|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 28, 2014 8:58:48 GMT -8
A most interesting thread. As I've mentioned, State pretty much shot it's wad when it chose to build a basketball arena over a football stadium. So now it's pretty much catch as catch can. As this project is interesting, I continue to be baffled as to where all the money is going to come from. We're talking land, facilities and throw in a stadium, (maybe), closing in on a billion dollars. That's going to require some serious buy in. On the other hand, a leveler, a developer, a builder and some serious private investment and we're talking Hazard Center Far East on a much grander scale. (Currently town homes in Hazard Center are going for between 300 and 500 thousand dollars. It would be a lot simpler). But the real calculus will involve attendance this Saturday night. I would love nothing better to see an attendance of around 45,000 bringing back the glory days when I was a student and giving the young ones a new experience. The future relevancy of Aztec football may hang in the balance based solely on attendance. And for those that want to play the schedule card, here in dumpwater a distressed Utah football team with a HC on the clock will open with a pathetic Big Sky opponent. Be interesting to compare attendance numbers. San Diego needs to get real. What does the city actually want?? The city is entirely focused on the Convention Center and the Chargers. Outside of this forum, nobody discusses the needs of SDSU athletics. There's a built in assumption that the Aztecs will play where the Chargers play. Just the opposite ... Jim Sterk has declared unequivocally that the Aztecs will not play Downtown, Chula Vista, National City, Escondido, El Cajon or anywhere else the Chargers may try to build a stadium. Aztecs will stay in Mission Valley or build an OCS. The only one's assuming the Aztecs will play where the Chargers do are the Chargers ... and that's only for the rental income -- and not have a competing stadium to their own for event revenue. It has nothing to do with shared interests, it's purely greed on the part of the Chargers.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Aug 28, 2014 9:07:08 GMT -8
A most interesting thread. As I've mentioned, State pretty much shot it's wad when it chose to build a basketball arena over a football stadium. So now it's pretty much catch as catch can. As this project is interesting, I continue to be baffled as to where all the money is going to come from. We're talking land, facilities and throw in a stadium, (maybe), closing in on a billion dollars. That's going to require some serious buy in. On the other hand, a leveler, a developer, a builder and some serious private investment and we're talking Hazard Center Far East on a much grander scale. (Currently town homes in Hazard Center are going for between 300 and 500 thousand dollars. It would be a lot simpler). But the real calculus will involve attendance this Saturday night. I would love nothing better to see an attendance of around 45,000 bringing back the glory days when I was a student and giving the young ones a new experience. The future relevancy of Aztec football may hang in the balance based solely on attendance. And for those that want to play the schedule card, here in dumpwater a distressed Utah football team with a HC on the clock will open with a pathetic Big Sky opponent. Be interesting to compare attendance numbers. San Diego needs to get real. What does the city actually want?? The city is entirely focused on the Convention Center and the Chargers. Outside of this forum, nobody discusses the needs of SDSU athletics. There's a built in assumption that the Aztecs will play where the Chargers play. If a new facility is built at the Q site, then you are correct. If there is a new stadium downtown, then you are incorrect. I have never read or heard of the Aztecs ever playing downtown.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Aug 28, 2014 9:34:02 GMT -8
The city is entirely focused on the Convention Center and the Chargers. Outside of this forum, nobody discusses the needs of SDSU athletics. There's a built in assumption that the Aztecs will play where the Chargers play. Just the opposite ... Jim Sterk has declared unequivocally that the Aztecs will not play Downtown, Chula Vista, National City, Escondido, El Cajon or anywhere else the Chargers may try to build a stadium. Aztecs will stay in Mission Valley or build an OCS. The only one's assuming the Aztecs will play where the Chargers do are the Chargers ... and that's only for the rental income -- and not have a competing stadium to their own for event revenue. It has nothing to do with shared interests, it's purely greed on the part of the Chargers. Seriously, you undermine your arguments when you blindly blame the Chargers as the great satan of San Diego. Keep in mind that many of those that we need on SDSUs side to get a stadium done are Charger fans. Being divisive for the sake of brow beating someone hurts your own cause. Believe it or not, a person can be a Charger fan and AFL.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 28, 2014 9:58:05 GMT -8
