Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2014 10:35:05 GMT -8
Quick, someone add a basketball use, like a team spa on the site. The hoops-only fans will then buy in! Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards Maybe they can build the new buildings in the neoclassical style, cover all of the walls in ivy and build a giant statue of Jesus viewable through the open end of the new stadium just to keep all of the OCS honks happy. :-) JK.. I like that someone is formulating a unified infrastructure approach instead of the narrow minded, parochial approach that seems to have dominated the conversation lately.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2014 11:06:59 GMT -8
I read that article ... it was conspicuous that an Aztecs football stadium was absent in the "plan" for the Q site ... My guess is that his plan has the Aztecs renting the downtown stadium from the ChargersAlso conspicuously absent was anything at all about the Aztecs renting the downtown stadium. And since SDSU would buy the entire Qualcomm site, one assumes SDSU could do with it what it wishes.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 24, 2014 11:09:22 GMT -8
as for the finance section of his plan ...
•$350 million from the hotel room tax approved by hoteliers. The court ruled this tax has to be approved by voters as well.
•$500 million from the NFL as part of its loan program for new stadiums.
•$150 million from naming rights of the new facilities — far more than the $18 million Qualcomm paid to rebrand San Diego Jack Murphy Stadium when it was enlarged for Super Bowl purposes in the 1990s.
•$100 million from new hotels’ tourist taxes near the convention center, such as the 500-room Hilton Bayfront expansion and $180 million from JMI Realty’s possible 1,500 room hotel at the foot of Park Boulevard. The revenue would presumably be used to help finance construction bonds for the convention center, stadium or both.
•The final piece: $300 million from the sale of Qualcomm Stadium land to SDSU.
if the $750 million is so accessible ($500M from NFL, $150M naming rights & $100M new tourist taxes beyond the $350M already needing a vote) ... why do San Diego tax payers need to be involved at all?
If the $350M hotel tax passes, why wouldn't it be directed at the convention center expansion as intended anyway?
does the $300M for SDSU to take over the Q site include any restrictions on building an Aztecs Football stadium? Or is it a separate issue from the Chargers downtown stadium plan? My guess is that the Chargers need the Aztecs to play downtown too, and that they would insist on it by including a stipulation to that effect on the sale of the Q to SDSU.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Aug 24, 2014 11:17:24 GMT -8
So it begins. I see the Chargers doing a joint stadium convention center downtown and SDSU taking over the Q site and developing it as a west campus with a 40-50K stadium.
I have already heard that SDSU has already unofficially been given the go ahead rights to develop the land when the Chargers vacate. Time table for completion would be 8 years without lawsuits.
|
|
|
Post by therealeman on Aug 24, 2014 11:18:31 GMT -8
SDSU will not accept any plan that does not consider its football future.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Aug 24, 2014 11:19:38 GMT -8
Thers no effing way the Aztecs play in a downtown stadium if this occurs. Also, the NFL would chip in $200 mil not $500 mil. But Spanos will chip in $100 mil so there is a $200 mil difference.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Aug 24, 2014 11:19:48 GMT -8
as for the finance section of his plan ... •$350 million from the hotel room tax approved by hoteliers. The court ruled this tax has to be approved by voters as well.• $500 million from the NFL as part of its loan program for new stadiums. • $150 million from naming rights of the new facilities — far more than the $18 million Qualcomm paid to rebrand San Diego Jack Murphy Stadium when it was enlarged for Super Bowl purposes in the 1990s. • $100 million from new hotels’ tourist taxes near the convention center, such as the 500-room Hilton Bayfront expansion and $180 million from JMI Realty’s possible 1,500 room hotel at the foot of Park Boulevard. The revenue would presumably be used to help finance construction bonds for the convention center, stadium or both. •The final piece: $300 million from the sale of Qualcomm Stadium land to SDSU. if the $750 million is so accessible ($500M from NFL, $150M naming rights & $100M new tourist taxes beyond the $350M already needing a vote) ... why do San Diego tax payers need to be involved at all? If the $300M hotel tax passes, why wouldn't it be directed at the convention center expansion as intended anyway? does the $300M for SDSU to take over the Q site include any restrictions on building an Aztecs Football stadium? Or is it a separate issue from the Chargers downtown stadium plan? My guess is that the Chargers need the Aztecs to play downtown too, and that they would insist on it by including a stipulation to that effect on the sale of the Q to SDSU. Know this: SDSU will not play downtown. It is a non starter as has been stated by Jim Sterk.
