|
Post by badfish on Aug 24, 2014 13:32:56 GMT -8
Let's just combine this thread with the BIG12 thread and see how many pages of nonsense we can get.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Aug 24, 2014 13:34:09 GMT -8
I read that article ... it was conspicuous that an Aztecs football stadium was absent in the "plan" for the Q site ... "He said SDSU, landlocked at its 300-acre campus on Montezuma Mesa, could turn the Qualcomm site into a new “front door” with student and faculty housing, classrooms and research labs, plus a recreational center and regional park focused on the San Diego River. It all would be designed as a car-free, 21st century transit-oriented development linked to the existing San Diego Trolley, three stops away from SDSU and in a few years, several more stops on a new trolley line to UC San Diego. SDSU, UCSD and USD all could conceivably participate in creating a multi-university campus where students could interact." My guess is that his plan has the Aztecs renting the downtown stadium from the ChargersIt was not absent, but not front and center.
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Aug 24, 2014 13:37:28 GMT -8
Where does everyone think we are getting $300 million from, if that were in fact the actual cost? The state sure ain't giving it to us.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 24, 2014 13:38:40 GMT -8
I read that article ... it was conspicuous that an Aztecs football stadium was absent in the "plan" for the Q site ... "He said SDSU, landlocked at its 300-acre campus on Montezuma Mesa, could turn the Qualcomm site into a new “front door” with student and faculty housing, classrooms and research labs, plus a recreational center and regional park focused on the San Diego River. It all would be designed as a car-free, 21st century transit-oriented development linked to the existing San Diego Trolley, three stops away from SDSU and in a few years, several more stops on a new trolley line to UC San Diego. SDSU, UCSD and USD all could conceivably participate in creating a multi-university campus where students could interact." My guess is that his plan has the Aztecs renting the downtown stadium from the ChargersIt was not absent, but not front and center. Pretty sure it was implied in the " car-free, 21st century transit-oriented development" and the "student and faculty housing, classrooms and research labs, plus a recreational center and regional park" sections that negate any opportunity for a Stadium & Parking as part of the plan ...
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 24, 2014 13:45:28 GMT -8
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. I put nothing past a lawyers' ability to write anything into a contract ... of course, enforce-ability is a different matter -- I like your idea of building a stadium elsewhere on the site, before tearing down the Q ... and agree we should get the site before worrying about anything else. My concerns, vis a vie being forced downtown, is as relates to Chargers financing and their "selling" of the usefulness of a downtown stadium as a home for both teams and wanting to ensure there is no "competing" stadium in San Diego for other events.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Aug 24, 2014 13:46:34 GMT -8
It was not absent, but not front and center. Pretty sure it was implied in the " car-free, 21st century transit-oriented development" and the "student and faculty housing, classrooms and research labs, plus a recreational center and regional park" sections that negate any opportunity for a Stadium & Parking as part of the plan ... " His argument is that SDSU through the California State University system has more flexibility and capacity to take on a complex, long-term real estate deal than either the city, which faces complicated environmental and financial restrictions, or the Chargers, which would have to find financing for a decades-long development. Until now, SDSU’s connection to Qualcomm, of course, has been for Aztec football games." Sure sounds to me like the main reason SDSU is being considered is that we play football there and would be able to make use of the space. To be sure, if SDSU takes over that space we would continue to use the Q for a time, build new engineering facilities, dorms, and infrastructure that would clearly differentiate SDSU from any other university in the CSU system. The opportunities are really exciting, especially with the idea of USD and UCSD coming to work on SDSU property. Academically it would greatly raise the bar for SDSU and provide great opportunities for research. I think you are looking for landmines where there are none. SDSU football will remain at the Q until a new football only stadium would be built.
|
|
|
Post by therealeman on Aug 24, 2014 13:47:44 GMT -8
It was not absent, but not front and center. Pretty sure it was implied in the " car-free, 21st century transit-oriented development" and the "student and faculty housing, classrooms and research labs, plus a recreational center and regional park" sections that negate any opportunity for a Stadium & Parking as part of the plan ... I'll say it again, SDSU will not accept any plan that does not consider its football future. Having a stadium on the land is something that will need to be in the deal if they want us to fork over money for the Chargers. And it sure as hell won't be "car-free" haha, right.
