|
|
Post by chris92065 on Sept 20, 2014 10:27:22 GMT -8
Fabiani was on 1090 yesterday and seems very confident that a vote for a new stadium tied to the convention center will happen in 2016. He also expects this to be a county wide vote. He also mention using the Qualcomm site as future development potential but did not mention the Aztecs at all. Does anyone know the admins current position on the stadium front?
|
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Sept 20, 2014 10:31:45 GMT -8
Sorry for posting this in the wrong thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecbb on Sept 20, 2014 13:05:09 GMT -8
You are correct, it should have been posted in "1998" which is how long Fibiani has been posturing more public subsidies for billionaires.
Never happen , waste of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by zollner on Sept 20, 2014 13:28:25 GMT -8
Why would this be a county wide vote, when and if it passes(which I doubt), the only people that will be paying for this will be the citizens of San Diego? The city has no money, cops are leaving droves, the city needs to borrow money to fix pot holes, and they want us to pay for a new sand box for a billionaire owner. Please.
Also please show me some numbers where it shows that new sand boxes some how create revenue that benefits the citizens that are forced to pay for it. If these new edifices are such money makers why aren't the venture capitalist jumping on the band wagon, and throwing their money down to get in on the ground floor?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2014 13:42:17 GMT -8
My brother does bond management for the city. This is not going to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by sleepy on Sept 20, 2014 13:54:43 GMT -8
Kindly un-hitch our wagon from the falling star that is the NFL at the earliest opportune moment...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2014 15:04:10 GMT -8
Why would this be a county wide vote, when and if it passes(which I doubt), the only people that will be paying for this will be the citizens of San Diego? The city has no money, cops are leaving droves, the city needs to borrow money to fix pot holes, and they want us to pay for a new sand box for a billionaire owner. Please. Also please show me some numbers where it shows that new sand boxes some how create revenue that benefits the citizens that are forced to pay for it. If these new edifices are such money makers why aren't the venture capitalist jumping on the band wagon, and throwing their money down to get in on the ground floor? The city, county and Port will need to be on board. Funding will be trough a county wide occupancy tax most likely. Nobody is being forced. It will be voted upon and if it passes and apparently if guttersipe's brother allows it, it will be built. |
|
|
|
Post by zollner on Sept 20, 2014 16:33:46 GMT -8
Why would this be a county wide vote, when and if it passes(which I doubt), the only people that will be paying for this will be the citizens of San Diego? The city has no money, cops are leaving droves, the city needs to borrow money to fix pot holes, and they want us to pay for a new sand box for a billionaire owner. Please. Also please show me some numbers where it shows that new sand boxes some how create revenue that benefits the citizens that are forced to pay for it. If these new edifices are such money makers why aren't the venture capitalist jumping on the band wagon, and throwing their money down to get in on the ground floor? The city, county and Port will need to be on board. Funding will be trough a county wide occupancy tax most likely. Nobody is being forced. It will be voted upon and if it passes and apparently if guttersipe's brother allows it, it will be built. If the funding is going to be a tax the vote will need to be by 2/3's majority, yes??? |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Sept 20, 2014 16:34:17 GMT -8
Why would this be a county wide vote, when and if it passes(which I doubt), the only people that will be paying for this will be the citizens of San Diego? The city has no money, cops are leaving droves, the city needs to borrow money to fix pot holes, and they want us to pay for a new sand box for a billionaire owner. Please. Also please show me some numbers where it shows that new sand boxes some how create revenue that benefits the citizens that are forced to pay for it. If these new edifices are such money makers why aren't the venture capitalist jumping on the band wagon, and throwing their money down to get in on the ground floor? The city, county and Port will need to be on board. Funding will be trough a county wide occupancy tax most likely. Nobody is being forced. It will be voted upon and if it passes and apparently if guttersipe's brother allows it, it will be built. This is all just babble until the actual plans are made public for the stadium, where it will be (and there better be multiple location options), and how it will be paid for (and maintained). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2014 17:31:19 GMT -8
The city, county and Port will need to be on board. Funding will be trough a county wide occupancy tax most likely. Nobody is being forced. It will be voted upon and if it passes and apparently if guttersipe's brother allows it, it will be built. If the funding is going to be a tax the vote will need to be by 2/3's majority, yes??? That's correct. It's the reason why the City Council and the Hotel guys thought they'd just sort of illegally decide on a tax on their own. They know 2/3rds is a high bar. These things are all about timing, marketing and political hardball. The billionaire hotel guys gave it a run on their own and the Chargers have been at it forever. They both are coming to the realization that they need each other. The beginnings of the coalition are taking shape. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2014 17:56:35 GMT -8
