|
Post by cacique on Sept 27, 2011 14:39:11 GMT -8
I don't know what Moorad has done for the community,but I do know what the Spanos family has done for SDSU "Nothing".
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Sept 27, 2011 15:00:04 GMT -8
Any time you can get a free handout you take it. The NFL is no fool. But they are looking for fools for the biggest handout they can get.
|
|
|
Post by 1611Luginbill on Sept 27, 2011 15:27:02 GMT -8
In response to Bruce's post... If you can't use google propery in the future, I'm going to have to start charging you. I'm an Aztec owned business myself too. The hotel industry in San Diego has made it pretty clear to the Chargers that they want nothing to do with their grift. "hotel owners flatly reject a combined football stadium and Convention Center for many reasons"Voice of San Diego - 'Chargers go nuclear'The hotel industry in this region already has their grift. They have had their TOT raised twice with no vote from the public. "But last December, the industry came back to city council members -- and this time McDowell urged them to raise the hotel tax. The council did so without a public vote. The city was able to get around a vote by creating something called the Tourism Marketing District. That means the jump in the hotel tax is not officially a tax, it’s a fee. But here’s the catch. The money can’t be used for public purposes like firefighting. It can only be used to promote San Diego to visitors".KPBS - Tax hike money goes to hoteliersAny potential vote could reverse those prior hikes. "There is no doubt that a voter passed-referendum would have the power to both reverse prior actions by the city/hoteliers and re-allocate tax revenue as the voters see fit — if, of course, you can convince people that you are right."Voice of San Diego - 'Chargers go nuclear'So the last hope for the Chargers is to basically play chicken with one of the most powerful industries in the region. This is theater that will distract San Diego until February and make it seem like they really tried their best. The only thing that will save the San Diego Chargers is making it to the Super Bowl. That would stoke enough public sympathy and nostaligia to get a deal done. So get your pom poms out. The above is purely editorial on my part.
|
|
|
Post by McQuervo on Sept 27, 2011 15:48:49 GMT -8
= is not the only one whom has seen the Shitz the Spanholes have played. They have screwed with this comunity too long and done very little to support the comunity in comparison to the Padres etc... Send them packing! What proof can you offer than the Chargers haven't supported the community like the Padres have? What has Moorad done? What Proof? Yes City of SD, "Just upgrade the stadium and we wont have anymore issues..." Done and Done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2011 15:50:26 GMT -8
We missed the best idea! The present site! "We" means more than one so I'm assuming you mean the city and the Chargers and I think that's inaccurate. I can't recall the Chargers ever expressing interest in building a new stadium at the Qualcomm site. The simply decided from the get-go that too much environmental mitigation would be required and refused to consider it. That's why IMO the Chargers suck donkey schlong.
|
|
|
Post by 1611Luginbill on Sept 27, 2011 15:57:15 GMT -8
"We" means more than one so I'm assuming you mean the city and the Chargers and I think that's inaccurate. I can't recall the Chargers ever expressing interest in building a new stadium at the Qualcomm site. The simply decided from the get-go that too much environmental mitigation would be required and refused to consider it. That's why IMO the Chargers suck donkey schlong. Way back in the day. Circia 2002-2003. The Chargers presented a plan where the city would give the Chargers the entire stadium site, the Chargers would build a new one next to the old one, give the city the stadium back, and keep all of the rest of the land to develop. At the height of the real-estate boom, this seemed like a lopsided gift of public resources and was politically rejected. In hindsight, it would have been hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by 01aztecgrad on Sept 27, 2011 16:08:27 GMT -8
We missed the best idea! The present site! "We" means more than one so I'm assuming you mean the city and the Chargers and I think that's inaccurate. I can't recall the Chargers ever expressing interest in building a new stadium at the Qualcomm site. The simply decided from the get-go that too much environmental mitigation would be required and refused to consider it. That's why IMO the Chargers suck donkey schlong. The Chargers original proposal in 2003 was to have the City give them $200 million for a new stadium at the Qualcomm site, with the city on the hook for additional infrastructure and paying off the bonds from the Qualcomm expansion of 1997. That obviously went nowhere. The next plan was to have the city pay for the infrastructure improvements needed, and give the Chargers all of the land. The Chargers would basically sell or lease the land to fund the stadium. The City would still be on the hook for the Qualcomm expansion. The Chargers were actually going to put this proposal before the voters in 2007, but the economy crashed, and they couldn't find a development partner willing to take on the risk, so they dropped it before putting it on the ballot. After that they began their tour of the County trying to find anybody willing to open the vault for them.
