|
Post by zurac315 on Sept 1, 2014 18:41:53 GMT -8
So, all we need is another Faulk, not another stadium!
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Sept 1, 2014 19:30:58 GMT -8
Steve Fisher DOES NOT come to SDSU without cox/Viejas. I've heard him say it privately and alluded to that in an interview last year. Cox/Viejas was the catalyst to where SDSU hoops is today and it doesn't surprise me a bit that you try to dismiss it because it doesn't fit your Charger Agenda. I never said it would happen overnight but I have no doubt you'd see a similar trend with regards to atmosphere and attendance that SDSU hoops went through. It didn't happen overnight but it happened and now we have a top 25 program and one of the rowdiest arenas in the nation. The transformation from one of the worst teams in D1 to one of the best started when ground was broken on Cox arena. You seem to miss the point where I speak to why an on campus arena has a bigger benefit than an on-campus stadium. If the university wanted to build an on campus stadium and have the funding capability to do so then why aren't they doing that rather than taking a wait and see approach with what happens with the Chargers? Right now I haven't heard anything serious from the university about building an on-campus facility or any clear plans and funding to buy the Q and the land around it. And you also missed the point that just building an arena didn't make the BB program a success. It took nearly a full decade before they got to a level of success where they are consistently ranked and playing in March Madness routinely - and doing so in the very same conference as the football team. Maybe they will get lucky and get a "big name" coach who would take on a struggling program and stay with it even when opportunities arise to step up to a bigger program. The more likely scenario is that any coach we get will look at the job as a stepping stone to bigger and better things. And what happens if, heaven forbid, they don't get that P5 invitation? That sure isn't locked in stone even with a new Aztec only football stadium? Even if the university were to build a 45K seat stadium they would be looking at trying to attract, at a minimum, 35K people who are not current students to attend. Being on the SDSU campus isn't as important as people on here claim, and the alcohol ban would be a detriment to attacting people to the games . As I've said, I think the best option for all parties, SDSU, the Chargers and the city to build a new stadium on the site of the Q but even the mention of a shared stadium is heresy on here. I really don't think the university has the financial wherewithal to finance their own stadium - even a 40K-45k one - and I don't think the CSU system is going to be willing to fund any part of a stadium deal (either building a new one or purchasing the Q) for SDSU regardless of where it is located. As I have said, and backed it up with numbers, the best option for SDSU is to acquire and develop the Q site for the University. If SDSU builds a new stadium for its football team (and possibly an MLS team) on the site that would just be a bonus. Acquiring an extra 166 acres for SDSU to develop as a West Campus is the bigger picture. If I had to choose between a shared NFL stadium between the Chargers and Aztecs on the Q site or a 166 acre expansion of an SDSU West Campus on the Q site I would choose campus expansion hands down. It is a no brainier. A shared stadium at the Q site would heavily benefit the Chargers and only allow the Aztecs to continue to be tenants. The benefits and long term financial impact on SDSU and the city of San Diego would be immense with an SDSU West Campus expansion. A shared NFL stadium is insignificant on almost every level when compared to an SDSU West Campus expansion. Again, if you can't see this, you just care more about the Chargers than San Diego State University.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Sept 1, 2014 20:09:56 GMT -8
You seem to miss the point where I speak to why an on campus arena has a bigger benefit than an on-campus stadium. If the university wanted to build an on campus stadium and have the funding capability to do so then why aren't they doing that rather than taking a wait and see approach with what happens with the Chargers? Right now I haven't heard anything serious from the university about building an on-campus facility or any clear plans and funding to buy the Q and the land around it. And you also missed the point that just building an arena didn't make the BB program a success. It took nearly a full decade before they got to a level of success where they are consistently ranked and playing in March Madness routinely - and doing so in the very same conference as the football team. Maybe they will get lucky and get a "big name" coach who would take on a struggling program and stay with it even when opportunities arise to step up to a bigger program. The more likely scenario is that any coach we get will look at the