Over the last 65 years, the area on the southeast corner of San Francisco has transitioned from a cold and foggy pastoral shoreline of little distinction and even less interest to become the focus of one of the hottest land use battles of our times. Controversial decisions that placed a stadium at Candlestick Point matured into a running contest to fund maintenance and improvements, culminating in on again off again efforts to abandon the facility for new quarters to house San Francisco's major league sports teams. This paper will examine the land use history of Candlestick Point and focus on the decision by San Francisco voters in 1997 to permit and pay for a new stadium/mega-mall to replace the current stadium. The name of the area came from the days of the early settlers. "When wooden ships were burned off the point, the last part sinking into the water resembled a candlestick ." The more common and less romantic version is that the point was named after the candlestick bird, a type of wading curlew about the size of a chicken and renown for it's delicious meat. Since they were nearly hunted to extinction by the 1950s , the first use of this land obviously was as a hunting ground. The U.S. Navy expanded Candlestick Point to build a shipyard during World War II by filling in 170 acres of San Francisco Bay. Following the war, the landfill remained without a purpose until local residents decided it would serve very well as an unofficial garbage dump . News photos from the 50's show a bleak landscape and the stories describe the "Big Smell" of not only the rotting garbage but also of raw sewage discharged into the bay from nearby Bayview and the Brisbane sewers . On this site, it was decided that the taxpayers would invest to bring major league baseball to San Francisco. Something has smelled fishy ever since. The Giants were lured away from New York when Mayor Robert Wagner opposed public funding for a new stadium saying, "If we begin to subsidize baseball teams, all sorts of business enterprises would demand the same things…They have to carry their own weight . The economic climate in California was bolder. Candlestick Park was one of the first publicly financed sports facilities since the boom in popularity and profitability of professional sports in the 50's. San Francisco Mayor George Christopher used a $5 million bond already approved to build a 45,000-seat stadium with 12,000 parking spaces with a final cost of $11 M . A grand jury investigation ensued as the relationship between the mayor's office and the contractor, Charles Harney, resulted in what was broadly seen as a sweetheart deal. Harney received favorable financial arrangements and also owned most of the land in the vacinity of the project . Though the jury did not indict, why that piece of land was chosen for baseball remained controversial. In the opening season of 1960, attorney Melvin Belli successfully sued for a refund of the cost of his season tickets after proving that Candlestick Park was colder than the average temperature of Anchorage, Alaska on some nights . Improvements to Candlestick Park have been made seasonally but the emphasis has been on luxury items such as box seats to improve the comfort of the wealthier patrons even though it is funded through the Parks and Recreation Department. In fact, in the early 60's a campaign was created to improve public support for these projects. One news photos from that time shows a curvy young blond woman showing lots of leg and holding a large splinter from the unpainted seats. "Save Our Stockings" was a project that painted box seats and, eventually, used much publicized "workreation" workers, summer jobs for young men . In 1969 a major renovation was made to expand seating and accommodate the 49ers football team, resulting in the present, closed shape. Then, in 1973, the state legislature set aside $10 million to purchase the land around the stadium, creating the first urban state recreation area in 1977 . By the mid 80's the weather and upkeep of Candlestick had prompted the team owners to talk of moving to another city. Fans and the pro-growth sector took the threat seriously. In November 1987, San Francisco voters narrowly defeated "Proposition W," which would have built a new downtown stadium at Seventh and Townsend streets. Giants owner Bob Lurie told reporters he would move the team. He didn't. Two years later, in November 1989, the city's voters again said no to a ballpark proposal by a narrow margin of less than 2,000 votes. "Proposition P" would have approved a $115 M stadium in China Basin. On the same ballot, though, the electorate did approve "Proposition V," which urged the city to renovate Candlestick Park . This is noteworthy because the Loma Prieta earthquake, which struck during the World Series, preceded the vote. If there had not been so much obvious damage to spend money on and if Candlestick had not survived so well, it is possible that the public would have passed "Proposition P." Yet, when San Franciscans were polled on the Giants' future in 1991, only 25.4% said, "build a new stadium" while 50.2% said "improve Candlestick Park" and 16.5% said "let the Giants leave." It is also worthy to note that on March 26, 1996 the public did approve "Proposition B' to allow the Giants to build a new ballpark at China Basin with their own money and leasing the land at fair market rate. This measure won overwhelming support with only small objections based on concerns about the costs to the City for infrastructure, land preparation and traffic congestion . The public was willing to make an investment in civic pride and able to ignore the less obvious but very real costs associated with the land use and tax incentives. With the Giants destiny