so.

Quality-of-life benefits are rarely explicitly included in the debate on using public funds to attract and retain a major league sports franchise. Acknowledging that the main benefit from hosting a team comes from improved metro-area quality of life should help to value this contribution. Doing so does not require impact studies. Residents and elected officials who understand that the benefits of a sports team are the same sort that flow from parks, zoos, museums, and theater can decide on their own how much hosting a major league team is worth.

The difference, of course, is that a park, zoo, museum or theater usually belongs to the public or is at least immobile, but the sports team that a city spends hundreds of millions to please today can pack up and move tomorrow. I'd be all for building the 49ers a new stadium if the city OWNED the team, but not as long as the Yorks or any other private party owns it.

[Ronin]

Yeah, football is more of a good old country style game, with bbq's and tailgating, whereas basketball is more "urban." That's not to say that SF is above football, however.

[J Church]

http://sfcityscape.com/log_06_07-09.html#0722

[coyotetrickster]

Yeah, football is more of a good old country style game, with bbq's and tailgating, whereas basketball is more "urban." That's not to say that SF is above football, however.


I'm trying to remember if I made this up or heard it from one of the talking heads on the morning news shows (TV), but York didn't like the parking configurations because it would have curtailed the convenience of tailgating partiers... OMFG. That is all I can say there. If that is even on the list of issues, go to Santa Clara, do not pass go and cancel that $100 million bond capacity we voted for...:hell:

Now that's done, I offer you NYC (Bronx/Manhattan). I believe both of the major football stadiums in NY are in the bigger burroughs. Candlestick/HP-Bayview, all of the southeastern areas of the city, are under new development pressures in response to the affordability crisis in this city (I don't think anyone here would disagree). J Church even offered up a Cityscape proposal for a new neighborhood at Candlestick and I thought it was pretty awesome. Is the best use for that much land a monstrous (not Monster) stadium with acres of parking when a one bedroom condo is costing $600K in this city. Santa Clara is 35-40 minutes in good traffic. Big whoop. People live in neighborhoods 24/7, 365 days a year, not just 10 days out of a five month season. I have no civic ego in whether the 49's decamp or not. If it's a bluff/negotiating ploy, York is more than clueless, he's just stupid.

[SunMonTueWedThuFriSa]

There goes SF's olympic bid.

[Reminiscence]

I think this is the biggest insult in the history of the 49ers organization towards the public. Its like a slap in the face, to me anyways, as I have been a lifelong 49ers fan. As far as I'm concerned, this would never have happened had Eddie DeBartolo still been the man instead of the Yorks. And to make matters worse, it does put our olympics bid in jeopardy.

:censor: the Yorks ... sigh.

[BTinSF]

Niners to leave SF, move to Santa Clara
- Phil Matier, Andrew Ross and Marisa Lagos, Chronicle Staff Writers
Thursday, November 9, 2006


(11-09) 11:14 PST -- The San Francisco 49ers will abandon their namesake city and look to build a stadium in Santa Clara, after concluding that their plan to build a stadium and retail-housing complex at Candlestick Point will not work.

The 49ers said Candlestick Point, where the team has played since 1971, cannot support a "new state-of-the-art NFL stadium and adjacent major mixed-use project." The decision to look at Santa Clara -- the team's headquarters and the site of their training facility -- came after "careful deliberation" and a year of study, the team said.

"The team came to the conclusion that the (San Francisco) project would not have offered the optimal game day experience it is seeking to create for fans, and has therefore decided not to move forward with the public approval process at Candlestick Point," the 49ers said in a statement.

The team said it would look elsewhere in the Bay Area if the Santa Clara site, near the Great America Amusement park, does not pan out. The team would keep the "San Francisco" name, co-owner John York said.

In a video posted on the 49ers Web site, York said the team has looked at more than 20 Bay Area sites, including several in San Francisco.

"After numerous hours and millions of dollar of study, analysis, it comes down fact that Candlestick Park cannot accommodate all we asked it to do and still provide fans with ultimate experience," York said.

Although the team said San Francisco's approval process would make it difficult to reach its goal of opening a new stadium by 2012, York did not blame the city for the collapse of its plans. He said city officials have worked "diligently" to make the project work.

York told San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and several supervisors about the plans Wednesday in a series of phone calls.

The team's major issue with the San Francisco site was the "incompatible land requirements" of Candlestick Point.

The team said the need for more mass transit and new infrastructure -- including "one of the largest parking structures in the world" -- pose huge challenges, and that the proposed development would "take up much of the space fans currently use for parking and tailgating."

The team said the proposed Santa Clara project site is near numerous roads that can accommodate heavy traffic and has public transportation nearby.

An aerial depiction on the team's Web site shows the envisioned stadium just off the Great America Parkway, on the Tasman East line of the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority's light rail line and near an ACE train station.

While not blaming San Francisco, York was annoyed at the city's insistence that any stadium deal be approved at the ballot box, sources said. A campaign to win voter approval would cost around $6 million, York complained.

In the statement, the team also noted that the stadium's price tag could balloon past $800 million when all the infrastructure improvements are taken into account.

York's decision followed a meeting Wednesday with representatives of Lennar Corp., the would-be developers of the housing and retail stores that were to accompany the proposed 80,500-seat stadium. York gave his decision during the meeting and began contacting city officials.

Newsom spokesman Peter Ragone said Wednesday that the call came in early evening, stunning and perplexing officials who had been meeting weekly with team representatives.

In his calls to the mayor and to supervisors, York repeatedly said his decision was final. The team could not stay in San Francisco, he said, because the stadium deal "didn't pencil out" and because provisions for transportation and parking at the proposed site at Candlestick Point were inadequate.

The announcement also apparently ends a possible bid by San Francisco to host the 2016 Summer Olympics, which would have been tied to the construction of a new stadium in San Francisco.

The timing of the 49ers' news means that even should some reconciliation between the city and the football team be reached, it might be too late to help the Olympic bid. San Francisco 2016 must submit its bid document, some 250 to 300 pages, by Jan. 22. The certainty of a bid's plans is one criterion the USOC will use in assessing it.

In the video on the 49ers Web site, York said he hoped the Bay Area still has a shot at hosting the Olympics, suggesting the opening and closing ceremonies could be hosted at Monster Park or the new Santa Clara location.

York also said that the team twice attempted to modify the stadium plans to accommodate the Olympic bid but had to balance that consideration with the original intent of the project.

"We constantly reminded the city this stadium is an NFL stadium for the team and fans for the next 30 years, so it had to be feasible in itself," he said.

York told Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin that "Santa Clara has become the team's first priority'' as a new location and that the team was "not playing one city off the other,'' Peskin said Wednesday.

York apparently reached his decision on his own, without consulting advisers or partners.

"We're disappointed, but we're not planning on mortgaging the future for a deal,'' Ragone said.

Previous plans for a new stadium have called for a $600 million to $800 million complex to be built southeast of the current stadium.

In 1997, voters approved a controversial ballot proposition authorizing $100 million for a stadium, but that plan never got off the ground.

York said Wednesday that his next move is to begin talks with Santa Clara officials.

"We're proud to have the San Francisco 49ers as part of our community," said Santa Clara Mayor Patricia Mahan. "We have been looking to expand our entertainment options in the Great America/Convention Center area for years, and this stadium can be a great addition ... we are ready to give this project our full attention."

Chronicle staff writers Steve Rubenstein, Kevin Lynch and Cecilia Vega contributed to this report.

E-mail the writers at pmatier@sfchronicle.com, aross@sfchronicle.com and mlagos@sfchronicle.com


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/09/BAGHUM9FAH6.DTL



You know, I think York's points are all pretty valid and are consistent with what others here have said. San Francisco, in its 49 sq. miles, just doesn't really have room to spare for a football stadium with monster parking lot for bridge and tunnel tailgaiters. They SHOULD go to the burbs. I'm not so sure how viable is the plan to hold onto the SF name, though. As I've said with regard to the "A's", I can get to Raiders games on BART, fairly quickly and easily. I predict they will become the team of most San Franciscans. And how long will the folks of San Jose/Santa Clara put up with "their" team being called the "San Francisco" anything?