Just the opposite ... Jim Sterk has declared unequivocally that the Aztecs will not play Downtown, Chula Vista, National City, Escondido, El Cajon or anywhere else the Chargers may try to build a stadium. Aztecs will stay in Mission Valley or build an OCS. The only one's assuming the Aztecs will play where the Chargers do are the Chargers ... and that's only for the rental income -- and not have a competing stadium to their own for event revenue. It has nothing to do with shared interests, it's purely greed on the part of the Chargers. Seriously, you undermine your arguments when you blindly blame the Chargers as the great satan of San Diego. Keep in mind that many of those that we need on SDSUs side to get a stadium done are Charger fans. Being divisive for the sake of brow beating someone hurts your own cause. Believe it or not, a person can be a Charger fan and AFL. Seriously ... I don't see the Chargers as the GREAT SATAN ... just uncooperative. They could easily put an end to speculation about a new stadium by committing the NFL funds they have access to (and their own money) into a new stadium on the Qualcomm site. Add naming rights and equal consideration of the Aztecs needs in a new stadium and it would be done sooner than later. Why all the opposition to the Convention Center Expansion? Why are they trying to get the city to sell the Q and Sports Arena for development to fund their Downtown Stadium project? The answer is very simple ... they want the revenues from any event larger than 20K at a Chargers Stadium, they want a piece of the convention center revenue and they want as much of it as possible paid by any means other than NFL/Chargers funds. I understand finance very well. It does not benefit the Chargers in any way to have SDSU take over the Q with an intact stadium or the convention center to expand it's capacity -- those things would cut into the profitability of "their" stadium. I will paraphrase others by saying I am not against the Chargers, I am all for them having their own stadium. They could start on it tomorrow if they wanted ... the land is provided by the City and the County, the money (over $650M) coming from the NFL, Naming Rights and their own funds -- they just want more than that. I call that greed. EDIT: Conversations between SDSU and the City regarding the 166 acre Qualcomm site date back to 2009 -- if it got the Chargers an extra $300M to put toward a downtown stadium, why would they not endorse this idea? The 49'ers raised nearly $500M in funds from naming rights (only $220M came from Levis for title rights), where would the Chargers be now if they had gotten behind SDSU purchasing the Q back in 2009-2010 in terms of funding a downtown stadium? They'd probably have something close to $1 Billion.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 28, 2014 11:31:44 GMT -8
So it begins. www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/aug/24/peace-qualcomm-stadium-sdsu-convention-downtown/$300M to buy the Q site. State may be able to buy the site, develop it for a West Campus, renovate the stadium, and have control. 1. State can use eminent domain and there would not need to be a vote on the sale. 2. Politically allowing one of the best assets in town expand is not going to be toxic. 3. This frees up $300M plus to fund Convention Center and or Charger Stadium downtown It may make too much sense, we shall see what transpires. Use eminent domain? Wow, how quickly people give away their rights to the government. The land is owned by the city, not the state of California. From what I read nothing is mentioned about renovating the stadium in this plan, just $300M to buy the property to expand the campus. How much additional money would be required to renovate a stadium that was not built for football? Another $100M or so would be needed just to refurbish it and then it would still be a stadium that is a poor venue for football. And with that stadium built in the center of the lot how much space is available for campus housing, classrooms, research center and that big park they are talking about? It wasn't built for football? Maybe not specifically, as many stadiums of that era were not built for only football, nor was it built for baseball. It was a multi-purpose stadium--all the rage back then.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 28, 2014 11:55:37 GMT -8
I think the site has been largely already remediated. Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards I wish that was so, but the Grand Jury in 2012 did not agree. In April 2014, a letter to the U-T from Gary Strawn, Vice Chairman of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, stated that the clean-up efforts were nearing completion, and that the project would be transitioning to a monitoring phase. The city keeps suing, and the courts keep throwing the suits out. EDIT--The letter was posted earlier in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Aug 28, 2014 16:15:28 GMT -8
