http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/09/SPCM1DSAN3.DTL
49ERS STADIUM
Yorks celebrate first win of 2010
David White, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
No one doused 49ers President Jed York with a bucket of Gatorade, but Measure J supporters celebrated an election victory just the same.
The York family arrived at the American Legion Post hall in Santa Clara to a live band and a cheering crowd, there to count down the clock to what became a victory for an initiative that will help fund a football stadium in Santa Clara.
Early results had the measure getting 61 percent of the vote. With the measure passing, York believes the 49ers will be in their South Bay home four NFL seasons from now.
"It looks good," York said Tuesday night. "This is a big step. ... We look to be playing football in a new stadium in 2014."
York, of course, was beaming in his suit and tie as he was surrounded by Measure J volunteers in their blue T-shirts. The nervous part was waiting at his office in team headquarters for the early results to post.
When the 61 percent numbers showed, York might as well have found a football to spike.
"I was kind of waiting on pins and needles, waiting for the score," York said. "It's not playing a game where it happens one by one. When it comes in, it's a pretty exciting moment."
This isn't the first time the 49ers have won a stadium ballot initiative. They pulled out a victory in San Francisco in 1997, when York was in high school and his uncle, Eddie DeBartolo Jr., ran the team.
That project never got off the ground. York said this time will be different.
"I think the difference is we've done a lot of work leading up to this, 3 1/2 years of work making sure we had a feasible project we could take to the voters," York said. "We put together a deal that was good for the city and good for the 49ers."
York said "absolutely" when asked if the 49ers will be able to come up with their significant end of the deal of a stadium that could cost at least $1 billion.
York believes the NFL will help the 49ers finance the stadium with a loan program as part of the new collective bargaining agreement. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell visited with Santa Clara officials last month to express his support for the measure.
However, York said the 49ers are not interested in taking on additional investors to help complete the project.
For now, there are deals to finalize, naming rights to sell, and there is ground to break. Those are all matters for another night. Tuesday was about enjoying the franchise's first victory of the year.
York made the media rounds as his father, John York, shook hands with supporters who turned the hall into an indoor tailgating party.
"It feels great," Jed York said.
E-mail David White at dwhite@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page B - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Showing posts with label Santa Clara. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Santa Clara. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Santa Clara County says no to fast-food toys
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/27/MNLA1D5QFV.DTL
Santa Clara County says no to fast-food toys
Justin Berton, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
No toy for you, Junior.
Not if you live in unincorporated Santa Clara County, where the Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to ban restaurants from giving away toys with children's meals that exceed set levels of calories, fat, salt and sugar.
The ordinance, which the board passed by a 3-2 vote, is believed to be the first of its kind in the nation. The target is the fast-food industry and what critics call its practice of marketing unhealthful food to children and fueling an epidemic of obesity among the young.
"This ordinance breaks the link between unhealthy food and prizes," said the law's author, Supervisor Ken Yeager. "Obviously, toys in and of themselves do not make children obese. But it is unfair to parents and children to use toys to capture the tastes of children when they are young and get them hooked on eating high-sugar, high-fat foods early in life."
$1,000 fine for violations
Representatives for the California Restaurant Association, whose members include chains that opposed the ordinance, have 90 days to offer an alternative to the legislation. Violations under the version the board approved Tuesday would be punishable by fines of as much as $1,000 for each meal sold with a toy.
Yeager said he hopes the law will inspire cities and counties across the country to follow suit like "ripples that create a wave."
The law bans toy giveaways in children's meals that contain more than 485 calories, derive more than 35 percent of their calories from fat or 10 percent from added sweeteners, or have more than 600 mg of sodium. The totals are based on children's health standards set by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Of the 151 restaurants in unincorporated Santa Clara County that are covered by the law, a dozen are part of fast-food chains that offer children's meals.
The county was among the first in the nation two years ago to require restaurants to display nutritional values on menus, legislation that has since been adopted by other jurisdictions, said Miguel Marquez, acting county counsel.
Marquez said his office has been contacted by officials from Orange County, Chicago and New York City about Yeager's toys ordinance. In San Francisco on Tuesday, Supervisor Eric Mar asked the city attorney to draft legislation similar to Santa Clara County's law.