[sf_eddo]

This effectively ends San Francisco's 2016 Olympics bid, doesn't it?

[BigKidD]

This is a terrible lose. Perhaps Newsom and York could of worked harder to keep the team in SF. I guess the Board of Supervisors thought the idea of once again proposing to impeach Bush a better idea.

[rs913]

It's not a bad idea. Santa Clara can give the team everything they want, and is pretty convenient to lots of freeways and a large chunk (majority?) of the team's fan base, as well as to the team's HQ, staff, and players, as mentioned earlier. My dream scenario is that this paves the way for two awesome new stadiums (49ers and A's), revived fan support, and general re-energization of the Bay Area's dying pro sports scene.

Hard to believe that 3 out of 5 major Bay Area franchises may end up in the South Bay (http://tinyurl.com/ykxhse) soon, with only the Giants left in SF and the Warriors in Oakland.

[J Church]

What are the Raiders, swiss cheese? Oh, wait ...

[urban_encounter]

What are the Raiders, swiss cheese?


Just their defense...;)

[Ronin]

This is just like when people were b*tching when NBC went from SF to SJ (KRON to KNTV), and saying how it was a travesty that SF didn't have a station. Umm.. going from SF to SJ is like travelling from Brooklyn to the Bronx, or Burbank to Carson. They are all in the same darn market. Would you consider any of those latter two to be anything out of the ordinary? The only difference is that the main namesake used (San Francisco) is not an all area encompassing geographic prefecture, as with the others.

[coyotetrickster]

It's not a bad idea. Santa Clara can give the team everything they want, and is pretty convenient to lots of freeways and a large chunk (majority?) of the team's fan base, as well as to the team's HQ, staff, and players, as mentioned earlier. My dream scenario is that this paves the way for two awesome new stadiums (49ers and A's), revived fan support, and general re-energization of the Bay Area's dying pro sports scene.

Hard to believe that 3 out of 5 major Bay Area franchises may end up in the South Bay (http://tinyurl.com/ykxhse) soon, with only the Giants left in SF and the Warriors in Oakland.


The current level of play by the 49'ers is probably a contributing factor to the groundswell of 'who cares?' Not to dismiss fans and supporters, but I'd much rather ride up the 101 and see a mini-skyline of midrises with lights on 365 days a year, than a mostly dark homage to a flying saucer and lighted up a few times year with those hideous halogen lamps.... Besides, add a third steet line loop around the candlestick point and then feed into the terminus at the Schlage Locks site, instant transit!

As for the 2016 Olympics, please remember, right now the USOC doesn't even know if they want to bid for the 2016 games.

[fflint]

This is just like when people were b*tching when NBC went from SF to SJ (KRON to KNTV), and saying how it was a travesty that SF didn't have a station. Umm.. going from SF to SJ is like travelling from Brooklyn to the Bronx, or Burbank to Carson. They are all in the same darn market. Would you consider any of those latter two to be anything out of the ordinary? The only difference is that the main namesake used (San Francisco) is not an all area encompassing geographic prefecture, as with the others.
Maybe you didn't realize it, but hundreds of thousands of San Franciscans without cable could not receive any NBC programming for several years. That's the understandable reason why people complained.

Anyway, I guess this is just how it is.

[Frisco_Zig]

I am not sure of the actual stats but I am sure the fan base for the 49ers is predominately outside of SF so this really is a natural move. Many NFL teams are outside of the large cities aren't they?

Patriots play in Foxboro
The New York Jets and Giants play in New Jersey
Redskins are in someplace called Landover

I am sure there are more

This move is not atypical

I still think the A's move is the real shame. Rather than trying to fit into a real urban neighborhood the owner is going to try to build one with a "baseball village" (Disneyfied fake new urbanist crap in the middle of a field next to a freeway is what it will be)...urgh...that is lamentable. Incidentally AT&T park has a footprint of only 13 acres and it fits like a glove into the City. A lot can be done with some imagination when it comes to ball parks. Personally I will never go to another A's game once the new staduim is built

[Buckeye Native 001]

^To add another to that list, the Arizona Cardinals and Phoenix Coyotes play in Glendale in arenas on the far west side of town in Glendale AZ, about twenty to twenty-five miles from Phoenix.

Hell, even Arco Arena feels like its way the hell out there in relation to downtown Sacramento.

[Grimnebulin]

You know, I think York's points are all pretty valid and are consistent with what others here have said. San Francisco, in its 49 sq. miles, just doesn't really have room to spare for a football stadium with monster parking lot for bridge and tunnel tailgaiters. They SHOULD go to the burbs. I'm not so sure how viable is the plan to hold onto the SF name, though. As I've said with regard to the "A's", I can get to Raiders games on BART, fairly quickly and easily. I predict they will become the team of most San Franciscans. And how long will the folks of San Jose/Santa Clara put up with "their" team being called the "San Francisco" anything?

I agree with you that York has many valid points. But what about all that land west across the 101 that is just north of Brisbase by the Bayshore CalTrain station? Was this a former landfill? That would make a fine place for a new stadium, but I guess there are other plans for that space already? Office park maybe? Why not use the land on the west side of the 101 for a new Niners stadium and develop the old Candlestick area? This question has probably already been asked before though - sorry if this is a repeat...

[Frisco_Zig]

But what about all that land west across the 101 that is just north of Brisbase by the Bayshore CalTrain station?


http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2006-03-08/news/news.html

[pdxstreetcar]

this and the a's move at the same time... wow. serious bay area sports shake-up. how long before the warriors move to the san jose arena? i agree its not worth sf or oak funding a private stadium but i definately see these as serious losses for both cities. the 49ers were the last bastion of true USA blue collar lifestyle in SF.

there could be some resentment aimed at the south bay from the central bay area (sf & oak) as a result of both moves.

does this mean candlestick will be demolished?

[Grimnebulin]

http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2006-03-08/news/news.html

Thanks.

[foxmtbr]

Hell, even Arco Arena feels like its way the hell out there in relation to downtown Sacramento.
And the Maloofs apparently want the new one(if applicable) out there too... :brickwall:

[rs913]

does this mean candlestick will be demolished?

Probably. It's now a remote, windswept, aging hulk of a stadium with NO tenant. Oooh, can I drive the wrecking ball?

[Reminiscence]

In a video posted on the 49ers Web site, York said the team has looked at more than 20 Bay Area sites, including several in San Francisco.

Huh? Maybe its just me, but I seem to have forgoten. Where else in SF might there be spaces available for such a massive proposal?

[J Church]

http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2006-03-08/news/news.html

Just south of that, though, is the Brisbane Baylands, where housing can't be built and retail is planned. Retail such as ... an auto mall.

That is the site that, if not for lines on a map, would be best.

[Frisco_Zig]

J-Church

Do you know why housing can't be built there?

I am not surprised that an auto mall is planned there. Between the hotels and that 1000 or so Brisbanians will be awash in tax revenue

[J Church]

Toxicity, issues with the level of cleanup necessary for commercial vs. residential. In addition to the railyards there was industry on the site (a paint company?).

[San Frangelino]

Niners, SF Still Talking

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/10/SPGS6MADL04.DTL

Niners' move on hold after DiFi intervenes

11-10) 11:39 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- One day after the San Francisco 49ers announced they were looking to move to Santa Clara, co-owner John York and Mayor Gavin Newsom said today that talks to keep the team in San Francisco "were not closed" and that the two sides had agreed to resume negotiations after Sunday's game.

The announcement followed a meeting this morning between Newsom, York , York's son Jed and Sen. Dianne Feinstein in the senator's San Francisco office.

Feinstein called the meeting after talking on the phone with the Yorks on Thursday concerning the 49ers' conclusion that their proposed new stadium and retail-housing complex at Candlestick Point would not work.