I hate to throw facts in your face (OK, I'm lying) but read this: www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/may/01/chargers-stadium-fabiani-proposal/The relevant part is this: "The Chargers would put up $400 million, including a $200 million loan from the National Football League, Fabiani said." I doubt Steve Peace even knows where the NFL league office is much less has a contact there. He is pulling numbers out of his a$$ but what do you expect from a politician. As far as any hotel taxes (and any other transient taxes and fees) all I can say is they city cannot promise that because it is subject to a public vote. This is where $450M of his financing comes from. That is kinda funny since if the Chargers are such a liability to the city (a prevalent view here) how is it that they can generate $450 million in new hotel taxes? Though I can say that saving the Sports Arena is a worthy cause. It is one of the region's jewels. "Facts" seem to be fluid in this case ... you cite a May 01 article, and this thread references an Aug 24 article from the same publication. You chose the numbers that fit whatever your argument is and disparage the author of the other article. Whether the total for Chargers & NFL is $400M or $500M & you add $150M in naming rights (for comparison, SF raised $500 million in naming rights of which Levi-Strauss paid $220 million for the "title" naming rights). The City and County are combining to provide the land for the Stadium (which is valued at much more than the $300M that SDSU and the City are discussing for that site in Mission Valley). Leaving any of the tax measures out of it for now ... why aren't the Chargers out there raising money like the San Diego Library and the 49'ers did to complete their projects? What are the Chargers afraid of?Here is a fact for you ... it doesn't matter how much money the Chargers have to spend on a new stadium ... if the convention center gets its' contiguous expansion, SDSU /Aztecs get Qualcomm as their home, and the Sports Arena remains in operation -- the Chargers will have a lot of competition for events to help them pay for their stadium and they'd have to pay back any loans with their own money. I can see why the City is hesitant to commit any tax payer funds to this downtown stadium project and may instead commit more effort to the economic engines that are the convention center and San Diego State. Again, who the hell is Steve Peace in all of this? The previous article quoted Fabiani as saying what the league and team has proposed for funding and it was $400M, not $500M. Last time I looked Peace didn't work for either the Chargers or the NFL.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Aug 28, 2014 16:20:53 GMT -8
How many conference titles won since being in the WAC or MWC? Two since 1978, and the one MWC chapionship was a tie with BSU and FSU. That isn't exactly dominance, is it? How many seasons during this period were they just, plain bad? Now, if the Aztecs can keep winning more than they lose each year (and our conference has gotten weaker which makes this easier to do) then they can continue to creep up in terms of respectability. But too many on here have an overstated opinion of the program's stature. Save it non-Aztec fan. You exposed yourself for what you are, a hardcore Charger fan with little to no knowledge of Aztec football without access to google... Nothing wrong with being a Charger fan first, however this is not the place for you. Oh, I am a big Aztec fan but I just don't want to see the whole athletic program go down like the Titanic because they go into big time debt trying to finance a football stadium. I do watch some Aztec football games. Hell, I had to go to a sports bar a couple years ago with my girlfriend (who is Michigan alumn) and take $#!+ from her and her daughters for the whole game. But, I have managed to get the youngest one to become an Aztec fan and when I take her to a BB game she is decked from toe to head in Aztec gear. She now would like to go to SDSU and get on the dance squad.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Aug 28, 2014 16:31:51 GMT -8
You didn't read the part where I said that both parties have a shared interest in getting a stadium built and that they should be "working together" to get something done. The Chargers have been talking with a lot of parties to get something done so I tend to think that is is the university that seems to be willing to sit by and see what happens. But since the prevailing belief on here is that the university can buy the Q (and operate it at a loss) or has the funds to build their own stadium then why are they waiting? They can annex the Hardy Elementary school site (it is nearly 60 years old) and have more than enough room to build a stadium West of the track. Or they could get really creative and build the stadium north of Viejas and tie it in with the trolley line to have a station (open on event days only) that would allow fans to disembark right into the stadium. Wouldn't that be cool? Then, when the Chargers leave town they could then buy the entire Q site and use it like the way Peace seems to want it to be used which, if you read his proposal, doesn't include a stadium on the site. And, finally, they had an on-campus stadium once called Aztec Bowl. It was reportedly expandable to 45,000 seats (part of the original plan in fact) and yet they decided they didn't want it for football. Why is that? They could have found somewhere else on campus to build a BB arena (though that would likely have increased the cost) and probably wouldn't