job as a stepping stone to bigger and better things. And what happens if, heaven forbid, they don't get that P5 invitation? That sure isn't locked in stone even with a new Aztec only football stadium? Even if the university were to build a 45K seat stadium they would be looking at trying to attract, at a minimum, 35K people who are not current students to attend. Being on the SDSU campus isn't as important as people on here claim, and the alcohol ban would be a detriment to attacting people to the games . As I've said, I think the best option for all parties, SDSU, the Chargers and the city to build a new stadium on the site of the Q but even the mention of a shared stadium is heresy on here. I really don't think the university has the financial wherewithal to finance their own stadium - even a 40K-45k one - and I don't think the CSU system is going to be willing to fund any part of a stadium deal (either building a new one or purchasing the Q) for SDSU regardless of where it is located. As I have said, and backed it up with numbers, the best option for SDSU is to acquire and develop the Q site for the University. If SDSU builds a new stadium for its football team (and possibly an MLS team) on the site that would just be a bonus. Acquiring an extra 166 acres for SDSU to develop as a West Campus is the bigger picture. If I had to choose between a shared NFL stadium between the Chargers and Aztecs on the Q site or a 166 acre expansion of an SDSU West Campus on the Q site I would choose campus expansion hands down. It is a no brainier. A shared stadium at the Q site would heavily benefit the Chargers and only allow the Aztecs to continue to be tenants. The benefits and long term financial impact on SDSU and the city of San Diego would be immense with an SDSU West Campus expansion. A shared NFL stadium is insignificant on almost every level when compared to an SDSU West Campus expansion. Again, if you can't see this, you just care more about the Chargers than San Diego State University. If the choice is between sharing a new stadium with the Chargers, or SDSU taking over the Mission Valley Site and the Aztecs having to play in Qualcomm more or less "as is" for another decade or so ... I choose taking over the Q. Anybody that thinks we don't have the funds or resources to buy the land & stadium doesn't follow SDSU very closely. If you can't see the economic benefits of SDSU expanding its campus by 166 acres, then you are willfully ignorant. If you don't think that a new funding campaign wouldn't be started to replace the Q once the land is purchased really underestimates the abilities of SDSU.
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Sept 1, 2014 20:43:34 GMT -8
If the choice is between sharing a new stadium with the Chargers, or SDSU taking over the Mission Valley Site and the Aztecs having to play in Qualcomm more or less "as is" for another decade or so ... I choose taking over the Q. Anybody that thinks we don't have the funds or resources to buy the land & stadium doesn't follow SDSU very closely. If you can't see the economic benefits of SDSU expanding its campus by 166 acres, then you are willfully ignorant.If you don't think that a new funding campaign wouldn't be started to replace the Q once the land is purchased really underestimates the abilities of SDSU. Ok. So if turning the land over to my Alma Mater is the best the city can do to generate revenue so be it. As far as a "funding campaign to replace the Q", that sounds really exciting and I'm sure the money will just start rolling in.
Abilities of SDSU? They can't get 35,000 to an opening season football game. And if the Gulls were still in town, they would probably REALLY be in trouble. And I'll remember the resource issue the next time State tries to "guilt" me for more money.
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Sept 1, 2014 21:05:21 GMT -8
Aren't you being a bit anal? Hey! You're the one that misinterpreted scripture. Heretic! Charger Honk! Good Lord, are you the one who had a different handle long ago with posts nobody really understood?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Sept 1, 2014 21:27:03 GMT -8
If the choice is between sharing a new stadium with the Chargers, or SDSU taking over the Mission Valley Site and the Aztecs having to play in Qualcomm more or less "as is" for another decade or so ... I choose taking over the Q. Anybody that thinks we don't have the funds or resources to buy the land & stadium doesn't follow SDSU very closely. If you can't see the economic benefits of SDSU expanding its campus by 166 acres, then you are willfully ignorant.If you don't think that a new funding campaign wouldn't be started to replace the Q once the land is purchased really underestimates the abilities of SDSU. Ok. So if turning the land over to my Alma Mater is the best the city can do to generate revenue so be it. As far as a "funding campaign to replace the Q", that sounds really exciting and I'm sure the money will just start rolling in.