"The mayor was very willing to sit down and agreed to have a meeting this morning,'' Feinstein said. "The mayor is very determined to do what he can do."

As for the future of the 49ers' proposed deal with Santa Clara, Feinstein said, "I'm not going to discuss that now."

Lisa Lang, spokeswoman for the 49ers, said it now looked like the team would pursue dual discussions with both San Francisco and Santa Clara.

"The doors definitely are not closed in San Francisco, and we are continuing to talk to the city to see what we can work out," she said.

City leaders in both San Francisco and Santa Clara had expressed shock Thursday morning at news of the 49ers announcement they would move, and Newsom promised that the deal was not done.

Santa Clara Mayor Patricia Mahan, when reached today by phone, said it was the first she had heard of the 49ers restarting talks with San Francisco city officials.

"My reaction is that anything the two cities -- San Francisco and Santa Clara -- anything the two of our cities can do to keep the 49ers in the Bay Area is great," Mahan said. "That's the most important thing to me, to make sure the 49ers have an appropriate home in the greater San Francisco Bay Area, so that there will always be a San Francisco 49ers."

Mahan said she is still hopeful, even though the 49ers have apparently decided to re-engage San Francisco.

Newsom was not immediately available for comment. His spokesman, Peter Ragone, would not offer details about the meeting.

The decision comes one day after team spokeswoman Lang, at a press conference, said: "We're 100 percent committed to trying to make it work" at the proposed Santa Clara stadium site.

"To me, the 49ers have always been looking at both of the sites very seriously," Mahan said. "I'm sure it's going to end up being a decision based on multiple factors, including the economics of the situation and the feasibility of the two sites and, most importantly, the game day experience for the fans."

The team informed San Francisco officials late Wednesday they intended to drop plans for a stadium and retail housing complex in San Francisco's Candlestick Point and instead move the proposed development to a parking lot near Great America amusement park in Santa Clara. The 49ers have been trying to rebuild the stadium at Candlestick Point for nearly 10 years.

Infrastructure was the 49er's largest concern, team co-owner John York said Thursday. York cited the high cost of building a huge parking garage and of bringing public transit to Candlestick Point, saying it would have doubled the $600 million to $800 million price tag. He also expressed concern that need for a parking garage would have killed the time-honored tradition of tailgating before football games.

Mahan maintained today that the Santa Clara site wouldn't have parking or traffic congestion problems and would be a better fit for fans than the Candlestick Point proposal.

"The 49ers are going to make their decision on what's best for the fans and what best for the team," Mahan said. "As long as they're staying in the Bay Area, that's what's most important to me."

The San Francisco project's demise also dealt a blow to the city's hope to land the 2016 Olympic games. The United States Olympic Committee is scheduled to make a decision on whether it will recommend and American city

-- either San Francisco, Los Angeles or Chicago -- by the end of the year. Whether the city has a stadium that can accommodate the games' opening and closing ceremonies is central to the committee's decision.

Staff writers Marisa Lagos and Cecilia M. Vega contributed to this report.

[coyotetrickster]

Niners, SF Still Talking

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/10/SPGS6MADL04.DTL

Niners' move on hold after DiFi intervenes

11-10) 11:39 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- One day after the San Francisco 49ers announced they were looking to move to Santa Clara, co-owner John York and Mayor Gavin Newsom said today that talks to keep the team in San Francisco "were not closed" and that the two sides had agreed to resume negotiations after Sunday's game.

The announcement followed a meeting this morning between Newsom, York , York's son Jed and Sen. Dianne Feinstein in the senator's San Francisco office.

Feinstein called the meeting after talking on the phone with the Yorks on Thursday concerning the 49ers' conclusion that their proposed new stadium and retail-housing complex at Candlestick Point would not work.

"The mayor was very willing to sit down and agreed to have a meeting this morning,'' Feinstein said. "The mayor is very determined to do what he can do."

As for the future of the 49ers' proposed deal with Santa Clara, Feinstein said, "I'm not going to discuss that now."

Lisa Lang, spokeswoman for the 49ers, said it now looked like the team would pursue dual discussions with both San Francisco and Santa Clara.

"The doors definitely are not closed in San Francisco, and we are continuing to talk to the city to see what we can work out," she said.

City leaders in both San Francisco and Santa Clara had expressed shock Thursday morning at news of the 49ers announcement they would move, and Newsom promised that the deal was not done.

Santa Clara Mayor Patricia Mahan, when reached today by phone, said it was the first she had heard of the 49ers restarting talks with San Francisco city officials.

"My reaction is that anything the two cities -- San Francisco and Santa Clara -- anything the two of our cities can do to keep the 49ers in the Bay Area is great," Mahan said. "That's the most important thing to me, to make sure the 49ers have an appropriate home in the greater San Francisco Bay Area, so that there will always be a San Francisco 49ers."

Mahan said she is still hopeful, even though the 49ers have apparently decided to re-engage San Francisco.

Newsom was not immediately available for comment. His spokesman, Peter Ragone, would not offer details about the meeting.

The decision comes one day after team spokeswoman Lang, at a press conference, said: "We're 100 percent committed to trying to make it work" at the proposed Santa Clara stadium site.

"To me, the 49ers have always been looking at both of the sites very seriously," Mahan said. "I'm sure it's going to end up being a decision based on multiple factors, including the economics of the situation and the feasibility of the two sites and, most importantly, the game day experience for the fans."

The team informed San Francisco officials late Wednesday they intended to drop plans for a stadium and retail housing complex in San Francisco's Candlestick Point and instead move the proposed development to a parking lot near Great America amusement park in Santa Clara. The 49ers have been trying to rebuild the stadium at Candlestick Point for nearly 10 years.

Infrastructure was the 49er's largest concern, team co-owner John York said Thursday. York cited the high cost of building a huge parking garage and of bringing public transit to Candlestick Point, saying it would have doubled the $600 million to $800 million price tag. He also expressed concern that need for a parking garage would have killed the time-honored tradition of tailgating before football games.

Mahan maintained today that the Santa Clara site wouldn't have parking or traffic congestion problems and would be a better fit for fans than the Candlestick Point proposal.

"The 49ers are going to make their decision on what's best for the fans and what best for the team," Mahan said. "As long as they're staying in the Bay Area, that's what's most important to me."

The San Francisco project's demise also dealt a blow to the city's hope to land the 2016 Olympic games. The United States Olympic Committee is scheduled to make a decision on whether it will recommend and American city

-- either San Francisco, Los Angeles or Chicago -- by the end of the year. Whether the city has a stadium that can accommodate the games' opening and closing ceremonies is central to the committee's decision.

Staff writers Marisa Lagos and Cecilia M. Vega contributed to this report.


I guess it's kind of hard to say no Difi when the dems could make all manner of problems for the NFL's psuedo monopoly (unlike MLB's real monopoly).

[rs913]

One other question this whole 49ers controversy brings up: is it true that SF isn't as much a "central focal point" of the Bay Area as NYC, Boston, and Chicago are of their respective metro areas? (One could argue "yes, and that's why the 49ers belong in Santa Clara...")

[BTinSF]

I guess it's kind of hard to say no Difi when the dems could make all manner of problems for the NFL's psuedo monopoly (unlike MLB's real monopoly).

Yeah, San Francisco does now have the Speaker of the House and one the most powerful Senators as fan/residents. I wonder what got DiFi to jump in, though. I suspect maybe the Olympic bid going belly up may have had more to do with this than where in the Bay Area the 49'ers play.

[craeg]

San Jose has more people, but I'd definitely say SF is def. the focal point of the bay area. Anyone who has been to san jose can confirm that.

[BTinSF]

One other question this whole 49ers controversy brings up: is it true that SF isn't as much a "central focal point" of the Bay Area as NYC, Boston, and Chicago are of their respective metro areas? (One could argue "yes, and that's why the 49ers belong in Santa Clara...")