have needed the Hardy site to do so. Using Stanford's stadium renovation as a model they probably could have done something with Aztec bowl for something like $120-$150M or so. I don't disagree that the Chargers & Aztecs have a shared interest in getting a stadium built. I don't believe that they want to share the same stadium. I have never read or heard this idea from anyone from either the Charger or Aztec organizations. I do know that SDSU will not play downtown. If you understand that then you can forget the idea of a shared downtown stadium. Certainly SDSU's biggest mistake was building Viejas on Aztec Bowl. They could have built a basketball arena on any number of locations on campus and expanded Aztec Bowl to 40,000 seats as it was intended. But as Rocky Long says, "no use crying over spilled milk." Indeed, studies have indicated there are a couple of locations on campus where an OCS could be built for approximately $250 million. However, I believe that estimate to be low. It makes more sense to purchase the Q site for $300 million and make some changes to the Q so it is more user friendly for SDSU. The Aztecs would continue playing there and begin an Aztec Warrior Stadium fund raising campaign for several years all while using the CSU/SDSU general fund to begin the long term transformation of SDSU West Campus. Possibly 10 years (or sooner) from now SDSU may actually get invited to a P5 league (something that acquiring & developing the Q site would only help with) and with it the increased TV revenue (at least $20 million/year not including the bump in ticket sales). This would allow SDSU to privately fund a new Stadium to be built either on the Q site or one of the locations on the main campus. So, in the long term acquisition & development of the Q site, SDSU would increase its footprint by 166 acres, increase student population by about 10,000 students, significantly increase research at SDSU, offer more areas of study, turn SDSU into a nationally recognized research university and get a new football stadium built that consequently could support an MLS team as well. Not a bad deal! Granted this is a best case scenario but certainly possible. The problem with the Q site is that the stadium costs $15M each year to maintain. That is the cost a MBB practice facility year in and year out. Also, they would surely have an issue with trying to use public money to purchase the stadium and continue to use it. So, they don't have time for a a fund drive because they would need that money up front. And, finally, were the city to sell the property out from under the Chargers then I am sure there is language in the lease where the Chargers can either negate the deal or leave immediately without paying the early exit fee option. Someone is going to have to pay that and the voters will not allow the city to do that. Again, my preference would be for a stadium to be built at the Q site that can be shared. The football program barely breaks even so I don't know how they would ever get someone to sign off on a bond deal that would have to be backed by the option of using public money if they can't raise the private funds to do so. Look at the Cal deal and they are already a P5 team. We are not and I don't think building a new stadium (or refurbishing an old one) is going to do much to get us into a P5 conference.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Aug 28, 2014 16:45:54 GMT -8
A most interesting thread. As I've mentioned, State pretty much shot it's wad when it chose to build a basketball arena over a football stadium. So now it's pretty much catch as catch can. As this project is interesting, I continue to be baffled as to where all the money is going to come from. We're talking land, facilities and throw in a stadium, (maybe), closing in on a billion dollars. That's going to require some serious buy in. On the other hand, a leveler, a developer, a builder and some serious private investment and we're talking Hazard Center Far East on a much grander scale. (Currently town homes in Hazard Center are going for between 300 and 500 thousand dollars. It would be a lot simpler). But the real calculus will involve attendance this Saturday night. I would love nothing better to see an attendance of around 45,000 bringing back the glory days when I was a student and giving the young ones a new experience. The future relevancy of Aztec football may hang in the balance based solely on attendance. And for those that want to play the schedule card, here in dumpwater a distressed Utah football team with a HC on the clock will open with a pathetic Big Sky opponent. Be interesting to compare attendance numbers. San Diego needs to get real. What does the city actually want?? The city is entirely focused on the Convention Center and the Chargers. Outside of this forum, nobody discusses the needs of SDSU athletics. There's a built in assumption that the Aztecs will play where the Chargers play. And that is because they chose to do that back in 1967. The Q had issues long before SDSU decided to build Viejas and still decided to play where the Chargers play and made a commitment to do so which took renovating Aztec Bowl out of the picture. The only logical reason for this is financial. Stadiums are not a good investment but governments have long done things that aren't the best economically to increase the quality of life for its citizens. I do think some of the economic projections for having a stadium that can host big events like the SuperBowl have difficulty quantifying the longer term affects of increased tourism, which is a big portion of the economy here. No, that doesn't work if the SB is in Detroit but it sure as hell has a benefit here. I would rather see one stadium built that gets used (for football) 15-20 times per year instead of two stadiums being built for the same number of games or one stadium being built for just 5-7 football games per year. It just makes more economic sense.