Abilities of SDSU? They can't get 35,000 to an opening season football game. And if the Gulls were still in town, they would probably REALLY be in trouble. And I'll remember the resource issue the next time State tries to "guilt" me for more money. Yes resources ... through the Campaign for SDSU begun in 2007 with a goal of $500M, SDSU has raised $494M. The campaign was successful enough that the goal has been raised to $1B. There would also be additional support from the CSU system to expand the campus. As previously posted, an expanded campus would mean approximately 10,000 more students paying tuition. I hope that you made a contribution to the campaign. I assume that was the "guilt" to which you referred. The stadium capacity issue would remain if we kept the Q or moved to a new NFL stadium with the Chargers. A program on the rise will help with attendance, but not as much as a stadium designed with the college experience in mind and a capacity of 45K. Would that be built right away? No, but plans could be incorporated into the master plan for the 166 acre West Campus Extension. The abilities of SDSU are growing thanks to smart planning and from donations from people like you and me. Improving academics, increased research & grants as well as popularity of Aztecs athletics are doing wonders for the cachet and image of SDSU ... an important facet to the abilities of SDSU. Decentralization of facilities debt management from the State to the CSU and from the CSU to the individual campuses means SDSU has more control over it's ability to buy the Qualcomm site and improve it as well. If the City of San Diego sees the setting of a price for Qualcomm that both takes a money loser off the books of the city while at the same time increasing the economic impact the university has in San Diego and making some money in the process ... then I call that a win-win(win). I hope that you will continue to support both the university and the athletic dept. with your donations without guilt, but if it does take guilt to help you to donate ... I won't complain because at least you still give (probably just not as much as if you did so freely).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2014 22:23:05 GMT -8
Ok. So if turning the land over to my Alma Mater is the best the city can do to generate revenue so be it. As far as a "funding campaign to replace the Q", that sounds really exciting and I'm sure the money will just start rolling in.
Abilities of SDSU? They can't get 35,000 to an opening season football game. And if the Gulls were still in town, they would probably REALLY be in trouble. And I'll remember the resource issue the next time State tries to "guilt" me for more money. Yes resources ... through the Campaign for SDSU begun in 2007 with a goal of $500M, SDSU has raised $494M. The campaign was successful enough that the goal has been raised to $1B. There would also be additional support from the CSU system to expand the campus. As previously posted, an expanded campus would mean approximately 10,000 more students paying tuition. I hope that you made a contribution to the campaign. I assume that was the "guilt" to which you referred. The stadium capacity issue would remain if we kept the Q or moved to a new NFL stadium with the Chargers. A program on the rise will help with attendance, but not as much as a stadium designed with the college experience in mind and a capacity of 45K. Would that be built right away? No, but plans could be incorporated into the master plan for the 166 acre West Campus Extension. The abilities of SDSU are growing thanks to smart planning and from donations from people like you and me. Improving academics, increased research & grants as well as popularity of Aztecs athletics are doing wonders for the cachet and image of SDSU ... an important facet to the abilities of SDSU. Decentralization of facilities debt management from the State to the CSU and from the CSU to the individual campuses means SDSU has more control over it's ability to buy the Qualcomm site and improve it as well. If the City of San Diego sees the setting of a price for Qualcomm that both takes a money loser off the books of the city while at the same time increasing the economic impact the university has in San Diego and making some money in the process ... then I call that a win-win(win). I hope that you will continue to support both the university and the athletic dept. with your donations without guilt, but if it does take guilt to help you to donate ... I won't complain because at least you still give (probably just not as much as if you did so freely). Just so you know: 10,000 more students is at an annual cost of about $100,000,000 to the general fund. I think the entire UC system got about that much of a general fund increase this fiscal year. Next years total infrastructure budget for all 23 CSU campuses is about $260,000,000. (10 mil/per) While we may think that a bigger SDSU is a good thing, there are 22 other campuses that I'm quite sure have their own master plans and more than a few municipalities that would like a new campus located there, Chula Vista comes to mind. There are others too. None of this gets done without some sort of statewide bond initiative which will require enough honey for the various interested parties to even make it to the ballot. Once there, a super majority will be needed.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 1, 2014 22:55:57 GMT -8
You guys continue to drink too much Charger koolaid ,The Q is a perfectly fine place to watch FB. If (allegedly) the press box and the equipment room leak I really don't care. Yes , I wish it was smaller but that's not going to happen. My advice is move to where the action is. I gave up my Club 49 yard line seats (felt like I was in church) for plaza near the students , bank and booty girls ...waaaay more fun. I know what you mean. I was in plaza 38 for years. Then my neighbor convinced me to to up to club with him. I miss plaza, and shade.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Sept 1, 2014 23:04:28 GMT -8