Depends how you define "central focal point". We've debated this endlessly in the past. Due to geographic limitations, San Francisco's 49 square miles can hold only so many people and almost no heavy industry. The real estate is also too pricey for even a lot of white collar functions like "back office" work. So there are two political entities in the Bay Area with more population than San Francisco: San Jose and Oakland. And most of the area's heavy industry and clerical work is done outside the city. San Jose, of course, also has its own economic focus on tech and Oakland has the area's major port facilities. But "San Francisco" is still the name known around the world--people in San Jose take it hard but it's a fact that if you tell someone in Japan or China that you live in San Jose or Oakland, you usually have to follow up with, "That's near San Francisco" to get them to understand. And San Francisco has much of the area's culture, it's higher-priced professional and managerial talent, its largest concentration of great restaurants and, frankly, its most "urban" environment.

If you are going to make comparisons with other cities, you really have to be careful. San Francisco does not compare to "NYC" but to Manhattan (to Oakland's Brooklyn) or to the heart of Boston or Chicago, not the whole town. And just as New York's football teams do not play in Manhattan (and an attempt to build a stadium for them there recently fizzled), it probably makes sense to have "San Francisco's" team play somewhere outside the actual city but hopefully connected to it by excellent mass transit: among the reasons the Raiders may become the "San Francisco" team if the 49'ers move to Santa Clara.

[J Church]

I more or less agree with you, BT, but Oakland is in fact significantly smaller than the city.

There is no small irony in the possibility that the "San Francisco" 49ers might play in San Jose's backyard. That has got to be a mixed blessing for some of the more partisan South Bay types.

[coyotetrickster]

Depends how you define "central focal point". We've debated this endlessly in the past. Due to geographic limitations, San Francisco's 49 square miles can hold only so many people and almost no heavy industry. The real estate is also too pricey for even a lot of white collar functions like "back office" work. So there are two political entities in the Bay Area with more population than San Francisco: San Jose and Oakland. And most of the area's heavy industry and clerical work is done outside the city. San Jose, of course, also has its own economic focus on tech and Oakland has the area's major port facilities. But "San Francisco" is still the name known around the world--people in San Jose take it hard but it's a fact that if you tell someone in Japan or China that you live in San Jose or Oakland, you usually have to follow up with, "That's near San Francisco" to get them to understand. And San Francisco has much of the area's culture, it's higher-priced professional and managerial talent, its largest concentration of great restaurants and, frankly, its most "urban" environment.

If you are going to make comparisons with other cities, you really have to be careful. San Francisco does not compare to "NYC" but to Manhattan (to Oakland's Brooklyn) or to the heart of Boston or Chicago, not the whole town. And just as New York's football teams do not play in Manhattan (and an attempt to build a stadium for them there recently fizzled), it probably makes sense to have "San Francisco's" team play somewhere outside the actual city but hopefully connected to it by excellent mass transit: among the reasons the Raiders may become the "San Francisco" team if the 49'ers move to Santa Clara.


I offer Oakland as SF's New Jersey.

[POLA]

LA cant get a team, SF cant keep one... Lets just call them the California 49ers and we can all root for them from afar!;)

[WonderlandPark]

Fresno Fourty Niners!

3.5 hrs from LA
3 hrs from SF

[BTinSF]

Interesting:

http://www.sfgate.com/polls/2006/11/10/49ers/result.gif

[Reminiscence]

I'm glad and relieved to hear that talks are still going on. Moving the team is a double blow for people like me who are 49ers fans and who wish to see the olympics realized in SF. Now its time for Newsom and DiFi to work thier magic and negotiate a deal.

[The Agonist]

Like I wrote in another thread, it is great living in a major city with no football team. Unfortunately Santa Clara isn't far enough away and the Raiders are still too close. So SF won't be unyoked from the NFL in the foreseeable future.

[Diddle E Squat]

Maybe you didn't realize it, but hundreds of thousands of San Franciscans without cable could not receive any NBC programming for several years. That's the understandable reason why people complained.

Anyway, I guess this is just how it is.

Must be a really crappy station if their signal couldn't travel 45 miles, even with mountains involved.

[Ronin]

Like I wrote in another thread, it is great living in a major city with no football team. Unfortunately Santa Clara isn't far enough away and the Raiders are still too close. So SF won't be unyoked from the NFL in the foreseeable future.

Does having a football team effect the day to day operations of a city so much that it's even noticeable to the general public? I doubt it.

[Reminiscence]

This is turning into a surealistic nightmare for city officials.


Feinstein says she'll fight 49ers over "SF" identity

Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 09 57 AM

(11-14) 09:57 PST Washington -- California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Tuesday that if the San Francisco 49ers want to move to Silicon Valley she'll fight to prevent them from using "San Francisco'' or "49ers'' in the team name.

"When a team takes the name, and in this case the heritage, of a city it causes great consternation,'' the former San Francisco mayor said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about the anti-trust implications of the National Football League's new pay-TV package for Thursday and Saturday games.

"You can't move to Santa Clara and call yourself the 49ers,'' added Feinstein, who intervened last week after 49ers owner John York told Mayor Gavin Newsom that he was breaking off negotiations over a new stadium at Candlestick Point in favor of pursuing a possible stadium deal in Santa Clara.

Feinstein said her staff is investigating possible legislation that would prevent the team from using either San Francisco or 49ers in its name if it moves. She also wants to require the NFL, which has experienced more than a half-dozen franchise moves in the past two decades, to have more of a say in team moves. And, Feinstein added, cities should get the right to block pro teams that leave team from using their city name as part of the team's name.

Feinstein's idea faces obstacles. Southern California courts ruled against city of Anaheim when it went to court to try to block the town's major league baseball franchise from changing its name to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

And if the city is going to claim it owns the name "49ers,'' a reference to those who rushed to California to search for gold in 1849, it will have to figure out how to grandfather in others using the name. The Long Beach State 49ers has been using the name for its athletic teams for decades.

What's more, courts have ruled in cases involving Raiders owner Al Davis and his moves of his team to Los Angeles and back to Oakland that the NFL can't block teams from moving. Baseball, in contrast, which has a specific antitrust exemption, hasn't had a franchise move in three decades.

Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-S.F., has also said he is studying how to change state laws to prevent the 49ers from using San Francisco in their name if they move.

Feinstein, who persuaded Newsom and York to meet in her offices last Friday, said she still hopes the two sides can resume productive stadium negotiations. "I feel certain there is a proposal that should satisfy the 49ers,'' she said.

"I look at it as my role to keep the team in San Francisco and protect the name. I hope the NFL and the commissioner work with us,'' she added.

Feinstein's hardball move was plainly intended as a shot at the NFL, which since 1961 has enjoyed a limited anti-trust exemption giving its teams the authority to pool broadcast rights through their leagues and divide the revenue.

But the NFL's new pay-TV package has attracted the attention of Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who called Tuesday's hearing and said he doesn't see why consumers should suddenly be asked to pay to watch NFL games, which have been free for decades.

The NFL's Thursday and Saturday pay package premieres later this month.

If Congress were to object, the NFL -- which has a revenue sharing pact among its teams -- could take a financial hit. So Feinstein was implying she might try to use financial leverage to keep the 49ers in town.

[Reminiscence]

49ers insist they'll keep 'San Francisco'
City leaders upset, say the name won't move with team

Cecilia M. Vega, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

What's in a name? If you are the San Francisco 49ers, a lot, apparently.

A Super-Bowl-size battle is brewing over the fate of the team's name and whether it would still be allowed to call itself the San Francisco 49ers if it relocates to Santa Clara.

Team officials say that any move would involve bringing along the San Francisco name. But in the city by the bay, where leaders are furious over last week's surprise announcement that the 49ers want to leave their Candlestick Point home, officials already are arguing that, if the team goes, the name stays.

Legal experts, however, say that if the team moves, the chances of it being forced to become the Santa Clara 49ers, the Silicon Valley 49ers, the San Francisco 49ers of Santa Clara or any other tongue-twisting combination, are slim to none. There simply are few -- if any -- legal grounds for requiring the team to keep the San Francisco name within the city limits, they say.