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Aug 28, 2014 16:51:15 GMT -8
The city is entirely focused on the Convention Center and the Chargers. Outside of this forum, nobody discusses the needs of SDSU athletics. There's a built in assumption that the Aztecs will play where the Chargers play. Just the opposite ... Jim Sterk has declared unequivocally that the Aztecs will not play Downtown, Chula Vista, National City, Escondido, El Cajon or anywhere else the Chargers may try to build a stadium. Aztecs will stay in Mission Valley or build an OCS. The only one's assuming the Aztecs will play where the Chargers do are the Chargers ... and that's only for the rental income -- and not have a competing stadium to their own for event revenue. It has nothing to do with shared interests, it's purely greed on the part of the Chargers. You can correct me if I'm wrong but from what I recollect the Chargers would not own the stadium (whether it is at the Q or downtown), the city would. I do know for a fact that their original proposal at the Q site did say exactly this (they wanted land at the Q site to develop to help pay for the stadium they would build for the city). I would expect if this were to be tied into the convention center expansion that would be the case as well.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Aug 28, 2014 16:58:30 GMT -8
Seriously, you undermine your arguments when you blindly blame the Chargers as the great satan of San Diego. Keep in mind that many of those that we need on SDSUs side to get a stadium done are Charger fans. Being divisive for the sake of brow beating someone hurts your own cause. Believe it or not, a person can be a Charger fan and AFL. Seriously ... I don't see the Chargers as the GREAT SATAN ... just uncooperative. They could easily put an end to speculation about a new stadium by committing the NFL funds they have access to (and their own money) into a new stadium on the Qualcomm site. Add naming rights and equal consideration of the Aztecs needs in a new stadium and it would be done sooner than later. Why all the opposition to the Convention Center Expansion? Why are they trying to get the city to sell the Q and Sports Arena for development to fund their Downtown Stadium project? The answer is very simple ... they want the revenues from any event larger than 20K at a Chargers Stadium, they want a piece of the convention center revenue and they want as much of it as possible paid by any means other than NFL/Chargers funds. I understand finance very well. It does not benefit the Chargers in any way to have SDSU take over the Q with an intact stadium or the convention center to expand it's capacity -- those things would cut into the profitability of "their" stadium. I will paraphrase others by saying I am not against the Chargers, I am all for them having their own stadium. They could start on it tomorrow if they wanted ... the land is provided by the City and the County, the money (over $650M) coming from the NFL, Naming Rights and their own funds -- they just want more than that. I call that greed. EDIT: Conversations between SDSU and the City regarding the 166 acre Qualcomm site date back to 2009 -- if it got the Chargers an extra $300M to put toward a downtown stadium, why would they not endorse this idea? The 49'ers raised nearly $500M in funds from naming rights (only $220M came from Levis for title rights), where would the Chargers be now if they had gotten behind SDSU purchasing the Q back in 2009-2010 in terms of funding a downtown stadium? They'd probably have something close to $1 Billion. They have pledged money, at least $400M from them and the NFL (though they would have to repay the NFL for their loan). What they cannot pledge are the type of funds Peace is talking about when it comes to hotel taxes which are subject to public approval (i.e. a vote). And, the cost of the land is an issue as well. That is all they asked for with their first proposal to redevelop the Q site. They wanted to move the stadium to the eastern portion of the site and redevelop the land freed up to pay for it. The city would have maintained ownership of the new stadium.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Aug 28, 2014 17:03:20 GMT -8