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Aug 24, 2014 13:48:27 GMT -8
Where does everyone think we are getting $300 million from, if that were in fact the actual cost? The state sure ain't giving it to us. It isn't 300M for a stadium, it is for academics and administration. I think Sacramento will be a little more receptive. Haven't they put in funds for some of our renovations like Storm and Nassitar? At least bonds, IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2014 14:01:26 GMT -8
Where does everyone think we are getting $300 million from, if that were in fact the actual cost? The state sure ain't giving it to us. It isn't 300M for a stadium, it is for academics and administration. I think Sacramento will be a little more receptive. Haven't they put in funds for some of our renovations like Storm and Nassitar? At least bonds, IMO. Right. SDSU is often referred to as the Crown Jewel of the system at the CSU chancellor's office. Since there has already been discussion of SDSU and Cal Poly SLO leaving the system to become some sort of hybrid of the CSU/UC schools which would, like UC schools, rely very much on tuition they know they could get from applicants, I highly doubt the CSU chancellor's office would pooh-pooh a chance to help SDSU evolve into a "very high research" university from its current status as just a "high research activity" school. So the chancellor's office telling SDSU there was no money in budget to help fund obtaining the Qualcomm site could be a cut-off-your-nose-to-spite your face action.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 24, 2014 14:11:29 GMT -8
Pretty sure it was implied in the " car-free, 21st century transit-oriented development" and the "student and faculty housing, classrooms and research labs, plus a recreational center and regional park" sections that negate any opportunity for a Stadium & Parking as part of the plan ... " His argument is that SDSU through the California State University system has more flexibility and capacity to take on a complex, long-term real estate deal than either the city, which faces complicated environmental and financial restrictions, or the Chargers, which would have to find financing for a decades-long development. Until now, SDSU’s connection to Qualcomm, of course, has been for Aztec football games." Sure sounds to me like the main reason SDSU is being considered is that we play football there and would be able to make use of the space. To be sure, if SDSU takes over that space we would continue to use the Q for a time, build new engineering facilities, dorms, and infrastructure that would clearly differentiate SDSU from any other university in the CSU system. The opportunities are really exciting, especially with the idea of USD and UCSD coming to work on SDSU property. Academically it would greatly raise the bar for SDSU and provide great opportunities for research. I think you are looking for landmines where there are none. SDSU football will remain at the Q until a new football only stadium would be built. The only "landmine" I am concerned about is the one laid by the Chargers in not wanting a competing stadium to their own, and the resources they have at their disposal to ensure such a thing does not happen.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 24, 2014 14:14:56 GMT -8
Pretty sure it was implied in the " car-free, 21st century transit-oriented development" and the "student and faculty housing, classrooms and research labs, plus a recreational center and regional park" sections that negate any opportunity for a Stadium & Parking as part of the plan ... I'll say it again, SDSU will not accept any plan that does not consider its football future. Having a stadium on the land is something that will need to be in the deal if they want us to fork over money for the Chargers. And it sure as hell won't be "car-free" haha, right. THIS^^^
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 24, 2014 14:37:59 GMT -8
I will re-iterate my question ... if the Chargers have access to $750 Million for a new stadium, why would they need anything from the city other than the land to build it on?
Why bring up the Qualcomm site to SDSU or the Convention center tax issue in the article? This article could have just centered on the possibilities of the Qualcomm site to SDSU and not have anything to do with the Chargers Downtown stadium plan. It could also have just focused on how the Chargers could afford their own stadium and had a companion article of the possible uses of the Qualcomm site.
This is a publicity piece to encourage support for a downtown stadium ... such a stadium would not want any competition from an Aztecs Stadium, nor would it be happy with the loss of income from Aztecs renting the Chargers stadium.
The way the article was laid out is just a bit suspect to me. I also have questions about this "Atrium" connecting the convention center to the downtown stadium ... it would have to cut through either the Imperial Transit Plaza, or the Padres Tailgate park (or both). We just spent nearly $2 million on a pedestrian bridge between the Hitlon and Petco Park ... how does that fit into this "Atrium" plan?
It may just be because my degrees are in Political Science and Finance, but I just see more to this article than meets the eye.
|
|
|
Post by zurac315 on Aug 24, 2014 14:54:02 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? Well, we might finally have an on-campus stadium. Might help attendance!
|
|
|
Post by aztec1990 on Aug 24, 2014 14:58:32 GMT -8
I thought I make a quick statement about Eminent Domain as I have worked on many Eminent Domain Cases and there is no reason for E.D to be used in this matter.