Yes resources ... through the Campaign for SDSU begun in 2007 with a goal of $500M, SDSU has raised $494M. The campaign was successful enough that the goal has been raised to $1B. There would also be additional support from the CSU system to expand the campus. As previously posted, an expanded campus would mean approximately 10,000 more students paying tuition. I hope that you made a contribution to the campaign. I assume that was the "guilt" to which you referred. The stadium capacity issue would remain if we kept the Q or moved to a new NFL stadium with the Chargers. A program on the rise will help with attendance, but not as much as a stadium designed with the college experience in mind and a capacity of 45K. Would that be built right away? No, but plans could be incorporated into the master plan for the 166 acre West Campus Extension. The abilities of SDSU are growing thanks to smart planning and from donations from people like you and me. Improving academics, increased research & grants as well as popularity of Aztecs athletics are doing wonders for the cachet and image of SDSU ... an important facet to the abilities of SDSU. Decentralization of facilities debt management from the State to the CSU and from the CSU to the individual campuses means SDSU has more control over it's ability to buy the Qualcomm site and improve it as well. If the City of San Diego sees the setting of a price for Qualcomm that both takes a money loser off the books of the city while at the same time increasing the economic impact the university has in San Diego and making some money in the process ... then I call that a win-win(win). I hope that you will continue to support both the university and the athletic dept. with your donations without guilt, but if it does take guilt to help you to donate ... I won't complain because at least you still give (probably just not as much as if you did so freely). Just so you know: 10,000 more students is at an annual cost of about $100,000,000 to the general fund. I think the entire UC system got about that much of a general fund increase this fiscal year. Next years total infrastructure budget for all 23 CSU campuses is about $260,000,000. (10 mil/per) While we may think that a bigger SDSU is a good thing, there are 22 other campuses that I'm quite sure have their own master plans and more than a few municipalities that would like a new campus located there, Chula Vista comes to mind. There are others too. None of this gets done without some sort of statewide bond initiative which will require enough honey for the various interested parties to even make it to the ballot. Once there, a super majority will be needed. However, Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego, (unrelated to Greg Block) said he is intrigued by Peace’s plan and stands ready to introduce legislation if necessary to make the SDSU plan happen. www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/aug/24/peace-qualcomm-stadium-sdsu-convention-downtown/2/?#article-copyFormer Mayor Jerry Sanders (SDSU Alum) supports this idea and current Mayor Kevin Faulkner (SDSU Alum) has already shown support of SDSU. Also of note... One of Faulconer’s favorite professors was Marty Block, now a Democratic state senator, who was a longtime professor and dean at the university and taught Faulconer in a leadership class. It seems that SDSU already has some political clout with regards to campus expansion at the Q site. FYI... 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
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 5:22:40 GMT -8
Just so you know: 10,000 more students is at an annual cost of about $100,000,000 to the general fund. I think the entire UC system got about that much of a general fund increase this fiscal year. Next years total infrastructure budget for all 23 CSU campuses is about $260,000,000. (10 mil/per) While we may think that a bigger SDSU is a good thing, there are 22 other campuses that I'm quite sure have their own master plans and more than a few municipalities that would like a new campus located there, Chula Vista comes to mind. There are others too. None of this gets done without some sort of statewide bond initiative which will require enough honey for the various interested parties to even make it to the ballot. Once there, a super majority will be needed. However, Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego, (unrelated to Greg Block) said he is intrigued by Peace’s plan and stands ready to introduce legislation if necessary to make the SDSU plan happen. www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/aug/24/peace-qualcomm-stadium-sdsu-convention-downtown/2/?#article-copyFormer Mayor Jerry Sanders (SDSU Alum) supports this idea and current Mayor Kevin Faulkner (SDSU Alum) has already shown support of SDSU. Also of note... One of Faulconer’s favorite professors was Marty Block, now a Democratic state senator, who was a longtime professor and dean at the university and taught Faulconer in a leadership class. It seems that SDSU already has some political clout with regards to campus expansion at the Q site. FYI... 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 State owned land is off the books. It isn't treated like privately held land. It has zero market value so I'm not sure what your point is. every in state student is subsidized from the general fund to the tune of appox. $10,000 which means there is no "profit" in the classical sense. Each student is a net burden to the taxpaying public.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Sept 2, 2014 7:15:19 GMT -8