Use eminent domain? Wow, how quickly people give away their rights to the government. The land is owned by the city, not the state of California. From what I read nothing is mentioned about renovating the stadium in this plan, just $300M to buy the property to expand the campus. How much additional money would be required to renovate a stadium that was not built for football? Another $100M or so would be needed just to refurbish it and then it would still be a stadium that is a poor venue for football. And with that stadium built in the center of the lot how much space is available for campus housing, classrooms, research center and that big park they are talking about? It wasn't built for football? Maybe not specifically, as many stadiums of that era were not built for only football, nor was it built for baseball. It was a multi-purpose stadium--all the rage back then. Yeah, and because it was designed as a multi-use stadium it wasn't very good for either sport. Even if you dropped the field to eliminate the obstructed view seats (which you can't unless you want to see football played in waist deep water) you still have the fans too far away from the action. The stadium is round, football fields are rectangular. Square peg, round hole. Any talk of salvaging the Q for football is pure nonsense. You don't save any money and you still end up with a venue that isn't very good for football.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 28, 2014 19:48:56 GMT -8
It wasn't built for football? Maybe not specifically, as many stadiums of that era were not built for only football, nor was it built for baseball. It was a multi-purpose stadium--all the rage back then. Yeah, and because it was designed as a multi-use stadium it wasn't very good for either sport. Even if you dropped the field to eliminate the obstructed view seats (which you can't unless you want to see football played in waist deep water) you still have the fans too far away from the action. The stadium is round, football fields are rectangular. Square peg, round hole. Any talk of salvaging the Q for football is pure nonsense. You don't save any money and you still end up with a venue that isn't very good for football. I'm not disagreeing with you. I was just pointing out that it was built for football--AND baseball. In the end, it was better for baseball. And I am certainly not advocating that SDSU (if they ever take over the Qualcomm site) remodel the current stadium. I would much rather see a new stadium there.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Aug 29, 2014 18:00:03 GMT -8
I don't disagree that the Chargers & Aztecs have a shared interest in getting a stadium built. I don't believe that they want to share the same stadium. I have never read or heard this idea from anyone from either the Charger or Aztec organizations. I do know that SDSU will not play downtown. If you understand that then you can forget the idea of a shared downtown stadium. Certainly SDSU's biggest mistake was building Viejas on Aztec Bowl. They could have built a basketball arena on any number of locations on campus and expanded Aztec Bowl to 40,000 seats as it was intended. But as Rocky Long says, "no use crying over spilled milk." Indeed, studies have indicated there are a couple of locations on campus where an OCS could be built for approximately $250 million. However, I believe that estimate to be low. It makes more sense to purchase the Q site for $300 million and make some changes to the Q so it is more user friendly for SDSU. The Aztecs would continue playing there and begin an Aztec Warrior Stadium fund raising campaign for several years all while using the CSU/SDSU general fund to begin the long term transformation of SDSU West Campus. Possibly 10 years (or sooner) from now SDSU may actually get invited to a P5 league (something that acquiring & developing the Q site would only help with) and with it the increased TV revenue (at least $20 million/year not including the bump in ticket sales). This would allow SDSU to privately fund a new Stadium to be built either on the Q site or one of the locations on the main campus. So, in the long term acquisition & development of the Q site, SDSU would increase its footprint by 166 acres, increase student population by about 10,000 students, significantly increase research at SDSU, offer more areas of study, turn SDSU into a nationally recognized research university and get a new football stadium built that consequently could support an MLS team as well. Not a bad deal! Granted this is a best case scenario but certainly possible. The problem with the Q site is that the stadium costs $15M each year to maintain. That is the cost a MBB practice facility year in and year out. Also, they would surely have an issue with trying to use public money to purchase the stadium and continue to use it. So, they don't have time for a a fund drive because they would need that money up front. And, finally, were the city to sell the property out from under the Chargers then I am sure there is language in the lease where the Chargers can either negate the deal or leave immediately without paying the early exit fee option. Someone is going to have to pay that and the voters will not allow the city to do that. Again, my preference would be for a stadium to be built at the Q site that can be shared. The football program barely breaks even so I don't know how they would ever get someone to sign off on a bond deal that would have to be backed by the option of using public money if they can't