1) Eminent Domain can be used by one entity against another entity. In fact the entity doesn't even need to be a public entity. For example PG&E and SDG&E have Eminent Domain ability even though they are both private companies.
2) Eminent Domain simply means you are allowed to take land regardless if the land owner want to sell or not BUT! You still have to pay "Highest and Best Use" rates for the land.
3) Eminent Domain law suits are about both saids arguing what is the "highest and Best Use" value of a piece of land and during these law suits they don't argue about the value in it's current condition but the value of the land if it was used in the best possible way (minus the cost to make it that way).
4) Eminent Domain does not get you around environmental or any other issues the land would have for redevelopment. City can opt to make some of the red tape go away but if private citizens don't like that they can hold up the process.
6) Easements can be done through Eminent Domain and often that is how they are created but the land owner can simply grant an easement on there property if they want. Often they don't because easements can restrict what you can do with the land and in return lower the value of the land due to this new restriction.
6) The best way for SDSU to get a good deal on this property is for the property owners to sell it below market value knowing that improved land will help the city in other ways.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Aug 24, 2014 15:11:50 GMT -8
Pretty sure it was implied in the " car-free, 21st century transit-oriented development" and the "student and faculty housing, classrooms and research labs, plus a recreational center and regional park" sections that negate any opportunity for a Stadium & Parking as part of the plan ... " His argument is that SDSU through the California State University system has more flexibility and capacity to take on a complex, long-term real estate deal than either the city, which faces complicated environmental and financial restrictions, or the Chargers, which would have to find financing for a decades-long development. Until now, SDSU’s connection to Qualcomm, of course, has been for Aztec football games." Sure sounds to me like the main reason SDSU is being considered is that we play football there and would be able to make use of the space. To be sure, if SDSU takes over that space we would continue to use the Q for a time, build new engineering facilities, dorms, and infrastructure that would clearly differentiate SDSU from any other university in the CSU system. The opportunities are really exciting, especially with the idea of USD and UCSD coming to work on SDSU property. Academically it would greatly raise the bar for SDSU and provide great opportunities for research. I think you are looking for landmines where there are none. SDSU football will remain at the Q until a new football only stadium would be built. This. Research park, labs, housing etc will likely be built before any stadium.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Aug 24, 2014 15:40:56 GMT -8
I will re-iterate my question ... if the Chargers have access to $750 Million for a new stadium, why would they need anything from the city other than the land to build it on? Why bring up the Qualcomm site to SDSU or the Convention center tax issue in the article? This article could have just centered on the possibilities of the Qualcomm site to SDSU and not have anything to do with the Chargers Downtown stadium plan. It could also have just focused on how the Chargers could afford their own stadium and had a companion article of the possible uses of the Qualcomm site. This is a publicity piece to encourage support for a downtown stadium ... such a stadium would not want any competition from an Aztecs Stadium, nor would it be happy with the loss of income from Aztecs renting the Chargers stadium. The way the article was laid out is just a bit suspect to me. I also have questions about this "Atrium" connecting the convention center to the downtown stadium ... it would have to cut through either the Imperial Transit Plaza, or the Padres Tailgate park (or both). We just spent nearly $2 million on a pedestrian bridge between the Hitlon and Petco Park ... how does that fit into this "Atrium" plan? It may just be because my degrees are in Political Science and Finance, but I just see more to this article than meets the eye. When the Chargers finally vacate the Q SDSU will take control and build a West Campus & Stadium. The 2 stadiums won't compete with each other. Aztec stadium at most would be 40,000-50,000 seats with fewer bells and whistles; not some NFL/convention center monstrosity. Two different venues with very different purposes.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 24, 2014 15:50:52 GMT -8
Off what topic? Oh, I get it. You were joking. Silly me to take you seriously. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 24, 2014 15:53:19 GMT -8