"Pretty much whatever the team wants to call itself, it can," said Matt Mitten, director of Marquette University's National Sports Law Institute in Milwaukee.

If the five-time Super Bowl championship team does relocate to the South Bay, it would join a growing list of professional sports teams that play in stadiums located outside their namesake cities.

The Buffalo Bills don't play in Buffalo. The Dallas Cowboys don't play in Dallas. The New York Jets and the New York Giants don't even play in New York state -- they're in New Jersey.

In baseball, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays play in St. Petersburg, Fla., and basketball's Detroit Pistons don't play in the Motor City, but in Auburn Hills, Mich.

And the name game is hardly limited to sports teams.

Rice-A-Roni's headquarters are far from the steep hills and cable cars featured in its advertisements. The San Francisco treat is more like a Windy City treat, located all the way in Chicago.

Forty-Niners representatives are emphatic about taking the San Francisco name to Santa Clara. And, if the move happens, officials in Santa Clara also are more than happy to leave their city's name off of the team logo.

"We absolutely remain committed to the San Francisco 49ers name. We will not change our name," team spokeswoman Lisa Lang said Monday. "It's the San Francisco Bay Area. We've been the San Francisco 49ers for 60 years, and if you look at other examples it's very common now for teams to be outside of their namesake."

The team informed San Francisco officials last week of its plans to drop a $600 million-$800 million stadium proposal for Candlestick Point and instead move the development to a parking lot near Great America amusement park in Santa Clara. The 49ers have been trying to rebuild the stadium at Candlestick Point for nearly 10 years, but the team said infrastructure concerns in San Francisco made Santa Clara a more appealing location.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom disputes the team's rationale. He also contends that when it comes to the 49ers, the name is more than just a football team. He has directed city lawyers to explore whether the city can legally prevent the team from using the words "San Francisco" if it moves to a new location 45 miles south.

"The 49ers mean a lot more than just football in San Francisco," Newsom told reporters last week. "It's about the founding of our city 150 or so years ago, and what the gold rush meant and the fact that we're coincidently a 49-square-mile city. That brand is important to us."

State Assemblyman Mark Leno, who represents San Francisco, was so angered by the announcement that he is considering legislation that would ban any professional sports franchise that is not headquartered or does not play games in San Francisco from using the city's name, unless the Board of Supervisors and mayor specifically authorize it.

"There is unique cachet to 'San Francisco,' given it is voted repeatedly as the No. 1 tourist destination," Leno said. "You can't use our name if you're not in San Francisco."

Experts in the field of sports and trademark law, however, say that because the San Francisco 49ers name is owned by the team, the city has little legal control over what becomes of it. They caution that one of the few ways the city could have a legal say over the name is if the current Candlestick Point stadium lease agreement between the city and the team specifies what should happen to the team name if the 49ers leave San Francisco.

San Francisco city lawyers are reviewing that lease.

"It's up to the team what they want to do. Maybe they just want to keep the identity with fans they already have," said Paul Anderson, a professor and assistant director of the National Sports Law Institute. "It's a political decision that has nothing to do with the law."

Unlike San Francisco, many cities have urged teams to keep their names when they leave town for nearby locations, experts said. Exceptions include long distance moves such as the St. Louis Rams, who were the Los Angeles Rams before they relocated, or the Brooklyn Dodgers, which became the Los Angeles Dodgers when they moved.

In the mid-1990s, the owner of the Cleveland Browns moved his NFL franchise to Baltimore, but only after an agreement was reached whereby a new team to be established in Cleveland would keep the Browns name and colors.

More recently, the city of Anaheim waged an unsuccessful court battle to force the Major League Baseball team Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim to use the name Anaheim Angels. That fight, however, centered around whether the team violated the stadium's lease by using the Los Angeles name.

In San Diego, where the Chargers are looking to relocate to a new stadium, the mayor is pushing for the team to keep San Diego in its name if it moves from the city to another location in San Diego County.

Having the 49ers incorporate San Francisco in their name -- whether the team is located in the city or not -- ensures that the city's name will be used in radio and television advertisements and that on game days it will be broadcast in cities around the country. Images of the iconic Golden Gate Bridge or Alcatraz that now lure tourists to the area could be shown less if the team is forbidden to use the city name.

"It's still favorable to have your name in there," Marquette's Mitten said. "It's just a move outside of the city limits."

Santa Clara Vice Mayor Kevin Moore was perplexed at why San Francisco officials would want to give up the name of their team.

"What benefit is there in giving up the name of the five-time Super Bowl champions?" he asked.

Moore acknowledged that Leno and Newsom's efforts surrounding the name could be seen as steps to make moving the team unattractive to the 49ers.

"I think it's appropriate for (Newsom) to use all his power to do what he feels is right," Moore said. "But if you want to protect the name San Francisco, some of the best support he will get is from Santa Clara."

If the team wins another Super Bowl, "the parades will still be in San Francisco," Moore added.

"The New York Giants play in New Jersey, and it works very well," he said. "The New York Giants didn't sue New Jersey and put up legislation."
The out-of-towners

Here is a partial list of professional sports teams that either currently play home games in stadiums outside their namesake cities or have proposals to do so.

Detroit Pistons

Auburn Hills, Mich.

New York Jets and New York Giants

East Rutherford, N.J.

Buffalo Bills

Orchard Park, N.Y.

Washington Redskins

Landover, Md.

Oakland A's

Recently announced a proposal to play in Fremont

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim

Anaheim (Orange County)

Dallas Cowboys

Irving, Texas (with planned stadium in Arlington, Texas)

Tampa Bay Devil Rays

St. Petersburg, Fla.

Phoenix Coyotes

Glendale, Ariz.


Source: SF 49ers

[Ronin]

If anything, I would expect the opposite. Instead of SF complaining about their name being carried over, shouldn't Santa Clara/San Jose be more interested in having their own name advertised? All the other cities mentioned for comparison sake are actually smaller than the namesake they represent. Obviously, using a dinky little suburb's name is not viable. This is not the case with the South Bay as a whole.

[SoCal Alan]

What a class act Diane Feinstein is. Trying to bully the team from moving by using blackmail via her position as U.S. Senator. :shrug:

[FourOneFive]

What a class act Diane Feinstein is. Trying to bully the team from moving by using blackmail via her position as U.S. Senator. :shrug:

What do you expect? She IS a former mayor of San Francisco. She has a vested interest in the city regardless of her status as a US senator. She and the city may not be successful in keeping the "San Francisco" or "49ers" from the team, but they are sure as hell going to give them a hard time about it. I say go right ahead. The Yorks screwed with us, let's screw them back even harder.

[Ronin]

Yeah, but as a senator now, shouldn't she be looking out for the entire state of California, or at the very least, Northern California as a whole?

[urbanflyer]

^
She's also serving on the select Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security Subcommittee as well as the Senate Appropriations Committee...seems those things should take precedence as well.

[coyotetrickster]

Yeah, but as a senator now, shouldn't she be looking out for the entire state of California, or at the very least, Northern California as a whole?

Hey, she's my neighbor... She just doesn't want to drive to Santa Clara.

[Ronin]

^
She's also serving on the select Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security Subcommittee as well as the Senate Appropriations Committee...seems those things should take precedence as well.

Well, yes, but she's the one who brought up the Niners in the first place.

[J Church]

DiFi is a San Franciscan. You don't like it, feel free not to vote for her next time.

[BTinSF]

What a class act Diane Feinstein is. Trying to bully the team from moving by using blackmail via her position as U.S. Senator. :shrug:

What's a Senator for if not taking the side of her home town against a bunch of fat cats from Ohio?

[BTinSF]

DiFi is a San Franciscan. You don't like it, feel free not to vote for her next time.

Didn't you predict she wasn't running again? ;)

[sf_eddo]

SFGate.com's "Two Cents"

Should the 49ers be allowed to keep their name if they leave S.F.?
Read the story that prompted this column

Edward Bell, San Francisco
I've always considered the greater Bay Area as being "San Francisco." As long as the 49ers stay local, I think they should remain our team.