raise the private funds to do so. Look at the Cal deal and they are already a P5 team. We are not and I don't think building a new stadium (or refurbishing an old one) is going to do much to get us into a P5 conference. Sorry, but $15 million is peanuts when you compare it to the money that will be generated by increasing the campus by 166 acres, increasing student population by 10,000 students and significantly increasing research dollars. Real Estate first: if SDSU acquires the Q site for $300 million and then builds a west campus the land value would be even more valuable. Every year, over a long period of time, the land (and structures) would grow in value. For simplicity I am not going to get into detail on commercial vs residential vs land value. Lets just use the $300 million purchase price and a 5.4% appreciation rate (what national historical residential appreciation rates have been since 1963, www.census.gov/const/uspriceann.pdf ). That alone is $16.2 million in just one year (and I suspect that to be a low number) that would get compounded annually! Increase in student population by 10,000: The total list price cost for in-state California residents to go to San Diego State University was $22,324 for the 2013/2014 academic year. Out-of-state students who don't possess California residence can expect a one year cost of $33,484. www.collegecalc.org/colleges/california/san-diego-state-university/Let's just assume they are all CA residents; so, 10,000 X $22,324 = $223,240,000! Increase in research dollars: The San Diego State University Research Foundation's (SDSURF) budget for 2014-2015 is $190,326,000. www.foundation.sdsu.edu/pdf/about_gen_fund_budget_fy1415.pdf Lets assume a modest increase of 25% for research funding; that is $47,581,500! Let's add that up shall we: $16,200,000 + $223,240,000 + $47,581,500 = $287,021,500
That should more than cover any stadium related expenses. Indeed the Chargers do have everything in their favor in the lease. There is a reason SDSU and the city are waiting on the Chargers. As you can see athletics (and a football stadium) plays an insignificant role in the big picture of the acquisition and development of the Q site. Turning SDSU into a nationally recognized research university, increasing student population and building a new football stadium may or may not get SDSU into a P5 conference. It certainly would help and in the end SDSU would be a better and more desirable university than it already is. After seeing these figures & you still want a shared stadium between the Aztecs & the Chargers on the Q site I just don't know what to say other than you probably care more about the Chargers than San Diego State University.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Aug 30, 2014 5:29:53 GMT -8
I don't know why anyone would disagree that 166 acres of premium land wouldn't be the most ideal option for SDSU. That plus the Lindo Paseo project would be transformative for SDSU. For the city at minimum, bringing new keys/housing online at the largely unused Qualcomm site would have profound effect on mission valley and allied gardens as well. Plus, they'll get ridership up on their silly trolley line Sent from my SCH-I535 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Aug 30, 2014 5:38:22 GMT -8
I don't know why anyone would disagree that 166 acres of premium land wouldn't be the most ideal option for SDSU. That plus the Lindo Paseo project would be transformative for SDSU. For the city at minimum, bringing new keys/housing online at the largely unused Qualcomm site would have profound effect on mission valley and allied gardens as well. Plus, they'll get ridership up on their silly trolley line Sent from my SCH-I535 using proboards Heck yeah on the trolley! Why not put up our own monorail to SDSU (Don Coryell) Football Stadium?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 30, 2014 12:18:13 GMT -8
perhaps we can convince either Ralph Rubio, founder and chairman of Rubio’s Fresh Mexican Grill or Costco co-founder Jim Sinegal (both of whom are Alumni) to invest in an SDSU expansion / stadium project at the 166 acre Qualcomm site
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Aug 30, 2014 12:53:54 GMT -8
I don't know why anyone would disagree that 166 acres of premium land wouldn't be the most ideal option for SDSU. That plus the Lindo Paseo project would be transformative for SDSU. For the city at minimum, bringing new keys/housing online at the largely unused Qualcomm site would have profound effect on mission valley and allied gardens as well. Plus, they'll get ridership up on their silly trolley line Sent from my SCH-I535 using proboards Heck yeah on the trolley! Why not put up our own monorail to SDSU (Don Coryell) Football Stadium? Seriously. Or they can introduce an express line to Qualcomm. Would just take some trolley car housing on the Qualcomm end (only if there is a track switch somewhere near SDSU or they run on the wrong side inbetween regular service) unless they want to run it the full gambit. Sent from my SCH-I535 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Aug 30, 2014 13:13:19 GMT -8
Wonder what the "JAM ' group think of the possibilities of the Q or other sports development in San Diego ?
|
|