|
|
|
Post by therealeman on Aug 24, 2014 11:21:48 GMT -8
If we buy the Q site, we have stadium plans in place.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Aug 24, 2014 11:22:33 GMT -8
I see this as the eventual outcome even if convention center and stadium plans fall apart.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 24, 2014 11:23:05 GMT -8
as for the finance section of his plan ... •$350 million from the hotel room tax approved by hoteliers. The court ruled this tax has to be approved by voters as well.• $500 million from the NFL as part of its loan program for new stadiums. • $150 million from naming rights of the new facilities — far more than the $18 million Qualcomm paid to rebrand San Diego Jack Murphy Stadium when it was enlarged for Super Bowl purposes in the 1990s. • $100 million from new hotels’ tourist taxes near the convention center, such as the 500-room Hilton Bayfront expansion and $180 million from JMI Realty’s possible 1,500 room hotel at the foot of Park Boulevard. The revenue would presumably be used to help finance construction bonds for the convention center, stadium or both. •The final piece: $300 million from the sale of Qualcomm Stadium land to SDSU. if the $750 million is so accessible ($500M from NFL, $150M naming rights & $100M new tourist taxes beyond the $350M already needing a vote) ... why do San Diego tax payers need to be involved at all? If the $350M hotel tax passes, why wouldn't it be directed at the convention center expansion as intended anyway? does the $300M for SDSU to take over the Q site include any restrictions on building an Aztecs Football stadium? Or is it a separate issue from the Chargers downtown stadium plan? My guess is that the Chargers need the Aztecs to play downtown too, and that they would insist on it by including a stipulation to that effect on the sale of the Q to SDSU. Know this: SDSU will not play downtown. It is a non starter as has been stated by Jim Sterk. I agree with you ... I am just pointing out that the Peace plan omits any talk of an Aztecs Football Stadium at the Q site -- that has to be intentional.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 24, 2014 11:24:35 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2014 11:42:05 GMT -8
SDSU should buy the Qualcomm site and then rent to the Chargers at $5M per game.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 24, 2014 11:43:38 GMT -8
SDSU should buy the Qualcomm site and then rent to the Chargers at $5M per game. Best idea yet!
|
|
|
Post by badfish on Aug 24, 2014 11:51:43 GMT -8
If they put a stadium at the Q site, I'm opening an Aztec bar as close as possible.
|
|
|
Post by therealeman on Aug 24, 2014 12:07:50 GMT -8
If they put a stadium at the Q site, I'm opening an Aztec bar as close as possible. They had the coolest SDSU flag at effin's. I don't know if it's still up because I haven't been there in a few, but it looks like the US flag except it's red and black with 'SDSU" where the 50 stars go. So cool.
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Aug 24, 2014 12:48:20 GMT -8
Stadium or not, for the growth of SDSU, that is a pivotal site that we should definitely try to move on. With no Graduate School building, an opportunity to build new facilities for engineering and sciences, as well as extra land ops for the potential of professional programs (law, vet, sciences), this is as viable a site as any for an extended campus. I would say tearing down the Q would be the one of the first rules of business for the development of SDSU, west campus.
I am all for it, and would be well worth the sticker tag.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 24, 2014 13:00:44 GMT -8
Stadium or not, for the growth of SDSU, that is a pivotal site that we should definitely try to move on. With no Graduate School building, an opportunity to build new facilities for engineering and sciences, as well as extra land ops for the potential of professional programs (law, vet, sciences), this is as viable a site as any for an extended campus. I would say tearing down the Q would be the one of the first rules of business for the development of SDSU, west campus. I am all for it, and would be well worth the sticker tag. agreed, however ... we could have a stadium as well as other facilities at the Q-site and at the same time expand the campus in the areas we would no longer need for an OCS We still have the Hardy site and the other site identified for the OCS that can be used an "an opportunity to build new facilities for engineering and sciences, as well as extra land ops for the potential of professional programs (law, vet, sciences)".
