The proposed $1.1 billion 49ers stadium in Santa Clara is bizarrely designed, undersized and grossly lacks parking. It is far from real transit, and weeknight games would be banned. Season ticket holders can help stop this foolish venture by refusing to purchase expensive seat licenses and communicating their displeasure to 49ers ownership and the National Football League.
A hefty majority of 49ers season ticket holders reside north of Santa Clara County’s northern border and are a full hour farther away by car from Santa Clara than from San Francisco. San Francisco has presented a plan to provide the needed funding to build a privately financed, all-weather facility at the fully entitled stadium site at Hunters Point.
This facility, because of its middle Bay location in San Francisco, would add over $150 million more in value to an NFL team than would a new stadium south of the population mass and with no view or cachet. San Francisco’s stadium plan is moving forward regardless of what transpires in Santa Clara.
Fortunately, San Francisco interests continue working to move forward on the Hunters Point stadium plan regardless of what transpires in Santa Clara.
Michael Antonini, San Francisco
Prop. G is Muni’s problem
Your Sunday editorial was right about the problematic work orders billed to Muni by other city departments. Muni was not created to fund the rest of The City. Those work orders are just a backdoor way to do that.
You were also right about the $90 million cost overruns. Muni lies about how much a project will cost, fearing that it wouldn’t get approved if they gave the true price.
However, you don’t seem to recognize that the reason for high overtime costs is not enough operators. The alternative to overtime is missed runs.
And you are mistaken about our work rules. Proposition G gutted them, so work rules can’t possibly be the problem. Prop. G was supposed to save money, but where are the savings? Supervisor Sean Elsbernd lied to you and the public. Prop. G was simply about hurting us TWU 250A members.
Michael J. Benardo, San Francisco
Don’t coddle the left
What has impressed me so much about the San Francisco Examiner over the past seven years that I have been a daily reader and routine letter submitter is its openness to voice the views and opinions of both sides on most all issues. Unlike The City’s other daily, this newspaper has proven to be a true public forum in its editorials and balanced approach to printing reader opinions and thoughts.
I shoot from the right, but I enjoy the way my concerns are allowed to be challenged so quickly by letter-writers on the left. If the new management of this great publication should now choose to coddle and cater to only the Bay Area’s liberal left crowd, it would be not only a journalistic travesty, but a disservice of monumental proportion to the people of San Francisco as well.
Barry Bradley, San Francisco
Reserving judgment on Ex
Regarding all the cheering on this page, apparently there are high hopes for the new San Francisco Examiner. However that sorts out, San Francisco’s right-wing wicked witch is dead. Shame be gone and ideology be denied — “thoughtful opinion” shall have the day.
Of course, hereabouts there are plenty who think that “businesses tend to hoard assets” while “governments and banks seem to be hell-bent on destroying workers’ buying power.”
I will stay my opinion of the new San Francisco Examiner and await developments. No need to give prejudice quick sway.
Paul Burton, San Francisco