Ross Turner, Oakland
They should replace "San Francisco" with something appropriate that would be meaningful no matter what city they call home. Like "Fumble Niners" or "Slumper Niners." Maybe "Raider Niners." Something like that.

Charles Hanes, San Jose
As far as I am concerned, San Francisco can keep the name. Good luck to it ever getting another NFL franchise after losing the team to the South Bay. The team can be the "Silicon Valley Chips" or something instead.

Claire Jarkovsky, San Francisco
But of course! Having lived here for over 60 years, I love this city and love our Niners, but with all of the teams in the league playing outside of their city, what harm will come of our playing elsewhere in this area? San Francisco is name recognition. Stop making such a big deal out of everything we do and go with the flow, for heavens sakes.

Elan Lavie, San Francisco
It's pretty simple: If the team isn't in San Francisco, they aren't the San Francisco 49ers.

Dan Ryan, Brisbane
No. Why? Because they will not be in San Francisco, and they have thoroughly botched the city's efforts to attract something far more important, the Summer Olympics. Besides, would you want to root for the San Francisco 49ers of Santa Clara? Leave the name gymnastics to Angels fans.

Debi Durst, San Francisco
Absolutely not! The history, the legend, the legacy belongs to the city of San Francisco and the fans who supported them. It's like getting a divorce. You sign the papers, you live somewhere else, you don't keep the name. It's a clean break. Maybe they'll start winning more.

Tim Smith, San Francisco
I would think it would be the duty of the mayor of Santa Clara to have them call themselves the Santa Clara Whatever's to promote his city. After all, it sounds like they (or Cisco) are willing to foot the bill for their move.

Margaret Cliver, San Francisco
Absolutely not. If they think their future lies elsewhere, their name should reflect that. To keep calling themselves "San Francisco" is a further insult to the residents of Hunters Point, Bayview and environs who were told for years that they would have construction jobs and then service jobs at the celebrated new stadium and have now been cheated yet again. The team owners do not deserve to benefit from using the San Francisco name when they are not giving back to the city.

James Williams, Los Altos
Hmmm. Are the children not playing together nicely in the sand box? If the boys don't want to play in San Francisco, then they lose the name. If they want the name, they should get serious about building the stadium they so desperately seem to want.

Jack Grant, Concord
As a punishment for leaving San Francisco they should be forced to use the name "Frisco."

Dan LaFever, San Francisco
Hell no. Not only should the city name change, so should the team name. The 49ers were named after the San Francisco miners of 1849. San Francisco is 49 square miles (hence the 49-mile scenic drive). Sorry, you gotta change.

J.J. Caguin, San Francisco
The 49ers should retain their name if they remain near San Francisco. It's about branding the legacy of the team. If the law forces a name change, then the league should force other cities to comply. New Jersey Jets? New Jersey Giants? However, I do prefer they stay in San Francisco.

John Savage, San Mateo
I have zero problems with them keeping the San Francisco name. However, in light of the ownership's stated concerns, instead of the 49ers, I would suggest they hit the gridiron as the San Francisco CPAer's.

Lou Covey, Redwood City
Why is it even important? Why are elected officials focusing time and money on such an inconsequential issue? Has San Francisco resolved the homeless problem? Gang violence? This is all ridiculously petty.

Richard Deering, Daly City
If they leave San Francisco, then they can't be the San Francisco 49ers, but they can be the 49ers wherever they play. It probably won't make much sense though. And who would want to watch the Santa Clara 49ers? Has anyone outside of California ever heard of Santa Clara?

Daniel Dougan, San Francisco
The various pro teams around the country hope for fan loyalty, but where is the team loyalty to the hometown? They behave like spoiled children when they don't get what they want. Let them go, but if they are not in San Francisco, they shouldn't call themselves the San Francisco 49ers.

Jeff Hawkins, Santa Cruz
If the 49ers are going to abandon the city, then they need to abandon it both in location and name. I grew up going to Kezar to see Bob St. Clair, Leo Nomellini, and Hugh McElhenny play for San Francisco. We wouldn't have attended if they had played for any other city.

Arthur Smith, San Francisco
Absoluetly. This is the San Francisco Bay Area. Nationally, no one would care about a team from Santa Clara. Feinstein and our mayor should have focused on keeping the team here -- not some Olympics boondoggle -- and should step out of the way now that this decision has been made.

Richard Sutherland, Los Altos
Of course they should -- they own it. The "New York" teams kept their names, and they play in New Jersey, not even the same state. In the final analysis though, who cares?

Aaron Rosenthal, Oakland
Of course they should. The team owns the brand, just like Nike owns the swoosh. Not to mention all the precedents, such as the New York Giants playing in New Jersey and the Dallas Cowboys playing in Irving. If the city government is up in arms, perhaps it could pass an ordinance that teams must play in San Francisco to use the city's name.

David Ng, San Francisco
Why dump the name of a team that has won five Super Bowl championships? Don't the 49ers have the best record in the Super Bowl with no losses? And weren't the 49ers the first team to win a record five Super Bowls? They were among the best teams in the '80s and retaining their name does mean a lot, at least, for our city. And they're not even moving out of the Bay Area.

Posted By: Heidi Swillinger (Email) | Nov 14 at 12:18 PM

[Ronin]

Puahaha... look at all those snob remarks from the San Francisco people. Everyone else seems to give a reasonable answer.

[fflint]

And by "snob" you mean "not supportive of the move." Gotcha.

[SoCal Alan]

What do you expect? She IS a former mayor of San Francisco. She has a vested interest in the city regardless of her status as a US senator. She and the city may not be successful in keeping the "San Francisco" or "49ers" from the team, but they are sure as hell going to give them a hard time about it. I say go right ahead. The Yorks screwed with us, let's screw them back even harder.

I expect her to act like a US senator and not a state senator and as such, represent the state of California, not just the SF city limits. I expect her to be fair and not use her position as a US senator to "threaten" the owner of a private business via new legislation, when things don't happen to go SF's way. The right thing to do IMHO would be for her to, on her own time, assist in the negotiations between SF and the team to see what can work for them to stay in the city. 10 years is a long time to negotiate and not come out with a deal. Where was she during this time?

[sf_eddo]

Puahaha... look at all those snob remarks from the San Francisco people. Everyone else seems to give a reasonable answer.

Honestly Ronin, the snob/smug San Francisco thing is so so tired.

[BTinSF]

I expect her to act like a US senator and not a state senator and as such, represent the state of California, not just the SF city limits. I expect her to be fair and not use her position as a US senator to "threaten" the owner of a private business via new legislation, when things don't happen to go SF's way. The right thing to do IMHO would be for her to, on her own time, assist in the negotiations between SF and the team to see what can work for them to stay in the city. 10 years is a long time to negotiate and not come out with a deal. Where was she during this time?

Well, she's a San Franciscan. She's not going to be magnanimous like an Angelino. And you know what? She doesn't have to. She's rich, she's powerful and she's California's most popular politician and she can do what she wants.

But the sad thing is that she doesn't hale from a big, sprawly city with room for a football stadium and, in the end, she will face the reality of that list of cities above whose teams play somewhere out in the boondocks. A football stadium, which gets used for a few hours at a time a dozen or so times a year, just takes up too much room to be placed in a compact, dense city like San Francisco. I'd make use of the name contingent not on being IN the city but on being somewhere city residents can reach on rail mass transit: walking distance of a CalTrain or BART station. Because enough San Franciscans, even non-poor ones like me, don't have cars that putting them somewhere you can only conveniently reach by car means they are no longer San Francisco's team.

[Ronin]

Honestly Ronin, the snob/smug San Francisco thing is so so tired.

I agree with you 100%. :D

Besides, I'm not talking about whether they agree or not. Just look at the language they use. It's pretty easy to tell.

About the Feinstein thing... how about if they 49ers leave the state entirely? Would she be complaining that they left her precious little city of SF or that they left the state that she is supposed to represent? That is what I'm talking about when I say SF'ers think they are above everyone else.