Yes resources ... through the Campaign for SDSU begun in 2007 with a goal of $500M, SDSU has raised $494M. The campaign was successful enough that the goal has been raised to $1B. There would also be additional support from the CSU system to expand the campus. As previously posted, an expanded campus would mean approximately 10,000 more students paying tuition. I hope that you made a contribution to the campaign. I assume that was the "guilt" to which you referred. The stadium capacity issue would remain if we kept the Q or moved to a new NFL stadium with the Chargers. A program on the rise will help with attendance, but not as much as a stadium designed with the college experience in mind and a capacity of 45K. Would that be built right away? No, but plans could be incorporated into the master plan for the 166 acre West Campus Extension. The abilities of SDSU are growing thanks to smart planning and from donations from people like you and me. Improving academics, increased research & grants as well as popularity of Aztecs athletics are doing wonders for the cachet and image of SDSU ... an important facet to the abilities of SDSU. Decentralization of facilities debt management from the State to the CSU and from the CSU to the individual campuses means SDSU has more control over it's ability to buy the Qualcomm site and improve it as well. If the City of San Diego sees the setting of a price for Qualcomm that both takes a money loser off the books of the city while at the same time increasing the economic impact the university has in San Diego and making some money in the process ... then I call that a win-win(win). I hope that you will continue to support both the university and the athletic dept. with your donations without guilt, but if it does take guilt to help you to donate ... I won't complain because at least you still give (probably just not as much as if you did so freely). Just so you know: 10,000 more students is at an annual cost of about $100,000,000 to the general fund. I think the entire UC system got about that much of a general fund increase this fiscal year. Next years total infrastructure budget for all 23 CSU campuses is about $260,000,000. (10 mil/per) While we may think that a bigger SDSU is a good thing, there are 22 other campuses that I'm quite sure have their own master plans and more than a few municipalities that would like a new campus located there, Chula Vista comes to mind. There are others too. None of this gets done without some sort of statewide bond initiative which will require enough honey for the various interested parties to even make it to the ballot. Once there, a super majority will be needed. Just so you know ... the students approved a Student Success Fee -- "implementation of a Student Success Fee, effective fall 2014, between $200 and $500 per semester. This new fee would allow the university to hire additional tenure-track faculty and provide funds to the colleges for enhancing student success through expanded academic related programs." 25, 000 students (current) x $400 ($200 x 2 semesters) = $10,000,000/yr increasing to $25,000,000/yr over the course of a few years this is in addition to tuition. 10,000 more students would also pay the new success fee at it's highest rate ($500 per semester) for an additional $10,000,000 annually. All of these numbers are in addition to the funds from tuition (whatever they are raised to in the future) and separate from the CSU General Fund allocations (which are not as small as you think) Couple this information with the decentralization of facilities debt management ... increased research funding and hopefully more endowments and donations from more graduates as well as others like Jeff Jacobs who want to be a part of this University (even if they didn't graduate from here). That brings me back to the Campaign for SDSU -- started in 2007 with a goal of raising $500M ... to date has raised $494M. The campaign was so successful that the target goal has been raised to $1 Billion. I think SDSU is well on its way to funding a West Campus Expansion ... and hopefully a new Aztecs Stadium will be included in those expansion plans. Funding could be raised separately for a new stadium and in the meantime, perhaps Qualcomm would be interested in expanding its naming rights in the short term for the cost of stadium maintenance ... who knows?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Sept 2, 2014 7:42:05 GMT -8
However, Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego, (unrelated to Greg Block) said he is intrigued by Peace’s plan and stands ready to introduce legislation if necessary to make the SDSU plan happen. www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/aug/24/peace-qualcomm-stadium-sdsu-convention-downtown/2/?#article-copyFormer Mayor Jerry Sanders (SDSU Alum) supports this idea and current Mayor Kevin Faulkner (SDSU Alum) has already shown support of SDSU. Also of note... One of Faulconer’s favorite professors was Marty Block, now a Democratic state senator, who was a longtime professor and dean at the university and taught Faulconer in a leadership class. It seems that SDSU already has some political clout with regards to campus expansion at the Q site. FYI... 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 State owned land is off the books. It isn't treated like privately held land. It has zero market value so I'm not sure what your point is.every in state student is subsidized from the general fund to the tune of appox. $10,000 which means there is no "profit" in the classical sense. Each student is a net burden to the taxpaying public. not true ... all real property (whether publicly or privately held) has a monetary value. Those values are represented in the asset column of the State. It is the function of facility debt management to oversee the gradual conversion of a debt to an asset and to evaluate those assets in terms of value for current and future bonds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 7:43:55 GMT -8