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Aug 24, 2014 13:12:25 GMT -8
Stadium or not, for the growth of SDSU, that is a pivotal site that we should definitely try to move on. With no Graduate School building, an opportunity to build new facilities for engineering and sciences, as well as extra land ops for the potential of professional programs (law, vet, sciences), this is as viable a site as any for an extended campus. I would say tearing down the Q would be the one of the first rules of business for the development of SDSU, west campus. I am all for it, and would be well worth the sticker tag. agreed, however ... we could have a stadium as well as other facilities at the Q-site and at the same time expand the campus in the areas we would no longer need for an OCS We still have the Hardy site and the other site identified for the OCS that can be used an "an opportunity to build new facilities for engineering and sciences, as well as extra land ops for the potential of professional programs (law, vet, sciences)". Absolutely agree. The main gist of my words is that we would increase our options as we increase our footprint. Personally I would like the stadium in Albert's neighborhood, but I understand the NIMBY, the cost, and the other concerns, that would be lessened by redoing a stadium at the Q site. My big thing is that we need to go all in on the Q site, whether it is for the stadium or not. The Mesa is crammed as is, and we need to proactively think of our growth, academically, residentially, and athletically.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 24, 2014 13:23:28 GMT -8
agreed, however ... we could have a stadium as well as other facilities at the Q-site and at the same time expand the campus in the areas we would no longer need for an OCS We still have the Hardy site and the other site identified for the OCS that can be used an "an opportunity to build new facilities for engineering and sciences, as well as extra land ops for the potential of professional programs (law, vet, sciences)". Absolutely agree. The main gist of my words is that we would increase our options as we increase our footprint. Personally I would like the stadium in Albert's neighborhood, but I understand the NIMBY, the cost, and the other concerns, that would be lessened by redoing a stadium at the Q site. My big thing is that we need to go all in on the Q site, whether it is for the stadium or not. The Mesa is crammed as is, and we need to proactively think of our growth, academically, residentially, and athletically. I think we can all agree that the Q is vital to our needs both academic and athletic. The thing I don't like is if we are "forced" to rent a downtown stadium for Aztecs Football as part of a deal for the Q what are those costs?. Then, as you mentioned, there are the additional costs beyond the $300M acquisition fee as another barrier to an OCS at the Albert's site if the Q can not be used for an Aztecs stadium.
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Aug 24, 2014 13:31:30 GMT -8
Absolutely agree. The main gist of my words is that we would increase our options as we increase our footprint. Personally I would like the stadium in Albert's neighborhood, but I understand the NIMBY, the cost, and the other concerns, that would be lessened by redoing a stadium at the Q site. My big thing is that we need to go all in on the Q site, whether it is for the stadium or not. The Mesa is crammed as is, and we need to proactively think of our growth, academically, residentially, and athletically. I think we can all agree that the Q is vital to our needs both academic and athletic. The thing I don't like is if we are "forced" to rent a downtown stadium for Aztecs Football as part of a deal for the Q what are those costs?. Then, as you mentioned, there are the additional costs beyond the $300M acquisition fee as another barrier to an OCS at the Albert's site if the Q can not be used for an Aztecs stadium. It would seem difficult for the lawyers to pass an easement saying we can't have a stadium, on a site with a stadium. Now with Albert's, I could easily see how we wouldn't get a stadium built, but if we were to put a stadium in one of the corners of the site in MV, we could have a stadium build while we still use Qualcomm. Or is the suggestion that the only way we get the land is if we rent DT Charger stadium? I honestly don't think we are worth that much that the City would hogtie us in that manner. It is a slightly different argument than SDSU just saying we are going to build a stadium, while the Chargers are still arguing for a stadium. We just seem to be part of the financing scheme for their stadium. I may have missed it, but that is my take.
|
|