"Just as with menu labeling, this is clearly within our authority," Marquez said. "We're on firm legal ground here."
Marquez said enforcement will be the job of county public health inspectors.
Possibility of alternative
Members of the California Restaurant Association were unsure if they will offer an alternative to the ordinance, said Amalia Chamorro, the association's director of governmental affairs.
"If the point is to get a dialogue going with the industry about health, that dialogue is already ongoing," Chamorro said. "If the point is to solve childhood obesity, taking away a toy isn't going to help."
Chamorro said her members will "obey the laws of the land," but she said she feared the new ordinance could unintentionally punish all child-friendly restaurants. "Where does it stop? Restaurants that offer crayons and coloring books?"
At least one parent, interviewed at a Burger King on Race Street and West San Carlos in an unincorporated area near San Jose, agreed with the restaurant group that the law amounted to government overreaching.
"I don't need politicians to tell me what I can and can't buy for my kid," said Chris Mackey, who bought his daughter, Cattie, a Kids Meal that included an "Iron Man 2" action figure. "We don't come in here every day, and I don't associate giving my daughter a toy with giving her bad food. This is a private matter between me and my child."
Mixed reactions to law
But Chris Markato of San Jose, 18, who said he sometimes buys children's meals for the smaller portions and value, said the law sounded like a good idea. "It's kind of sad when you see really big kids," he said. "They probably shouldn't eat so much sugar."
The supervisors suggested that Chamorro's restaurant group come back to the county with a plan that promotes more healthful food choices to keep the toys.
Supervisor Don Gage, who voted against the ordinance, said he would rather see county funding go toward teaching parents how to buy and prepare more healthful foods.
"If we're going to attack the problem, we need to do it with education of parents, not by taking a toy away from the kids," Gage said. "I agree obesity is a major problem, but it's not a 3-year-old who's buying the meals."
Kids' food freebies
A new Santa Clara County law bans restaurants from giving away toys with children's meals under these conditions:
Calories: A meal has more than 485 calories, a single food item has more than 200 calories, or a drink has more than 120 calories.
Salt: The meal has more than 600 mg of sodium, or a single food item more than 480 mg.
Fat: More than 35 percent of a meal's calories comes from fat.
Sugar: More than 10 percent of a meal's calories comes from added sweeteners.
E-mail Justin Berton at jberton@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Santa Clara County says no to fast-food toys
Justin Berton, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
No toy for you, Junior.
Not if you live in unincorporated Santa Clara County, where the Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to ban restaurants from giving away toys with children's meals that exceed set levels of calories, fat, salt and sugar.
The ordinance, which the board passed by a 3-2 vote, is believed to be the first of its kind in the nation. The target is the fast-food industry and what critics call its practice of marketing unhealthful food to children and fueling an epidemic of obesity among the young.
"This ordinance breaks the link between unhealthy food and prizes," said the law's author, Supervisor Ken Yeager. "Obviously, toys in and of themselves do not make children obese. But it is unfair to parents and children to use toys to capture the tastes of children when they are young and get them hooked on eating high-sugar, high-fat foods early in life."
$1,000 fine for violations
Representatives for the California Restaurant Association, whose members include chains that opposed the ordinance, have 90 days to offer an alternative to the legislation. Violations under the version the board approved Tuesday would be punishable by fines of as much as $1,000 for each meal sold with a toy.
Yeager said he hopes the law will inspire cities and counties across the country to follow suit like "ripples that create a wave."
The law bans toy giveaways in children's meals that contain more than 485 calories, derive more than 35 percent of their calories from fat or 10 percent from added sweeteners, or have more than 600 mg of sodium. The totals are based on children's health standards set by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Of the 151 restaurants in unincorporated Santa Clara County that are covered by the law, a dozen are part of fast-food chains that offer children's meals.
The county was among the first in the nation two years ago to require restaurants to display nutritional values on menus, legislation that has since been adopted by other jurisdictions, said Miguel Marquez, acting county counsel.
Marquez said his office has been contacted by officials from Orange County, Chicago and New York City about Yeager's toys ordinance. In San Francisco on Tuesday, Supervisor Eric Mar asked the city attorney to draft legislation similar to Santa Clara County's law.