The city, county and Port will need to be on board. Funding will be trough a county wide occupancy tax most likely. Nobody is being forced. It will be voted upon and if it passes and apparently if guttersipe's brother allows it, it will be built. This is all just babble until the actual plans are made public for the stadium, where it will be (and there better be multiple location options), and how it will be paid for (and maintained). They'll come to the table and the ballot with a well defined plan. You can can count on it. It will be a downtown/East Village location with some form of access corridor between the convention center and convention center/stadium expansion. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if a new arena is part of the deal. I'll make this bold prediction: By the time this issue hits the ballot, any real opposition will be fully marginalized. There's simply too many goodies to hand out. The Unions will be all in. Large muni projects like this will be be fully union/prevailing wage. The council will be fully on board with it as will the mayor. Expect big announcements about naming rights and future Super Bowls in the run up. The pitch will be that it won't cost the residents a thing. SDSU needs to get ahead of this a get on board too. Otherwise they WILL be playing in a stadium that will not take their needs into account. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2014 18:06:53 GMT -8
Mark Fabiani? Lmao.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecbb on Sept 20, 2014 18:30:55 GMT -8
This is all just babble until the actual plans are made public for the stadium, where it will be (and there better be multiple location options), and how it will be paid for (and maintained). They'll come to the table and the ballot with a well defined plan. You can can count on it. It will be a downtown/East Village location with some form of access corridor between the convention center and convention center/stadium expansion. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if a new arena is part of the deal. I'll make this bold prediction: By the time this issue hits the ballot, any real opposition will be fully marginalized. There's simply too many goodies to hand out. The Unions will be all in. Large muni projects like this will be be fully union/prevailing wage. The council will be fully on board with it as will the mayor. Expect big announcements about naming rights and future Super Bowls in the run up. The pitch will be that it won't cost the residents a thing. SDSU needs to get ahead of this a get on board too. Otherwise they WILL be playing in a stadium that will not take their needs into account. THis is actually quite a good ( and frightening ) post. AFAN is correct it is entirely conceivable that all the people to profit from such a debacle could well railroad a vote in favor. I suppose a voice of sanity in the wind like SD Taxpayer Assoc. would show the emperors new stadium has no clothes and huge deficits but it would probably fall on deaf ears if the UT/Talk Radio/City Council/Unions are all on board because it lines their pockets. |
|
|
|
Post by azteceric on Sept 20, 2014 18:32:52 GMT -8
If the funding is going to be a tax the vote will need to be by 2/3's majority, yes??? That's correct. It's the reason why the City Council and the Hotel guys thought they'd just sort of illegally decide on a tax on their own. They know 2/3rds is a high bar. These things are all about timing, marketing and political hardball. The billionaire hotel guys gave it a run on their own and the Chargers have been at it forever. They both are coming to the realization that they need each other. The beginnings of the coalition are taking shape. Petco Park was not a 2/3 vote, but depends how they work this. Think that was a bond measure. You'll never get 2/3 in San Diego on anything. I'm still confused as to how the hotel fee was considered a tax, its a fee for use. That's like saying parking meter rates should be voted by 2/3 majority of the public. If you stay at a hotel locally you also don't have to pay for the fee just show your local resident ID, only applies to out of towners. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2014 19:26:31 GMT -8
No but unlike you, I've lived here for my entire life with a few absences here and there. I know how things eventually get accomplished, 3-cornered coalitions involving unions, business and the Port with the council and mayor negotiating the deals with the special interests and minority communities. Opposition will be down to DICK Rider, Aguirre or some other incarnation of populist grandstander with a JD and lots of time. |
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Sept 20, 2014 21:55:22 GMT -8
No but unlike you, I've lived here for my entire life with a few absences here and there. I know how things eventually get accomplished, 3-cornered coalitions involving unions, business and the Port with the council and mayor negotiating the deals with the special interests and minority communities. Opposition will be down to DICK Rider, Aguirre or some other incarnation of populist grandstander with a JD and lots of time. This. The previous admin was onboard until he stepped On his deek. Too many players involved not to get his through. I just hope sdsu doesn't get left behind |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Sept 22, 2014 14:06:09 GMT -8
This is all just babble until the actual plans are made public for the stadium, where it will be (and there better be multiple location options), and how it will be paid for (and maintained). They'll come to the table and the ballot with a well defined plan. You can can count on it. It will be a downtown/East Village location with some form of access corridor between the convention center and convention center/stadium expansion. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if a new arena is part of the deal. I'll make this bold prediction: By the time this issue hits the ballot, any real opposition will be fully marginalized. There's simply too many goodies to hand out. The Unions will be all in. Large muni projects like this will be be fully union/prevailing wage. The council will be fully on board with it as will the mayor. Expect big announcements about naming rights and future Super Bowls in the run up. The pitch will be that it won't cost the residents a thing. SDSU needs to get ahead of this a get on board too. Otherwise they WILL be playing in a stadium that will not take their needs into account. Hasn't SDSU said more than once that playing downtown was a non-starter? No matter--the plan may be well-defined, but will it make any sense? The plan is really going to have to get creative if the convention center board is going to get on board--as they currently want nothing to do with a combination stadium/convention center expansion. And an arena as well? That will be needed if the properties at both the Sports Arena and Qualcomm sites are sold. No one is interested in operating an almost 50-year old arena, so a new one would have to be built somewhere. But what remain separate in all this is a ballot issue allowing the city to sell those pieces of property that must go before the city voters. If that issue fails, will the grand plan be DOA? Finally, how the "powers-that-be" can convince the electorate that this plan won't cost them anything will be VERY interesting and, quite frankly, entertaining. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Sept 22, 2014 14:53:05 GMT -8
A vote for the stadium on the 2016 ballot will fail. If not for the reason of San Diegans never approve a tax, then for the reason that the opponents of the minimum wage increase got enough petitions to put it off and make it a ballot initiative on the 2016 ballot. Democrats and those who feel like the city is run by stadium owners will be out in force in that election. That does not bode well for Fabiani, Spanos and the Chargers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Sept 22, 2014 19:49:17 GMT -8
They'll come to the table and the ballot with a well defined plan. You can can count on it. It will be a downtown/East Village location with some form of access corridor between the convention center and convention center/stadium expansion. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if a new arena is part of the deal. I'll make this bold prediction: By the time this issue hits the ballot, any real opposition will be fully marginalized. There's simply too many goodies to hand out. The Unions will be all in. Large muni projects like this will be be fully union/prevailing wage. The council will be fully on board with it as will the mayor. Expect big announcements about naming rights and future Super Bowls in the run up. The pitch will be that it won't cost the residents a thing. SDSU needs to get ahead of this a get on board too. Otherwise they WILL be playing in a stadium that will not take their needs into account. Hasn't SDSU said more than once that playing downtown was a non-starter? No matter--the plan may be well-defined, but will it make any sense? The plan is really going to have to get creative if the convention center board is going to get on board--as they currently want nothing to do with a combination stadium/convention center expansion. And an arena as well? That will be needed if the properties at both the Sports Arena and Qualcomm sites are sold. No one is interested in operating an almost 50-year old arena, so a new one would have to be built somewhere. But what remain separate in all this is a ballot issue allowing the city to sell those pieces of property that must go before the city voters. If that issue fails, will the grand plan be DOA? Finally, how the "powers-that-be" can convince the electorate that this plan won't cost them anything will be VERY interesting and, quite frankly, entertaining. If downtown is the only alternative then that is where the Aztecs will play, unless they wan't to build their own stadium and I think that is highly unlikely. SDSU can say now that they "won't" play there but the alternative is quite expensive for them. I just don't see them securing the financing to build an Aztec only stadium. As for a new sports arena downtown there is no reason to build one. Who is going to use it? If we could attract either a NHL or NBA team to play here then that would mean something (my vote would be for a NHL team). Without a pro franchise what does the city lose by not renewing the lease at the sports arena? I'm sure Kobey's can find another location. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Sept 22, 2014 22:13:33 GMT -8
Hasn't SDSU said more than once that playing downtown was a non-starter? No matter--the plan may be well-defined, but will it make any sense? The plan is really going to have to get creative if the convention center board is going to get on board--as they currently want nothing to do with a combination stadium/convention center expansion. And an arena as well? That will be needed if the properties at both the Sports Arena and Qualcomm sites are sold. No one is interested in operating an almost 50-year old arena, so a new one would have to be built somewhere. But what remain separate in all this is a ballot issue allowing the city to sell those pieces of property that must go before the city voters. If that issue fails, will the grand plan be DOA? Finally, how the "powers-that-be" can convince the electorate that this plan won't cost them anything will be VERY interesting and, quite frankly, entertaining. If downtown is the only alternative then that is where the Aztecs will play, unless they wan't to build their own stadium and I think that is highly unlikely. SDSU can say now that they "won't" play there but the alternative is quite expensive for them. I just don't see them securing the financing to build an Aztec only stadium. As for a new sports arena downtown there is no reason to build one. Who is going to use it? If we could attract either a NHL or NBA team to play here then that would mean something (my vote would be for a NHL team). Without a pro franchise what does the city lose by not renewing the lease at the sports arena? I'm sure Kobey's can find another location. It has been said before that SDSU has a plan for a stadium, but I guess it won't be revealed until it has to be. If the arena is torn down, a new one will be built, probably sooner rather than later. I also think a new arena should be the building that is built downtown, and a new stadium should be built at the Qualcomm site. JMO, for what that is worth. |
|