[tech12]

All this talk of getting back at the 49ers by making them take up a different name upon moving, just gives them even more fuel to burn SF in my opinion...just wait until they become the SAN JOSE 49ers. We'll feel pretty stupid then, now won't we.

Not only will the 49ers be gone, but that godforsaken overgrown suburb to the south will get all the glory;)

If they're gonna move, we're all worried about them backstabbing us and still having our name. But would them becoming the Santa Clara or San Jose 49ers be better? Think about it....;)

[slock]

I think York is obviously not a very good business man. He doesn't have good negotiation tactics, and has worse timing. Unfortunately he screwed up the Olympic Bid, but it is done.

I think there should be only two options to consider:

1. Renew talks and figure out a way to make the stadium multi-purpose so it doesn't just sit idle for most of the year. Concerts, other sports, entertainment, if it's multi-use, it makes more sense. Build tons of housing, create a spur off the T for more access and connection to the Executive Park neighborhood, and have tailgating only on the top deck of the parking garage.

2. If they want to go, let them go. If they want a football only stadium, San Francisco doesn't have the land for that kind of wasted space. Housing should take its place, and don't renew the lease in '08. It was their move and that's SF's checkmate.

Under no circumstance though, should they change the name from San Francisco. It's free publicity. Their jerseys say SF, the scoreboard, in all the press it says San Francisco. That's free advertising for the City, part of our identity, and should not be acquiesed to a suburb.

[fflint]

About the Feinstein thing... how about if they 49ers leave the state entirely? Would she be complaining that they left her precious little city of SF or that they left the state that she is supposed to represent? That is what I'm talking about when I say SF'ers think they are above everyone else.
So the premise behind your conclusion San Franciscans "think they are above everyone else" is a speculative answer to a hypothetical question about one San Franciscan? Brilliant.

Let me guess--you think using true premises and sound reasoning is "snobby."

[urbanflyer]

Would she be complaining that they left her precious little city of SF or that they left the state that she is supposed to represent?

Really now...this is quite a stretch.

[BTinSF]

All this talk of getting back at the 49ers by making them take up a different name upon moving, just gives them even more fuel to burn SF in my opinion...just wait until they become the SAN JOSE 49ers. We'll feel pretty stupid then, now won't we.



Absolutely not because I think the only way that will happen is if San Jose bribes them with a great big chunk of taxpayers' money and in that case I would consider the name a badge of SHAME. I think any political entity willing to give tax dollars to the pro sports business should be ashamed.

[coyotetrickster]

Absolutely not because I think the only way that will happen is if San Jose bribes them with a great big chunk of taxpayers' money and in that case I would consider the name a badge of SHAME. I think any political entity willing to give tax dollars to the pro sports business should be ashamed.

I'm just over York. I proposed a great name earlier in this thread and think we should have a name the team ballot initiative. I mean how prestigious would it be to play for the Santa Clara Rollercoasters:-)

[Ronin]

As mentioned earlier, the only time the 49ers have anything to do with San Francisco itself is on those eight Sundays a year. Other than that, all operations are in Santa Clara, and most of the players live in the South Bay. As a matter of fact, a good chunk of them reside in everybody's favorite place, Santana Row.

[BTinSF]

John King says, "Let 'em go." Have JChurch and John been conspiring because this article reminds me of some posts here by "J"?

Note to mayor on Candlestick - cut your losses, try another plan
- John King
Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Perhaps I'm unduly influenced by memories of Thanksgiving dinner, but here's my First Rule of City Planning: Don't stuff too much into one place.

Especially if the "too much" includes a football team that has no desire to stay put.

[Podcast: C.W. Nevius and John King talk about housing in Hunters Point and more]

So here's my advice to the Newsom administration. Don't waste time trying to revive a plan for Candlestick Point that the San Francisco 49ers already have rejected. Instead, count the would-be anchor tenant's departure as a blessing -- and get serious about using 80 acres in the south corner of San Francisco to create a new neighborhood that will help revive nearby Bayview-Hunters Point.

Neighborhoods work best when they make sense, when they have an internal logic -- even if it's the crazed logic of Manhattan's verticality. That's why cramming a football stadium and parking garages alongside 6,500 housing units is not the best way to bring life to this odd but promising spit of land.

For those of you who had better things to do last Tuesday than attend the weekly meeting of the Board of Supervisors, here's what transpired: A crew representing Mayor Gavin Newsom and would-be developer Lennar Corp. unveiled the plans they've been working on for Candlestick Point.

There were watercolor images and a site plan and brave talk about starting the community review process. There'd be an expanded state park! A high-rise hotel! An indoor arena and an outdoor retail promenade! Apartments and condominiums for 12,000 residents!

Oh, and an enormous football complex discreetly tucked in back.

All of which is fine and dandy -- "utopia by the bay" is the pertinent phrase from Chronicle reporter Cecilia Vega's story -- but it felt like an exercise in either a) futility or b) finger-pointing. The reason being that two weeks earlier, 49ers co-owner John York announced that the team had decided it can't make the plan work to its satisfaction.

Which means the 49ers say they're moving to Santa Clara -- and the Newsom administration is showing off a plan it says the team should have liked.

I can understand the fury of a mayor scorned by York's last-minute "Dear Gavin" phone call. And when the 49ers pulled the plug on the stadium they also short-circuited the region's bid for the 2016 Olympics.

But that's the way it is. Which leaves Newsom with two options. Hand York his helmet as you show him the door, or find another site that suits the team's desires.

Under either scenario, the city can admit the fact everyone has chosen to ignore: It's ludicrous to try to build a fine-grained urban neighborhood around a tub-shaped behemoth. Especially one accompanied by beefy parking garages.

Sports and cities can be a good fit. The Giants' ballpark, for instance, slides comfortably between South Beach and Mission Bay. But ballparks are a lot smaller than stadiums, and fans don't turn every game into a daylong event.

Looking at the plans unveiled last Tuesday, it's as if everyone is playing a game of Hide the Elephant. The street grid for the neighborhood is arranged like a partly opened fan -- oriented toward the bay and Candlestick Point State Park and away from the stadium.

The most blatant barrier comes when the residential district nears the stadium along the water. Planners insert a canal and erect a curved mid-rise office building as a screen.

Another problem is that because of all the land needed for football and parking, everything else is jammed together with more force than imagination. There's a generic layout of dull-looking blocks, each one with heights stepping up to allow as many bay views as possible.

This is planning by economic spreadsheet. Development is layered onto the site until there's enough (theoretically) to generate the profits needed to make the stadium pencil out.

Lennar's team knows better, I'm sure, and Newsom's staff is bright. They've been working on a political problem -- keep the team here without asking the voters for $$$ -- and they've done the best they can.

When you get rid of the stadium, though, things get exciting.

Anyone who ever suffered through a night game at Candlestick Park knows this corner of San Francisco can be windswept and bleak. It's still a great location. There's a bay on three sides and a state park with a small peninsula. At the back there's even a dramatic hilltop.

You can't get more San Francisco than that.

Within this setting, you could take the amount of development that's proposed and spread it out in imaginative ways. There could be terraced condos against the hillside and single-family homes cradling part of the bay. There could be a handful of elegant towers, and environmentally friendly light industrial space to create job opportunities for the adjoining neighborhood.

All this is vague, I know. But that's how the best urban districts evolve. They start with a strong reason for being; they also have loose ends and voids where the unexpected -- and memorable -- can take root.

Back to the 49ers.

If Newsom and other San Francisco leaders see a value in keeping the team, the best location may be at the old Hunters Point Naval Shipyard: the challenge of clearing environmental detritus from part of the site becomes easier when the land is going to be used only a dozen days a year.

The challenge at Candlestick Point is to come up with a new game plan that will be one for the highlight reels. Don't dwell on a game that's already lost.

