Mayor Gavin Newsom’s plan to change the terms of the voter-approved 49ers stadium deal without the electorate’s approval is a major political mistake. Not only does Newsom’s plan reek of the “backroom deals” that he pledged to end when he became Mayor, but the public will resent using such chicanery to convey a $100 million subsidy to the 49ers billionaire owners. San Franciscans expect public input over routine building permits and stop sign changes; they will not tolerate having no say in deciding how over $100 million in public funds are spent. The Mayor’s deal with the Lennar Corp—first reported in Beyond Chron on December 20, 2005, (See “Secret 49ers-Lennar Deal Raises Troubling Questions”) also comes at a bad time for proponents of a Bayview-Hunters Point Redevelopment Area. On the eve of Board of Supervisors hearings on the issue, the changed 49ers deal supports opponents’ claims that the future of the neighborhood is being secretly decided by those outside the community.
The San Francisco Chronicle has confirmed last year’s Beyond Chron story in which we described how Mayor Newsom and the Lennar Corporation had cooked up a deal that assumed that the voter approval of the 1997 stadium/mall initiative was binding even though the project could be radically changed. While the Chronicle describes how the Mayor has asked State Senator Carole Migden to carry legislation seeking a legal opinion supporting circumvention of the voter’s will, the city could obtain the same ruling from a court without the legislation.
As I reported in December, a careful reading of the stadium/mall initiative confirms that there is no legal obstacle to Mayor Newsom changing the deal. This means that public land that was supposed to facilitate the mall will instead be used for luxury housing with an unspecified amount of retail below, a completely different concept from what a bare 50.4% of voters thought they were approving nearly a decade ago.
Despite the lack of legal obstacles, potentially insurmountable political hurdles remain. And these problems will persist so long as the Mayor denies voters the right to approve the revised plan in November.
San Franciscans have a history of rejecting public subsidies for stadiums. The only reason the 49ers deal narrowly passed was through Mayor Willie Brown using every political chit at his disposal, and by the inclusion of a shopping mall/entertainment complex that promised economic revitalization and good paying jobs for the unemployed residents of Bayview-Hunters Point.
The 49ers were still a playoff team in the mid-1990’s, having won a Super Bowl only three years before the 1997 election. Fan support for the current 49ers is at an all time low, and so long as owner John Yorke continues to spend far less than the salary cap allows, there is no way voters will give him a $100 million subsidy.
Gavin Newsom knows he can’t get the voters to subsidize a new stadium, but proceeding without voter approval will seriously damage the Mayor politically.
How is candidate Newsom going to explain to voters in 2007 why he did not trust them to vote on his new stadium plan? Will he argue that the mall/entertainment complex will still happen under the revised plan, and that it will generate even greater revenue? This could be a tough sell, since the original mall developer (the Mills Company) is out of the picture and the ability to combine upscale condos with a shopping mall and entertainment center in Bayview-Hunters Point sounds far more risky for San Francisco taxpayers than even the original deal.
Even if Newsom can convince some voters that the city is getting a better deal than under the original proposal, others will question why the Mayor wants to spend $100 million on a stadium when the money could better be used for schools, affordable housing, public transit, streets and sidewalks, park maintenance, or the rebuilding of SF General. The 1997 election was during the dot-com boom years, but even with San Francisco’s current budget surplus money is much tighter today.
And what will the Mayor tell the voters of Bayview-Hunters Point? That the shift from a mall/entertainment complex to unspecified retail below luxury housing will bring the community even greater benefits? Or will the Lennar deal be downplayed while the Mayor highlights all of the goodies coming to Bayview from the Redevelopment Agency?
Those not in San Francisco in 1997 may not realize that the entire campaign for the stadium-mall focused on the latter’s role in the economic revival of the city’s largest African-American neighborhood. Under the Newsom-Lennar plan, market-rate housing, not retail, will be the driving force behind the project, and the number of young people getting decent paying jobs in retail establishments remains unclear.
Lennar’s current deal with the Redevelopment Agency for housing at the Naval Shipyard will result in 80% of the units selling at market rates. Lennar’s new venture will further speed up the area’s gentrification.
Only a tiny fraction of 49er season ticket holders are San Francisco residents. The Mayor will have a fun time on the 2007 campaign trail explaining why San Francisco taxpayers are subsidizing wealthy non-residents for at most 12 days a year while city schools are being closed and families live in shelters, SRO’s and overcrowded apartments.
And how will the Mayor explain how Lennar was chosen to develop the site? Was there a public RFP issued with their bid being the best? Or was this the type of insider deal that Willie Brown was regularly criticized for, and that Newsom pledged to avoid?
The Newsom-Lennar plan is another example of how land use decisions in Bayview-Hunters Point are made without resident input or even their knowledge. With much of the neighborhood likely to be placed under Redevelopment Agency control, Bayview residents will soon have little role in shaping future land use decisions in the community.
In the city’s predominately white or Asian neighborhoods, even the addition of a stoplight is subject to multiple public hearings. But in Bayview-Hunters Point, the residents whose votes provided the victory margin for one proposal will now be denied the opportunity to vote on the plan that will actually be built.
So much for elections reflecting the people’s will.
Send feedback to rshaw@beyondchron.org