"Just as with menu labeling, this is clearly within our authority," Marquez said. "We're on firm legal ground here."
Marquez said enforcement will be the job of county public health inspectors.
Possibility of alternative
Members of the California Restaurant Association were unsure if they will offer an alternative to the ordinance, said Amalia Chamorro, the association's director of governmental affairs.
"If the point is to get a dialogue going with the industry about health, that dialogue is already ongoing," Chamorro said. "If the point is to solve childhood obesity, taking away a toy isn't going to help."
Chamorro said her members will "obey the laws of the land," but she said she feared the new ordinance could unintentionally punish all child-friendly restaurants. "Where does it stop? Restaurants that offer crayons and coloring books?"
At least one parent, interviewed at a Burger King on Race Street and West San Carlos in an unincorporated area near San Jose, agreed with the restaurant group that the law amounted to government overreaching.
"I don't need politicians to tell me what I can and can't buy for my kid," said Chris Mackey, who bought his daughter, Cattie, a Kids Meal that included an "Iron Man 2" action figure. "We don't come in here every day, and I don't associate giving my daughter a toy with giving her bad food. This is a private matter between me and my child."
Mixed reactions to law
But Chris Markato of San Jose, 18, who said he sometimes buys children's meals for the smaller portions and value, said the law sounded like a good idea. "It's kind of sad when you see really big kids," he said. "They probably shouldn't eat so much sugar."
The supervisors suggested that Chamorro's restaurant group come back to the county with a plan that promotes more healthful food choices to keep the toys.
Supervisor Don Gage, who voted against the ordinance, said he would rather see county funding go toward teaching parents how to buy and prepare more healthful foods.
"If we're going to attack the problem, we need to do it with education of parents, not by taking a toy away from the kids," Gage said. "I agree obesity is a major problem, but it's not a 3-year-old who's buying the meals."
Kids' food freebies
A new Santa Clara County law bans restaurants from giving away toys with children's meals under these conditions:
Calories: A meal has more than 485 calories, a single food item has more than 200 calories, or a drink has more than 120 calories.
Salt: The meal has more than 600 mg of sodium, or a single food item more than 480 mg.
Fat: More than 35 percent of a meal's calories comes from fat.
Sugar: More than 10 percent of a meal's calories comes from added sweeteners.
E-mail Justin Berton at jberton@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Friday, March 14, 2008
Home Prices Plunge Across California
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080313/california_homes_prices.html
Home Prices Plunge Across California
California Median Home Prices, Sales Plunge in February
Thursday March 13, 2008
By Alex Veiga, AP Business Writer
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Median home prices plunged in many of California's most populous counties in February, with Southern California leading the slide with an overall drop of 17.9 percent compared to a year earlier, according to new housing data released Thursday.
The drops reflect a deepening housing crisis in the state, which saw home values soar during the housing boom then decline sharply in most areas.
Median home prices fell this year in 15 major counties, DataQuick Information Systems said.
The median price in a six-county area of Southern California fell to $408,000 -- the lowest level since October 2004, when it was $402,500. That median is 19.2 percent below the region's peak price of $505,000 last summer, and it's 1.7 percent below January's median, the firm said.
In the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area, the median price fell 11.6 percent to $548,000 compared to a year earlier and 17.6 percent from the region's peak median price of $665,000 last summer. Bay Area prices were essentially flat from January.
Home sales volume also kept sliding last month.
Sales fell 39 percent from a year earlier in Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties. In all, 10,777 homes were sold in February in those six counties, up 8 percent from January, DataQuick said.
Southern California's home sales volume has hit new lows every month since September.
The nine San Francisco area counties saw a similar slowdown, as sales dropped 36.7 percent last month from February 2007.
Some 3,989 homes were sold in San Francisco, Marin, San Mateo, Napa, Alameda, Sonoma, Contra Costa, Santa Clara and Solano counties. That was up 11.2 percent from January.
Even as prices fall, buyers remain slow to dive into the market, with many waiting for prices to fall further.