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/11/28/dd_newstadium.jpg

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/11/28/dd_stadiummarinaar.jpg

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/11/28/dd_stadiumretailma.jpg

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/11/28/dd_stadiumstadium.jpg

Place appears on Tuesdays. E-mail John King at jking@sfchronicle.com.

Page F - 1
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/28/DDGPVMKRON1.DTL

[sf_eddo]

Really don't like the renderings, looks like a 49ers-themed Bay Street or South Beach/SoMa. Blech. Why must we ALWAYS build with the same bland materials?!?! BAH!

[coyotetrickster]

Really don't like the renderings, looks like a 49ers-themed Bay Street or South Beach/SoMa. Blech. Why must we ALWAYS build with the same bland materials?!?! BAH!

Candlestick is cold. Those lame-ass canary/date palms will brown in no time. It does look like Pier 39 East... or Fisherman's Wharf II. No wonder the 49'ers bailed:haha:

[WonderlandPark]

Really don't like the renderings, looks like a 49ers-themed Bay Street or South Beach/SoMa. Blech. Why must we ALWAYS build with the same bland materials?!?! BAH!

Wow, EXACTLY what I thought when I saw the renderings. How about some vision, not a 1992 "sports" neighborhood themed version of a 49ers "neighborhood." bleh.

[twinpeaks]

the plan is better than whatever is there now. I would love to see the area devoloped and the ugly public housing replaced.

[coyotetrickster]

the plan is better than whatever is there now. I would love to see the area devoloped and the ugly public housing replaced.

It's not the redevelopment, it's the look....

[Ronin]

Haha... and you guys thought Santana Row was bad. :haha:

[coyotetrickster]

Haha... and you guys thought Santana Row was bad. :haha:


Yeah, but Santana Row is built. I don't think this will get built, not as configured.

[Ronin]

Here's another recent article from the Mercury.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/football/nfl/san_francisco_49ers/16137751.htm

Purdy: Stadium gets S.F. off high horse
By Mark Purdy
Mercury News

I suppose you would call it typical small-town behavior.

But my goodness, are the politicians in San Francisco living up to their status as representatives of the Bay Area's Second-Largest City.

And for a guy with a Santa Clara University diploma, Mayor Gavin Newsom is behaving very much like a dropout from Hissy Fit Backwater Community College.

He has been exhibiting this behavior since Nov. 9, when the 49ers revealed they were abandoning their stadium plans in San Francisco. Instead, the team said it was pursuing a site in the 408 area code, on a prime piece of Santa Clara property adjoining the Great America amusement park.

From that moment, Newsom and his staff have launched a public-relations assault to distort the fact that they basically blew it in their negotiations with the 49ers by taking the franchise for granted, reading the tea leaves wrong, and failing to return phone calls promptly.

Nope. That wasn't what happened at all. Instead, the Newsomites are claiming they were duped -- duped! -- by that well-known genius and master of savvy negotiations, 49ers owner John York.

Give me a break. If York has proved anything since taking control of the 49ers, it is that he can be maneuvered by crafty agents into signing bad contracts for mediocre players. His impulsive moves, his stilted way with words and the team's lack of recent success have made York the punching bag for every Bay Area sports fan.

Yet in the Newsomites' latest spin attempt, York is the Einstein of duplicity. This week, the San Francisco City Attorney's office released to the San Francisco Chronicle documents it had obtained through legal channels.

These documents, mostly correspondence between the 49ers and Santa Clara officials over the past few years, supposedly ``prove'' that the franchise was secretly sabotaging its discussions about the Candlestick Point stadium plan.

Oh, really? Here's my suggestion: The San Francisco folks should subscribe to the Mercury News. As far back as July, we carried stories that said the 49ers had been talking with Santa Clara about a backup stadium site. I was briefed on the whole thing last summer at 49ers headquarters. The information subsequently appeared here as well as elsewhere in this newspaper.

Did I report everything I knew? To be honest, no. More than a year ago, I became aware that San Jose was also in the potential stadium picture. In fact, one or more meetings took place between 49ers front-office personnel and some ex-officio representatives of San Jose -- former city employees or those with strong connections to those in charge.

Those talks centered on city property along Highway 237, near the sewage plant. Preliminary numbers were tossed about, to see if it would work financially. I confirmed this with 49ers executives and others familiar with the proposal. But I didn't see the point of writing about it, because nothing came of the discussions and because San Francisco was still the top choice. Plus, I figured not even the 49ers were silly enough to build a stadium near a sewage plant.

The Newsomites contend these dealings with South Bay figures, in San Jose and Santa Clara, were dishonest and unethical. As if everything in San Francisco politics is totally pristine and above-board.

Again, I have a better suggestion for our smaller neighbors to the north: Come up with a better stadium plan. You might try one that makes sense.

The San Francisco proposal, when finally revealed last week, turned out to be a bloated, unwieldy mess. It hinged, more or less, on building an entire new city of about 10,000 people on the Candlestick site. To pay for the stadium cost, the developer would need to build multiple high- to mid-rise condominiums or apartment buildings, plus numerous retail outlets.

And the football fans? On Sundays, they would have to park inside an immense garage or be bused in from remote lots along Highway 101. Not to mention that improving the access roads to the stadium would also be problematic.

The truth is, if York had announced his support for the Candlestick plan -- and said he just loved the idea of the parking garage and having his fans fight traffic to the Home Depot next door -- he would have been heaped with ridicule. I guess because Newsom has a better haircut, we are supposed to believe the Candlestick proposal was a fabulous idea.

Is the Santa Clara plan any better? Don't know yet. The plan has not been released. But the site is better. Far better. Why shouldn't the 49ers be able to examine both options?

And yet Newsom and his partner in municipal rage, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, are so insular that they actually believe the 49ers should not be allowed to take their name elsewhere. Swell. If they move to Santa Clara, we can call them the 408ers.

The Newsomites are indeed correct in one sense. In the past, some politicians have conducted behind-the-scenes negotiations with sports teams. And these secret discussions have involved stealing away a major franchise from another city, provoking anger and accusations of immoral civic behavior.

I mean, how else do you think the Giants got to San Francisco?

[J Church]

If they move to Santa Clara, we can call them the 408ers.

I like it.

[munkyman]

Wow, writers of the San Jose Mercury News really don't like San Francisco do they. They certainly seem to be enjoying the A's and the Niners making their move.

[tech12]

^yeah, their huge inferiority complex makes 'em pretty nasty, I guess.

small town-behavior eh?

Of course they parrot one of their only "Advantages" over SF. More people.:rolleyes:

[northbay420]

let the niners go. as long as the raiders stay in oakland... im :)

[sf_eddo]

Wow, writers of the San Jose Mercury News really don't like San Francisco do they. They certainly seem to be enjoying the A's and the Niners making their move.

its kind of similar to the norcal socal rivalry - norcal hates socal, socal doesn't care.

san jose hates san francisco, san francisco doesn't care.

[craeg]

Oh god the rivalry discussion.
I think the many SoCal posters on this board amply demonstrate that they could care less about San Francisco.
Having said that, that article from the merc is a bit over the top even for San Jose. They never do miss an opp to point out how small town we are.

[BTinSF]

The Mercury News obviously can't get over the fact that the 49ers want to relocate in the South Bay and still call themselves the SAN FRANCISCO 49ers because SAN FRANCISCO is the only part of the Bay Area people from other parts of the country take seriously or can find on a map.

It is not "small town" for San Franciscans like Feinstein and Newsom to flex their clout over any issue that suits them. What is small town is for the Merc to have so much trouble acknowledging where the clout lies.

[Ronin]

I think the whole thing is a joke. Purdy is an award winning journalist, so this should be taken lightly. His line about Newson getting a degree from Hissy Fit Backwater Community College is an indication of that.

[sf_eddo]

It might be a joke but it really does show how some people from the burbs, I suspect even you Ronin, might feel about San Francisco.

[WonderlandPark]

San Francisco has had soooooooo long to deal with the the Candlestick "problem." Loma Prieta was in 1989 for heaven's sake, its their own damn fault that the Niners are finally bolting.