Just so you know: 10,000 more students is at an annual cost of about $100,000,000 to the general fund. I think the entire UC system got about that much of a general fund increase this fiscal year. Next years total infrastructure budget for all 23 CSU campuses is about $260,000,000. (10 mil/per) While we may think that a bigger SDSU is a good thing, there are 22 other campuses that I'm quite sure have their own master plans and more than a few municipalities that would like a new campus located there, Chula Vista comes to mind. There are others too. None of this gets done without some sort of statewide bond initiative which will require enough honey for the various interested parties to even make it to the ballot. Once there, a super majority will be needed. Just so you know ... the students approved a Student Success Fee -- "implementation of a Student Success Fee, effective fall 2014, between $200 and $500 per semester. This new fee would allow the university to hire additional tenure-track faculty and provide funds to the colleges for enhancing student success through expanded academic related programs." 25, 000 students (current) x $400 ($200 x 2 semesters) = $10,000,000/yr increasing to $25,000,000/yr over the course of a few years this is in addition to tuition. 10,000 more students would also pay the new success fee at it's highest rate ($500 per semester) for an additional $10,000,000 annually. All of these numbers are in addition to the funds from tuition (whatever they are raised to in the future) and separate from the CSU General Fund allocations (which are not as small as you think) Couple this information with the decentralization of facilities debt management ... increased research funding and hopefully more endowments and donations from more graduates as well as others like Jeff Jacobs who want to be a part of this University (even if they didn't graduate from here). That brings me back to the Campaign for SDSU -- started in 2007 with a goal of raising $500M ... to date has raised $494M. The campaign was so successful that the target goal has been raised to $1 Billion. I think SDSU is well on its way to funding a West Campus Expansion ... and hopefully a new Aztecs Stadium will be included in those expansion plans. Funding could be raised separately for a new stadium and in the meantime, perhaps Qualcomm would be interested in expanding its naming rights in the short term for the cost of stadium maintenance ... who knows? . 260Mil is the appropriation for infrastructure for all 23 campuses, the the entire appropriation, which you posted. Perhaps I missed the part where it said the Student Success fee could be used for infrastructure.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Sept 2, 2014 7:48:22 GMT -8
Just so you know ... the students approved a Student Success Fee -- "implementation of a Student Success Fee, effective fall 2014, between $200 and $500 per semester. This new fee would allow the university to hire additional tenure-track faculty and provide funds to the colleges for enhancing student success through expanded academic related programs." 25, 000 students (current) x $400 ($200 x 2 semesters) = $10,000,000/yr increasing to $25,000,000/yr over the course of a few years this is in addition to tuition. 10,000 more students would also pay the new success fee at it's highest rate ($500 per semester) for an additional $10,000,000 annually. All of these numbers are in addition to the funds from tuition (whatever they are raised to in the future) and separate from the CSU General Fund allocations (which are not as small as you think) Couple this information with the decentralization of facilities debt management ... increased research funding and hopefully more endowments and donations from more graduates as well as others like Jeff Jacobs who want to be a part of this University (even if they didn't graduate from here). That brings me back to the Campaign for SDSU -- started in 2007 with a goal of raising $500M ... to date has raised $494M. The campaign was so successful that the target goal has been raised to $1 Billion. I think SDSU is well on its way to funding a West Campus Expansion ... and hopefully a new Aztecs Stadium will be included in those expansion plans. Funding could be raised separately for a new stadium and in the meantime, perhaps Qualcomm would be interested in expanding its naming rights in the short term for the cost of stadium maintenance ... who knows? . 260Mil is the appropriation for infrastructure for all 23 campuses, the the entire appropriation, which you posted. Perhaps I missed the part where it said the Student Success fee could be used for infrastructure. I get that you don't know enough about finance to understand how decentralization works or how supplements of a budget in one area allow for an increase of spending in another -- by a similar amount. But don't let all these numbers scare you -- the simple facts are these ... SDSU has been finding ways to increase its general fund & facilities funds without affecting the amount of money being spent on students and faculty.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Sept 2, 2014 7:49:19 GMT -8
However, Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego, (unrelated to Greg Block) said he is intrigued by Peace’s plan and stands ready to introduce legislation if necessary to make the SDSU plan happen. www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/aug/24/peace-qualcomm-stadium-sdsu-convention-downtown/2/?#article-copyFormer Mayor Jerry Sanders (SDSU Alum) supports this idea and current Mayor Kevin Faulkner (SDSU Alum) has already shown support of SDSU. Also of note... One of Faulconer’s favorite professors was Marty Block, now a Democratic state senator, who was a longtime professor and dean at the university and taught Faulconer in a leadership class. It seems that SDSU already has some political clout with regards to campus expansion at the Q site. FYI... 