|
Post by onelittleindian on Sept 22, 2014 22:38:01 GMT -8
As for the "where should SDSU play?" argument, I've been pretty indifferent as long as they're playing somewhere. That said, being in Seattle this weekend really swayed me to appreciate the ambiance of a smaller, on-campus (or walking distance) game day experience outweighing that of the glitz of a first class NFL stadium. Of course, it's not just the edifice that makes the experience it's us (the fans) who also need to step-up no matter where the team is playing and making Saturdays an event, not just a game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 8:52:15 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. The fate of the convention center will be decided by the Port and the hotel owners. Their gambit, attempting to levy an occupancy tax without a 2/3 vote in order to fund expansion, was shot down in court and will NOT be put up for a vote. That leaves either a self funded expansion ( Let's not forget that the Spanos's aren't the only billionaires in the equation here) or compromise and coalition in order to get most of what they want. They have been saying all along that their clients have stated that they need "contiguous" space in order to host big events. This was horseshit when they first said and it remains horseshit to this day. What they really mean is that they want convention center square footage to remain entirely on Port controlled property so that the revenues continue to flow to the Port. Minneapolis, San Francisco and Vegas need contiguous space. People come to SD to enjoy the weather, not hide from it. As far as SDSU, they are a non-player by CHOICE. They will end up playing wherever the new stadium is built. This is the down side of being too clever by half. The university needs to get on board, commit some resources ( far, FAR fewer BTW than the resources necessary to build their own building) and political clout to the effort in order to get some consideration in design, amenities and lease terms. IMO, and this is only my opinion, what we will see is the city, port, Chargers and downtown boys swing for the fences with a grand, unified infrastructure initiative funded mainly by Transient Occupancy taxes. it will encompass a new stadium, arena and convention center expansion. I don't think there's enough of a constituency to get any of these things done separately but a critical mass may be possible when all of the goodies are combined. The key in this town is to minimize meaningful opposition which usually comes from a few places; unions,environmentalists, the Port, political gadfly's/ populist crusaders and minorities in order to get something done. A plan not on the bay front ( sorry enviros- no soup for you), on the edge of an under served community ( Barrio Logan) offering revenue potential to the port and holding the potential for thousands of union jobs will be tough to beat at the ballot box.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Sept 23, 2014 9:07:08 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. The fate of the convention center will be decided by the Port and the hotel owners. Their gambit, attempting to levy an occupancy tax without a 2/3 vote in order to fund expansion, was shot down in court and will NOT be put up for a vote. That leaves either a self funded expansion ( Let's not forget that the Spanos's aren't the only billionaires in the equation here) or compromise and coalition in order to get most of what they want. They have been saying all along that their clients have stated that they need "contiguous" space in order to host big events. This was horseshit when they first said and it remains horseshit to this day. What they really mean is that they want convention center square footage to remain entirely on Port controlled property so that the revenues continue to flow to the Port. Minneapolis, San Francisco and Vegas need contiguous space. People come to SD to enjoy the weather, not hide from it. As far as SDSU, they are a non-player by CHOICE. They will end up playing wherever the new stadium is built. This is the down side of being too clever by half. The university needs to get on board, commit some resources ( far, FAR fewer BTW than the resources necessary to build their own building) and political clout to the effort in order to get some consideration in design, amenities and lease terms. IMO, and this is only my opinion, what we will see is the city, port, Chargers and downtown boys swing for the fences with a grand, unified infrastructure initiative funded mainly by Transient Occupancy taxes. it will encompass a new stadium, arena and convention center expansion. I don't think there's enough of a constituency to get any of these things done separately but a critical mass may be possible when all of the goodies are combined. The key in this town is to minimize meaningful opposition which usually comes from a few places; unions,environmentalists, the Port, political gadfly's/ populist crusaders and minorities in order to get something done. A plan not on the bay front ( sorry enviros- no soup for you), on the edge of an under served community ( Barrio Logan) offering revenue potential to the port and holding the potential for thousands of union jobs will be tough to beat at the ballot box. I think the Convention Center Expansion (AS IS) will pass Would you vote for a hotel occupancy tax increase that would go toward funding expansion of the San Diego Convention Center? YES 64% (2152) NO 35% (1198) [total votes 3350] www.utsandiego.com/polls/2014/aug/vote-hotel-tax-convention-center-hp//results/
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Sept 23, 2014 9:39:05 GMT -8
IMO, and this is only my opinion, what we will see is the city, port, Chargers and downtown boys swing for the fences with a grand, unified infrastructure initiative funded mainly by Transient Occupancy taxes. it will encompass a new stadium, arena and convention center expansion. I don't think there's enough of a constituency to get any of these things done separately but a critical mass may be possible when all of the goodies are combined. The key in this town is to minimize meaningful opposition which usually comes from a few places; unions,environmentalists, the Port, political gadfly's/ populist crusaders and minorities in order to get something done. A plan not on the bay front ( sorry enviros- no soup for you), on the edge of an under served community ( Barrio Logan) offering revenue potential to the port and holding the potential for thousands of union jobs will be tough to beat at the ballot box. Sounds great to me... and in that scenario SDSU will wind up with the entire Q site upon which to build a greatly-expanded and much needed additional footprint for the campus... along with either a retrograded/renovated Q or new boutique stadium.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 9:44:58 GMT -8