Others have been unable to find affordable financing because lenders stung by soaring mortgage defaults and foreclosures have cut back on the easy lending that helped propel the housing boom.
The dynamic has worsened the prospects for many homeowners desperate to sell as falling home values drain their equity.
Statewide figures were expected later Thursday.
Home Prices Plunge Across California
California Median Home Prices, Sales Plunge in February
Thursday March 13, 2008
By Alex Veiga, AP Business Writer
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Median home prices plunged in many of California's most populous counties in February, with Southern California leading the slide with an overall drop of 17.9 percent compared to a year earlier, according to new housing data released Thursday.
The drops reflect a deepening housing crisis in the state, which saw home values soar during the housing boom then decline sharply in most areas.
Median home prices fell this year in 15 major counties, DataQuick Information Systems said.
The median price in a six-county area of Southern California fell to $408,000 -- the lowest level since October 2004, when it was $402,500. That median is 19.2 percent below the region's peak price of $505,000 last summer, and it's 1.7 percent below January's median, the firm said.
In the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area, the median price fell 11.6 percent to $548,000 compared to a year earlier and 17.6 percent from the region's peak median price of $665,000 last summer. Bay Area prices were essentially flat from January.
Home sales volume also kept sliding last month.
Sales fell 39 percent from a year earlier in Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties. In all, 10,777 homes were sold in February in those six counties, up 8 percent from January, DataQuick said.
Southern California's home sales volume has hit new lows every month since September.
The nine San Francisco area counties saw a similar slowdown, as sales dropped 36.7 percent last month from February 2007.
Some 3,989 homes were sold in San Francisco, Marin, San Mateo, Napa, Alameda, Sonoma, Contra Costa, Santa Clara and Solano counties. That was up 11.2 percent from January.
Even as prices fall, buyers remain slow to dive into the market, with many waiting for prices to fall further.
Others have been unable to find affordable financing because lenders stung by soaring mortgage defaults and foreclosures have cut back on the easy lending that helped propel the housing boom.
The dynamic has worsened the prospects for many homeowners desperate to sell as falling home values drain their equity.
Statewide figures were expected later Thursday.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Great America owner says 'no' to Niners stadium
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/09/BA9KSNDN3.DTL&tsp=1
Great America owner says 'no' to Niners stadium in Santa Clara
Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
(10-09) SANTA CLARA - If the San Francisco 49ers want to move to Santa Clara, they may have to buy the Great America amusement park as well.
Cedar Fair Corp., which operates Great America - and whose main parking lot the Niners have been eyeing for their dream stadium - has told team officials that they oppose the $853 million project, the 49ers said today.
The company said that once before, then backed off its opposition. This time, however, it's official.
Cedar Fair is preparing to issue a statement Wednesday saying it has concluded, after months of study, that the 49ers' plan to build a 68,000-seat stadium east of Highway 101 won't work for Great America because of the loss of parking, traffic disruptions and the overall negative impact on theme park customers.
Officials in Santa Clara, which collects $5.3 million a year in revenue from Great America, say they consider Cedar Fair's support of the stadium essential for the deal to go forward. The company's plan to announce its opposition came as news to City Hall, where officials said Cedar Fair was continuing to negotiate with Santa Clara as late as today.
"Cedar Fair would need to cooperate with the proposal," Assistant City Manager Carol McCarthy said. "The land is leased to them."
The question is whether Cedar Fair's latest pronouncement is meant as a deal killer, or just the start of intensive negotiations to force the 49ers to buy the amusement park, whose assessed value last year was $114 million.
Cedar Fair wasn't doing much today to clear up the question - company representatives declined to elaborate in advance of Wednesday's announcement.
Team spokeswoman Lisa Lang noted that Cedar Fair has been "flip-flopping" on the stadium - first backing the idea, then saying it was against it, then taking a neutral stance before going negative again - and that the company's real goal may be to sell Great America.
In fact, Lang said, company officials broached the subject with the Niners during recent negotiations. Team officials believe that by announcing its opposition to the stadium deal, Cedar Fair may be looking to drive a harder bargain.
The 49ers, desperate to escape Candlestick Point by the 2012 season, aren't ruling out a Great America purchase.