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 State owned land is off the books. It isn't treated like privately held land. It has zero market value so I'm not sure what your point is. every in state student is subsidized from the general fund to the tune of appox. $10,000 which means there is no "profit" in the classical sense. Each student is a net burden to the taxpaying public. Land is land; it has value and increases in value regardless of who owns it (particularly the Q site). Indeed the state will own it; they will build on the land and it will increase in value and become an asset to the city. The financial impact 10,000 students would have by just living in San Diego purchasing goods and services on a yearly basis is substantial beyond the state subsidy. I don't consider students at a University to be a "burden on the tax paying public." SDSU graduates add to a skilled workforce (many of whom stay in San Diego County) and contribute to society. What I do consider to be a burden on the tax paying public is subsidizing a football stadium for an NFL team. You also fail to address the impact on research funding. A significant increase in grants and research that would be acquired by SDSU can't be understated. Often this has carryover into many areas of the private sector. My point is any way you slice it; the acquisition and development of the Q site for an SDSU West campus is the best possible use of the land for the benefit of not only SDSU but the state and city. Can an NFL stadium do the same? No, and its not even close.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 8:01:14 GMT -8
State owned land is off the books. It isn't treated like privately held land. It has zero market value so I'm not sure what your point is.every in state student is subsidized from the general fund to the tune of appox. $10,000 which means there is no "profit" in the classical sense. Each student is a net burden to the taxpaying public. not true ... all real property (whether publicly or privately held) has a monetary value. Those values are represented in the asset column of the State. It is the function of facility debt management to oversee the gradual conversion of a debt to an asset and to evaluate those assets in terms of value for current and future bonds. Yes it is true. The president of the university cannot go out and borrow against the assessed value of the land and appurtenances in order to supplement operations of the university or make improvements. He cannot sell off tracks in order to raise capital. It cannot be attached severally in the event the state of California goes bankrupt. It can only be listed as an asset of the state. So it is not like commercial or residential real estate in any way shape or form. It is for all intents and purposes off the books. Just like the addition of students, the addition of state owned property is a net burden to the taxpayers who must pay the debt service for its acquisition and for its upkeep.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Sept 2, 2014 8:09:05 GMT -8
not true ... all real property (whether publicly or privately held) has a monetary value. Those values are represented in the asset column of the State. It is the function of facility debt management to oversee the gradual conversion of a debt to an asset and to evaluate those assets in terms of value for current and future bonds. Yes it is true. The president of the university cannot go out and borrow against the assessed value of the land and appurtenances in order to supplement operations of the university or make improvements. He cannot sell off tracks in order to raise capital. It cannot be attached severally in the event the state of California goes bankrupt. It can only be listed as an asset of the state. So it is not like commercial or residential real estate in any way shape or form. It is for all intents and purposes off the books. Just like the addition of students, the addition of state owned property is a net burden to the taxpayers who must pay the debt service for its acquisition and for its upkeep. and apparently you are still not up to speed on how the decentralization of facilities debt from the State to the CSU and the CSU to the individual campus will work. The individual universities may now use general funds to manage their own facility debts. There is no longer a separation from the general fund for infrastructure -- it's just one lump general fund that the individual campus may spend as much or as little of it on facilities as they like. For a campus like SDSU that has been able to raise operating funds through research grants, fees and donations ... they can use more of the general fund toward real property than another campus that does not have the same resources (like CSULA)
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Sept 2, 2014 10:00:20 GMT -8
Yes resources ... through the Campaign for SDSU begun in 2007 with a goal of $500M, SDSU has raised $494M. The campaign was successful enough that the goal has been raised to $1B. There would also be additional support from the CSU system to expand the campus. As previously posted, an expanded campus would mean approximately 10,000 more students paying tuition. I hope that you made a contribution to the campaign. I assume that was the "guilt" to which you referred. The stadium capacity issue would remain if we kept the Q or moved to a new NFL stadium with the Chargers. A program on the rise will help with attendance, but not as much as a stadium designed with the college experience in mind and a capacity of 45K. Would that be built right away? No, but plans could be incorporated into the master plan for the 166 acre West Campus Extension. The abilities of SDSU are growing thanks to smart planning and from donations from people like you and me. Improving academics, increased research & grants as well as popularity of Aztecs athletics are doing wonders for the cachet and image of SDSU ... an important facet to the abilities of SDSU. Decentralization of facilities debt management