I will re-iterate my question ... if the Chargers have access to $750 Million for a new stadium, why would they need anything from the city other than the land to build it on? Why bring up the Qualcomm site to SDSU or the Convention center tax issue in the article? This article could have just centered on the possibilities of the Qualcomm site to SDSU and not have anything to do with the Chargers Downtown stadium plan. It could also have just focused on how the Chargers could afford their own stadium and had a companion article of the possible uses of the Qualcomm site. This is a publicity piece to encourage support for a downtown stadium ... such a stadium would not want any competition from an Aztecs Stadium, nor would it be happy with the loss of income from Aztecs renting the Chargers stadium. The way the article was laid out is just a bit suspect to me. I also have questions about this "Atrium" connecting the convention center to the downtown stadium ... it would have to cut through either the Imperial Transit Plaza, or the Padres Tailgate park (or both). We just spent nearly $2 million on a pedestrian bridge between the Hitlon and Petco Park ... how does that fit into this "Atrium" plan? It may just be because my degrees are in Political Science and Finance, but I just see more to this article than meets the eye. When the Chargers finally vacate the Q SDSU will take control and build a West Campus & Stadium. The 2 stadiums won't compete with each other. Aztec stadium at most would be 40,000-50,000 seats with fewer bells and whistles; not some NFL/convention center monstrosity. Two different venues with very different purposes. I agree with you that they should not compete ... but I don't think the Chargers feel the same way. An Aztecs Stadium at 40K+ seats with a parking lot would be ideal for many events that the Chargers would rather see at their stadium -- even when it doesn't make any sense to do so. Events such as High School Football playoffs, MLS games, motocross, used car tent sales, concerts or any other event expecting 30-40K are some examples of things the Chargers would see as competition for revenue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2014 16:00:24 GMT -8
I thought I make a quick statement about Eminent Domain as I have worked on many Eminent Domain Cases and there is no reason for E.D to be used in this matter. 1) Eminent Domain can be used by one entity against another entity. In fact the entity doesn't even need to be a public entity. For example PG&E and SDG&E have Eminent Domain ability even though they are both private companies. 2) Eminent Domain simply means you are allowed to take land regardless if the land owner want to sell or not BUT! You still have to pay "Highest and Best Use" rates for the land. 3) Eminent Domain law suits are about both saids arguing what is the "highest and Best Use" value of a piece of land and during these law suits they don't argue about the value in it's current condition but the value of the land if it was used in the best possible way (minus the cost to make it that way). 4) Eminent Domain does not get you around environmental or any other issues the land would have for redevelopment. City can opt to make some of the red tape go away but if private citizens don't like that they can hold up the process. 6) Easements can be done through Eminent Domain and often that is how they are created but the land owner can simply grant an easement on there property if they want. Often they don't because easements can restrict what you can do with the land and in return lower the value of the land due to this new restriction. 6) The best way for SDSU to get a good deal on this property is for the property owners to sell it below market value knowing that improved land will help the city in other ways. Thanks. Not at all my area of expertise but I was pretty sure the City of SD isn't shielded from an eminent domain taking by a higher level of government simply because it's an public entity. That said, I also think the issue is probably moot since it isn't like the City will outright refuse to sell the property. In fact, the City and SDSU have already discussed the possibility of the university buying the property.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Aug 24, 2014 16:00:36 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? Hey everyone, look, it's negative Nancy over here. I'm sure you are also one of the individuals who is worried about the basketball performance center "fitting" next to the alumni center. No, I am the one who posted the dimensions of the new BB practice facility and said the lot looks plenty big enough for it. Anyone talking about renovating the stadium needs to know that is a non-starter. There is nothing worth keeping in it. About the only thing on that line that even remotely makes sense is building a new stadium inside the old one (Per Quigley) but even that is probably more expensive than it is worth and you still have the stadium smack dab in the middle of the lot which limits the development of the rest of the property and you end up with a stadium that is much bigger than you actually need which requires more maintenance in the future. You have to remember that according to independent sources the Q has something like $70M in deferred maintenance alone right now. That is just stuff that has to be fixed. Steve Peace is a politician and he has some pie in the sky ideas about how he thinks the property should be used. His whole "car free" zone is laughable. Living in San Diego means you need a car at some point. I do think that a single new stadium built either on the eastern portion of the Q lot (which I prefer) or downtown and shared by the only two football teams in the region that need a large stadium is the best and most economical option, though I don't have much hope that will happen anytime soon. And if this whole P5 thing goes through I don't see the need for SDSU to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a place for men's and women's soccer to play.
|
|