|
|
|
Post by NTU on Sept 27, 2011 16:25:48 GMT -8
"We" means more than one so I'm assuming you mean the city and the Chargers and I think that's inaccurate. I can't recall the Chargers ever expressing interest in building a new stadium at the Qualcomm site. The simply decided from the get-go that too much environmental mitigation would be required and refused to consider it. That's why IMO the Chargers suck donkey schlong. The Chargers original proposal in 2003 was to have the City give them $200 million for a new stadium at the Qualcomm site, with the city on the hook for additional infrastructure and paying off the bonds from the Qualcomm expansion of 1997. That obviously went nowhere. The next plan was to have the city pay for the infrastructure improvements needed, and give the Chargers all of the land. The Chargers would basically sell or lease the land to fund the stadium. The City would still be on the hook for the Qualcomm expansion. The Chargers were actually going to put this proposal before the voters in 2007, but the economy crashed, and they couldn't find a development partner willing to take on the risk, so they dropped it before putting it on the ballot. After that they began their tour of the County trying to find anybody willing to open the vault for them. Not at all accurate. True, the city would be responsible for most of the infrastructure. But the city would not have been held responsible for any of the stadium construction costs. The city would, for lack of a better term, "hand over" the land for the Chargers/development partners to develop, which would in turn over the long haul pay for the entirety of the stadium. The city would maintain ownership of the stadium, but the Chargers would assume full responsibility for maintenance and upkeep. It didn't fly because the real estate market tanked.
|
|
|
Post by 01aztecgrad on Sept 27, 2011 17:10:53 GMT -8
The Chargers original proposal in 2003 was to have the City give them $200 million for a new stadium at the Qualcomm site, with the city on the hook for additional infrastructure and paying off the bonds from the Qualcomm expansion of 1997. That obviously went nowhere. The next plan was to have the city pay for the infrastructure improvements needed, and give the Chargers all of the land. The Chargers would basically sell or lease the land to fund the stadium. The City would still be on the hook for the Qualcomm expansion. The Chargers were actually going to put this proposal before the voters in 2007, but the economy crashed, and they couldn't find a development partner willing to take on the risk, so they dropped it before putting it on the ballot. After that they began their tour of the County trying to find anybody willing to open the vault for them. Not at all accurate. True, the city would be responsible for most of the infrastructure. But the city would not have been held responsible for any of the stadium construction costs. The city would, for lack of a better term, "hand over" the land for the Chargers/development partners to develop, which would in turn over the long haul pay for the entirety of the stadium. The city would maintain ownership of the stadium, but the Chargers would assume full responsibility for maintenance and upkeep. It didn't fly because the real estate market tanked. Dear lord, if you're going to be a shill for the Chargers plans, you should at least read up on them. The original plan was as I said, the City contributing $200 million for the Stadium itself. The Chargers suggested that the City sell part of the land to come up with their portion of the stadium. The second proposal had the City giving (isn't that what you mean by "hand over") the Chargers the land to sell or develop. UT from 2003 You've already been shown to be completely wrong about whether the Chargers are able to bring their stadium proposal up for a vote, now you're shown to be wrong about their original proposal. Why should anybody believe anything you write on this subject?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2011 17:17:09 GMT -8
2003 was a whopping six years after taxpayers finished spending a gazillion dollars on an upgrade. No wonder San Diegans don't trust those mofos.
|
|
|
Post by Motown Monty on Sept 27, 2011 18:02:44 GMT -8
The latest proposal from the Chargers is doomed to fail. I think it's designed that way too. The convention center and hoteliers have made it known that they don't want anything to do with the Chargers yet the Chargers are pursuing it anyways. It's all theater. The Chargers are already gone.I've believed this to be true for some time now. The Big ? is what will that REALLY do to SDSU football?
|
|