from the State to the CSU and from the CSU to the individual campuses means SDSU has more control over it's ability to buy the Qualcomm site and improve it as well. If the City of San Diego sees the setting of a price for Qualcomm that both takes a money loser off the books of the city while at the same time increasing the economic impact the university has in San Diego and making some money in the process ... then I call that a win-win(win). I hope that you will continue to support both the university and the athletic dept. with your donations without guilt, but if it does take guilt to help you to donate ... I won't complain because at least you still give (probably just not as much as if you did so freely). Just so you know: 10,000 more students is at an annual cost of about $100,000,000 to the general fund. I think the entire UC system got about that much of a general fund increase this fiscal year. Next years total infrastructure budget for all 23 CSU campuses is about $260,000,000. ( 10 mil/per) While we may think that a bigger SDSU is a good thing, there are 22 other campuses that I'm quite sure have their own master plans and more than a few municipalities that would like a new campus located there, Chula Vista comes to mind. There are others too. None of this gets done without some sort of statewide bond initiative which will require enough honey for the various interested parties to even make it to the ballot. Once there, a super majority will be needed. your numbers are off by quite a bit ... SDSU 5-yr Capital Plan / Program starts on page 163 www.calstate.edu/cpdc/Facilities_Planning/2013-14-Five-Yr-CapImprovementPgmBk.pdfEven under the old capital funding rules ... the purchase of the Qualcomm site would have been approved (and yes the CSU can issue its own debt) www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-994.html
|
|
|
Post by MontezumaPhil on Sept 2, 2014 12:09:24 GMT -8
Did that say $137 million to seismically renovate Love Library? Seriously? What would it cost just to replace the damned thing?
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 2, 2014 13:09:34 GMT -8
Don't quite get this stuff about the stadium being too big. Michigan has over 100K. Let's start winning and fill it up. The problem is the marketing, the parking, the food and drink concessions, and everything that goes into the stadium. The stadium's size is not a problem. Just the lack of fan support which is due to the marketing, lack of winning for many years, schedule, poor alumni and student support, etc. I don't think the stadium has affected our record at all, but the lack of fan support sure has
If we had been averaging 10 wins a year starting in 1980, the Aztec football program would be in great shape. We would probably have been averaging 40,000 per game, and I mean actual fans in the stands, and we would also probably have been ranked in the Top-25 often. All that despite the growing age of the Q.
But we have not been averaging 10 wins beginning in 1980. As a matter of fact, Aztec teams have averaged just 5.4 wins per season in the years 1980 through 2013! Only 13 of those 34 years were winning ones. And four of those came in the last four years. So in the 30 years up to and including 2009, we enjoyed only NINE winning seasons. That's just NINE out of THIRTY years finishing over .500! ! ! ! No football program is going to thrive with winning seasons fewer than once every three years.
What's the lesson to be learned from this? The basic problem has not, at least up to the present day, been lack of fan support, though that is very serious. The problem is not the stadium, again not up to the present day. (Question: Do you think that a Colorado State recruiter is going to convince a H.S. senior to become a Ram by saying that Hughes Stadium is superior to the Q?) The problem is that the administration of San Diego State University has largely been incompetent during the 1980 through 2008 period (i.e., until the hiring of Brady Hoke).
Now, one should not assume that I consider the stadium issue to be no big deal. There are three components to the stadium issue that must be considered. First, what happens if the Chargers leave town? (I used to think that this was likely, but I now think that the Chargers may be coming close to deciding that moving to another city is looking less and less practicable. If I am correct, this leads us to the second issue; What happens if a new, downtown, stadium is built to NFL standards? I think that most of us fans believe that following the Chargers downtown would be a huge negative for the program. So, is the leadership at the university up to the challenge of acquiring the Mission Valley site for campus expansion and, ultimately, the destruction of the Q and the constructing of a new, smaller stadium more appropriate to the needs of the SDSU football program? The third issue is this; What do we do if the Chargers do not leave town and cannot convince the city or county to help them get a new stadium? I find it hard to believe that the Sapnoses would just give up and keep using the Q indefinitely, but it could happen. This might be the easiest question to answer. My guess is that we would most likely continue to use the Q and keep hoping that the place would not literally start falling apart. The image of a hunk of concrete falling and either badly injuring or killing fans is frightening but not altogether fanciful. But, short of building an on-campus stadium, we would probably keep using the Q indefinitely. And I doubt an on-campus stadium would be built, even if the money were available, with Qualcomm Stadium still standing only a couple of miles away.
It all boils down to what we already know; The best way to boost this program is to start winning 10 plus games a year, season after season. And if that happens and we still can't convince local fans to support the program . . . well, I can't imagine what more we could do.
AzWm
|
|