determined, the focus at Candlestick became football and the 49ers. Starting in 1994, Mayor Frank Jordan promised to bring the 1999 Super Bowl to San Francisco through improvements to the stadium. "City officials contend the $26 M price tag is a relative bargain and the improvements won't require the use of any extra money from the General Revenue Fund. " This was misleading to the public since $6 M of that money was coming from the Park and Recreation Department budget. The design contract went to a company partially owned by Jack DeBartolo, a cousin of 49ers owner Eddie DeBartolo. The Board of Supervisors was left out of the process and they protested. Said Supervisor Terrance Hallinan, "They say the Super Bowl will bring all this money to the City economy, but if that's going to mean major cuts in City services, I don't want to do that." Supervisor Tom Hsieh argued that this is merely a money game because hotel tax funds would have to be taken from other City programs to repay the bonds. That financial plan cannot rip off other services. " Super Bowl XXXIII was held in Miami in 1999. The Super Bowl was offered to San Francisco again like a carrot. This time for 2002. The NFL's main requirement was a new stadium. A development group formed by 49ers owner Eddie DeBartolo and supported by Mayor Willie Brown proposed an ambitious project to build a combination stadium/shopping complex that would link jobs to free land and $100 M in public funding. "Propositions F and D" were placed on the ballot of a special election held June 3, 1997 in San Francisco. The first one sought approval to rezone the park to permit construction of a shopping and entertainment center -- the proposed mega-mall-, change height restrictions, drop competitive bidding requirements and give the Board of Supervisors freedom to change the measure at will in the future. The second asked voters to shell out $100 million to help pay for the project and bind the 49ers to San Francisco for the duration of the loan. Proponents of the measures, employing the slogan "Build the stadium - create the jobs," crossed a wide spectrum of public employees and elected officials, the Chamber of Commerce and the usual proponents of growth. Additionally, some community leaders and activists in the depressed Bayview-Hunters Point district supported the effort for the promised 10,000 jobs and $12 M for low cost housing they so desperately need. "A Committee to Develop and Build a New Stadium for the 49ers and Create jobs and Economic Opportunity for Bayview-Hunters Point" spent $2 M on the campaign. DeBartolo's three daughters alone contributed a total of $700,000 . The committee ran 38 Paid Arguments in Favor of Proposition D and 26 Arguments in Favor of Proposition F in the Voter Information Pamphlet of June 3, 1997. The subsidized groups ranging from "Members of Congress", to "Bayview Residents United for the Stadium and Economic Development" to "Parents." They spoke of the benefits the deal would bring, jobs for Hunters Point, jobs for General Assistance recipients, a welfare to work program, $300 M in economic benefits during Super Bowl week, $3 M for BART and other public transportation, $600,000 for high school sports, housing for people with AIDS, women and the homeless, guaranteed continuation of the Crippled Children's Society, an economic boom of at least $400 M per year, and of course, civic pride in having the best stadium for the best team in the best town. All this and at no cost to the taxpayers. The opponents of these measures sought to expose the hidden costs and the full impact of the development as well as point out the realities of the deal. Stadium critics such as state senator Quentin Kopp doubted that the last-minute modifications to the deal would be enough to overcome the proposal's inherent flaws. "There's a fundamental premise in governmental affairs that rights and duties are specifically defined within the ballot measure, not by some subsequent agreement that's come up with by a mayor and the owner of a football team. If the 49ers want to do business that way with private investors, that's fine, and their problem. But this is an outrageous, unprecedented deal that gives away 200 acres of San Francisco land, leaves the city open to limitless investment liability and other costs, and does it all without development agreements, competitive bidding, or any other safeguard of the public interest."He further pointed out that the deal provides no restrictions on construction costs except that the City pays 20% of ultimate costs; the public had been mislead by the Controller who project cost of only $80 M in bonds instead of the $100 M up for approval; the full cost of debt service would be over $223 M; the terms and conditions of the bonds have not been made public; there would be over $2 M in annual operations and maintenance costs. In addition, "only 14-15% of the season ticket holders are San Franciscans ." Some opponents pointed out the vast expenditures for luxury items, "some of the richest men in America threaten to leave if we don't but them a sports palace chock-a-block with luxury-boxes average tax-payers will never see the inside of ." Environmental showed concern for the loss of parkland, increased pollution and traffic associated with the huge mall, which would be far from regular public transit lines. Small business owners voiced concerns that existing retail businesses in the vacinity would be hurt. That concern is shared by some local community leaders who see the mall as a boondoggle that will take development funds away from the established community along Third Street. The opposition had only $100,000 to fund their campaign. The campaign was emotionally charged and the vote was decided