"It's not how we approached this project originally, but if it's something we need to consider to move this project forward, we will consider it," Lang said.
Lang said the team is also willing to consider other options - including moving the stadium to a 17-acre parking lot just east of the current proposed site. Great America uses that lot for overflow parking.
That plan, however, is less attractive to the Niners because the stadium and its parking lot would be separated, forcing fans to walk farther to get to their seats.
"We don't feel it creates as much of an entertainment district," Lang said.
Bottom line, Lang says: "There are a number of site configurations (Cedar Fair) could look at if they are serious about wanting to go forward with the project."
But she said the company has been sending "litigators" rather than planners to recent meetings.
"From our perspective, it's just flip-flopping noise we will continue to hear as we negotiate with them, and you have to recognize that for what it is," Lang said.
Chronicle columnists Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross appear Sundays, Mondays and Wednesdays. Phil can be seen on CBS-5 morning and evening news. He can also be heard on KCBS radio Monday through Friday at 7:50 a.m. and 5:50 p.m. Got a tip? Call them at (415) 777-8815 or drop them an e-mail at matierandross@sfchronicle.com.
Great America owner says 'no' to Niners stadium in Santa Clara
Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
(10-09) SANTA CLARA - If the San Francisco 49ers want to move to Santa Clara, they may have to buy the Great America amusement park as well.
Cedar Fair Corp., which operates Great America - and whose main parking lot the Niners have been eyeing for their dream stadium - has told team officials that they oppose the $853 million project, the 49ers said today.
The company said that once before, then backed off its opposition. This time, however, it's official.
Cedar Fair is preparing to issue a statement Wednesday saying it has concluded, after months of study, that the 49ers' plan to build a 68,000-seat stadium east of Highway 101 won't work for Great America because of the loss of parking, traffic disruptions and the overall negative impact on theme park customers.
Officials in Santa Clara, which collects $5.3 million a year in revenue from Great America, say they consider Cedar Fair's support of the stadium essential for the deal to go forward. The company's plan to announce its opposition came as news to City Hall, where officials said Cedar Fair was continuing to negotiate with Santa Clara as late as today.
"Cedar Fair would need to cooperate with the proposal," Assistant City Manager Carol McCarthy said. "The land is leased to them."
The question is whether Cedar Fair's latest pronouncement is meant as a deal killer, or just the start of intensive negotiations to force the 49ers to buy the amusement park, whose assessed value last year was $114 million.
Cedar Fair wasn't doing much today to clear up the question - company representatives declined to elaborate in advance of Wednesday's announcement.
Team spokeswoman Lisa Lang noted that Cedar Fair has been "flip-flopping" on the stadium - first backing the idea, then saying it was against it, then taking a neutral stance before going negative again - and that the company's real goal may be to sell Great America.
In fact, Lang said, company officials broached the subject with the Niners during recent negotiations. Team officials believe that by announcing its opposition to the stadium deal, Cedar Fair may be looking to drive a harder bargain.
The 49ers, desperate to escape Candlestick Point by the 2012 season, aren't ruling out a Great America purchase.
"It's not how we approached this project originally, but if it's something we need to consider to move this project forward, we will consider it," Lang said.
Lang said the team is also willing to consider other options - including moving the stadium to a 17-acre parking lot just east of the current proposed site. Great America uses that lot for overflow parking.
That plan, however, is less attractive to the Niners because the stadium and its parking lot would be separated, forcing fans to walk farther to get to their seats.
"We don't feel it creates as much of an entertainment district," Lang said.
Bottom line, Lang says: "There are a number of site configurations (Cedar Fair) could look at if they are serious about wanting to go forward with the project."
But she said the company has been sending "litigators" rather than planners to recent meetings.
"From our perspective, it's just flip-flopping noise we will continue to hear as we negotiate with them, and you have to recognize that for what it is," Lang said.
Chronicle columnists Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross appear Sundays, Mondays and Wednesdays. Phil can be seen on CBS-5 morning and evening news. He can also be heard on KCBS radio Monday through Friday at 7:50 a.m. and 5:50 p.m. Got a tip? Call them at (415) 777-8815 or drop them an e-mail at matierandross@sfchronicle.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
