Monday I’ve got game day on my mind

We promised some comments on yesterday’s editorial in the Mercury News, and here they are.

Frankly, we’re a bit mystified about the whole thing. Last November, the paper endorsed Wolff’s stadium proposal, saying the following:

Why is this proposal worth all the trouble? Because it may well deliver an extraordinary public benefit that’s not attainable any other way: a professional soccer stadium at no public cost.

Yesterday, the paper said this:

The city has passed a policy allowing for a zoning change to secure an “extraordinary public benefit,” and a stadium certainly would be that. But traffic and other effects of the housing plan need further study. And the precedent of deciding on zoning based on a payoff rather than the best use of the land remains troubling.

So which is it — are they endorsing the extraordinary public benefit policy or is it too “troubling” to them? They can’t have it both ways.

Meanwhile, as the paper is trying to straddle both sides of that fence, the editorial board is also bringing up questions that have already been answered. “Projections of broad economic benefits from the airport and Edenvale developments are lavish, but not all the money goes to the general fund,” says the editorial. “Before saying yes, the mayor and council have to be certain that this deal does not worsen the deficit.” That’s precisely the kind of question that the City of San Jose’s recent economic impact report (you’ll find the PDF here) was designed to answer. You may remember that report — it was unanimously approved by the City Council last month.

Apparently, the Mercury News doesn’t remember that far back, so we’ll recap it here. The report estimates the following:

• Economic impact related to the construction of the entire project of over $2.0 billion
• Annual economic impact of the soccer stadium of $62.3 million
• Annual net fiscal impact to the city’s general fund between $1.8 and $2.8 million
• Annual net fiscal impact to the city’s redevelopment agency of $7.7 to $8.5 million
• Creation of over 14,000 jobs related to construction activity and approximately 5,000 sustained jobs
• Generation of nearly $850,000 annually for arts and cultural programs through the city’s transient occupancy tax (i.e., hotel tax)

“Net fiscal impact to the city’s general fund between $1.8 and $2.8 million” answers their question. We’re not sure why the folks at the Merc are having such a hard time keeping up with the news — unless, of course, they’re relying on their own publication to provide it.