in favor of both propositions by less than 1 percent. This was hotly contested as election irregularities were widely reported and criminal activities were charged, including intimidation of voters and extended polling in poor black areas likely to vote for the Propositions. Compilations of reports and articles pertaining to the election are available but are not the matter of this discussion . The political, social and economic issues of major league sports facilities, especially publicly funded ones, are complex and confusing. Proponents of growth at any cost sought to further obscure the facts with emotionally charged rhetoric and slogans such as "Build the stadium - create the jobs." The result is that the public is asked to appropriate huge sums of money from other programs and services to create profits for private industry without even hearing the alternatives. The promise of jobs and economic boom is an illusion. Studies point out that "sports account for negligible increases in net new spending and new jobs " for several reasons. First, economic activity is merely realigned rather than created. Second, most of the money is earned by the owners, people in broadcast, players and other people in a national labor market who spend the money in other places. Third, replacing sports facilities rather than initiating a new one, does not produce more jobs once construction has ended since the jobs already existed. Fourth, in a setting of a multitude of sports facilities, the economic good fortune of one might be at the loss of the other. In the case of the mega-mall, the benefit to San Francisco would only be through the redirection of consumers from other municipalities. And finally, if the sports facility is isolated or surrounded by a sea of asphalt, the economic benefit to the surrounding community is mitigated by the difficulty in egress. Andrew Zimbalist, a Smith College economist and the author of "Baseball and Billions," said a stadium generates crucial revenues for a professional sports franchise. "It's much more profitable to have a good stadium than to have a good team ." The revenue generated at the stadium, including the money from luxury boxes, goes to the 49ers, which shares much of its other revenue with other teams in the NFL. The 49ers stadium plan is on hold. There are still no guarantees that the complex will ever be built. The $325 M projected costs have soared to $500 M and new on- and off-ramps from Highway 101 and other roads at the Candlestick Point costing tens of millions of dollars would redirect state transportation funds from other local projects . In addition, on October 8, 1998 Eddie DeBartolo plead guilty to a felony related to the development of gambling facilities in Louisiana, was suspended for 1 year from the NFL and then sold off his share of the 49ers to settle a dispute with his sister, Denise DeBartolo York . Will San Franciscans pony up even more to speed a replacement for 3Com even though the 49ers lease isn't up until 2006? The issue of land use is a highly complicated one. In the case of Candlestick Point, the information to make a sound decision was not even made public. The issue is of civic pride, for notoriety through professional sports, overshadows the reality that Candlestick Point is the coldest, wettest, windiest and most isolated area of the City and that the economic benefits will be spread disproportionally to the wealthy. "Getting the public to believe it's not going to cost any money out of its pockets is a fool's errand," said Assemblyman Don Perata, D-Oakland, who still carries the bruises of the deal that brought the Raiders back to Oakland . With "Propositions D and F" the fool's errand was slightly more than 50% accomplished. 1. Bob Andelman. Do You Know the Way to San Jose? <http://www.andelman.com/sfr/sfr-ch23a.html> Apr. 28, 2002 2. California State Parks. Candlestick Point State Recreation Area. <http://cal-parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=519> Apr. 23, 2002 3. Chris Mortensen. Sources: DeBartolo joins group seeking Bucs. ESPN. <http://espn.go.com/chrismortensen/S/2001/0123/1035559.html> Apr. 24, 2002 4. C.W. Nevins. Warm Spot in Fan's Hearts. San Francisco Chronicle. Pg. 9. Sept. 30, 1999 5. Dennis J. Opatrny and Eric Brazil. 49ers Kick Off Stadium Plan: 75,000-Seat Stadium Cornerstone Of $525 Million Sports Complex In Hunters Point. San Francisco Examiner. Jun 1997 6. Election Fraud. <http://brasscheck.com/stadium/> Apr. 17, 2002 7. Erin McCormick. Super Bowl at 'Stick Runs Afoul of Supervisors. San Francisco Examiner. Feb. 8, 1995 8. Ira Miller. Jordan's Super Bowl Promise. San Francisco Chronicle. Oct. 21, 1994 pg. A1 9. Munsey & Suppes. Candlestick Park. Feb. 2002 <http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/national/3compk.htm> Apr. 23, 2002 10. News-Call Bulletin photos. July 12, 1962, Feb. 16, 1964, July 21, 1964 11. Office of the Registrar of Voters. City and County of San Francisco. Voter Registration Pamphlet. Mar. 26, 1996. 12. Office of the Registrar of Voters. City and County of San Francisco. Voter Registration Pamphlet. June 3, 1997. 13. Robert A. Baade and Allen R. Sanderson. The Employment Effect of Teams and Sports Facilities. From Sports, jobs and Taxes, pg. 93 14. S.J. Augustini, et al. -Stickball in San Francisco. pg. 387. Robert G. Noll and Andrew Zimbalist Sports, Jobs and Taxes. Brookings Intitution Press. Washington D.C. 1997. 15. Staff. A Stench at Candlestick. News-Call Bulletin. Feb. 2, 1962. 16. Staff. Niner nightmare: Will bad press over Davis hurt stadium push? San Francisco Bay Guardian. May 7, 1997. 17. Wildernet Candlestick Point State Recreation Area. <http://www.wildernet.com/pages/area.cfm?areaID=CASPCANTPTRA&CU_ID=1> Apr. 23, 2002 |