The fate of the convention center will be decided by the Port and the hotel owners. Their gambit, attempting to levy an occupancy tax without a 2/3 vote in order to fund expansion, was shot down in court and will NOT be put up for a vote. That leaves either a self funded expansion ( Let's not forget that the Spanos's aren't the only billionaires in the equation here) or compromise and coalition in order to get most of what they want. They have been saying all along that their clients have stated that they need "contiguous" space in order to host big events. This was horseshit when they first said and it remains horseshit to this day. What they really mean is that they want convention center square footage to remain entirely on Port controlled property so that the revenues continue to flow to the Port. Minneapolis, San Francisco and Vegas need contiguous space. People come to SD to enjoy the weather, not hide from it. As far as SDSU, they are a non-player by CHOICE. They will end up playing wherever the new stadium is built. This is the down side of being too clever by half. The university needs to get on board, commit some resources ( far, FAR fewer BTW than the resources necessary to build their own building) and political clout to the effort in order to get some consideration in design, amenities and lease terms. IMO, and this is only my opinion, what we will see is the city, port, Chargers and downtown boys swing for the fences with a grand, unified infrastructure initiative funded mainly by Transient Occupancy taxes. it will encompass a new stadium, arena and convention center expansion. I don't think there's enough of a constituency to get any of these things done separately but a critical mass may be possible when all of the goodies are combined. The key in this town is to minimize meaningful opposition which usually comes from a few places; unions,environmentalists, the Port, political gadfly's/ populist crusaders and minorities in order to get something done. A plan not on the bay front ( sorry enviros- no soup for you), on the edge of an under served community ( Barrio Logan) offering revenue potential to the port and holding the potential for thousands of union jobs will be tough to beat at the ballot box. I think the Convention Center Expansion (AS IS) will pass Would you vote for a hotel occupancy tax increase that would go toward funding expansion of the San Diego Convention Center? YES 64% (2152) NO 35% (1198) [total votes 3350] www.utsandiego.com/polls/2014/aug/vote-hotel-tax-convention-center-hp//results/They've elected not to put it on the ballot. They must know something. FWIW: I'd vote against it. The convention center is a GIANT wall separating the most vibrant part of downtown from its best feature; the bay front. It's a bad design. Expanding it only makes it worse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 9:48:53 GMT -8
IMO, and this is only my opinion, what we will see is the city, port, Chargers and downtown boys swing for the fences with a grand, unified infrastructure initiative funded mainly by Transient Occupancy taxes. it will encompass a new stadium, arena and convention center expansion. I don't think there's enough of a constituency to get any of these things done separately but a critical mass may be possible when all of the goodies are combined. The key in this town is to minimize meaningful opposition which usually comes from a few places; unions,environmentalists, the Port, political gadfly's/ populist crusaders and minorities in order to get something done. A plan not on the bay front ( sorry enviros- no soup for you), on the edge of an under served community ( Barrio Logan) offering revenue potential to the port and holding the potential for thousands of union jobs will be tough to beat at the ballot box. Sounds great to me... and in that scenario SDSU will wind up with the entire Q site upon which to build a greatly-expanded and much needed additional footprint for the campus... along with either a retrograded/renovated Q or new boutique stadium. That would be a great thing no doubt, but it assumes much. There are plenty of communities around the state that desire a CSU campus that would fight a major expansion of SDSU. I'd love to see us pull it off though. Far better than more big boxes and condos. Along the river would make for an outstanding campus environment.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Sept 23, 2014 9:51:14 GMT -8
They've elected not to put it on the ballot. It will end up on the 2016 ballot along with the minimum wage issue ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 11:03:15 GMT -8
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. At this point in time, my assumption is it would all come down to possible B12 membership. If SDSU was told by the B12 that building a stadium at the Qualcomm site would likely get us an invitation, it will get done. If not, we'll end up playing in the Chargers stadium until the smoke clears. Since I think playing downtown would be hugely detrimental to our football program, my prediction is that when the smoke clears, we will be facing the prospect of remaining in what will be equivalent to an FCS level MWC or dropping football entirely.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Sept 23, 2014 11:11:10 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. The fate of the convention center will be decided by the Port and the hotel owners. Their gambit, attempting to levy an occupancy tax without a 2/3 vote in order to fund expansion, was shot down in court and will NOT be put up for a vote. That leaves either a self funded expansion ( Let's not forget that the Spanos's aren't the only billionaires in the equation here) or compromise and coalition in order to get most of what they want. They have been saying all along that their clients have stated that they need "contiguous" space in order to host big events. This was horseshit when they first said and it remains horseshit to this day. What they really mean is that they want convention center square footage to remain entirely on Port controlled property so that the revenues continue to flow to the Port. Minneapolis, San Francisco and Vegas need contiguous space. People come to SD to enjoy the weather, not hide from it. As far as SDSU, they are a non-player by CHOICE. They will end up playing wherever the new stadium is built. This is the down side of being too clever by half. The university needs to get on board, commit some resources ( far, FAR fewer BTW than the resources necessary to build their own building) and political clout to the effort in order to get some consideration in design, amenities and lease terms. IMO, and this is only my opinion, what we will see is the city, port, Chargers and downtown boys swing for the fences with a grand, unified infrastructure initiative funded mainly by Transient Occupancy taxes. it will encompass a new stadium, arena and convention center expansion. I don't think there's enough of a constituency to get any of these things done separately but a critical mass may be possible when all of the goodies are combined. The key in this town is to minimize meaningful opposition which usually comes from a few places; unions,environmentalists, the Port, political gadfly's/ populist crusaders and minorities in order to get something done. A plan not on the bay front ( sorry enviros- no soup for you), on the edge of an under served community ( Barrio Logan) offering revenue potential to the port and holding the potential for thousands of union jobs will be tough to beat at the ballot box. Respectfully, I disagree. I still think the facilities will be separate, and the stadium will be at the Qualcomm site. At this point, I await the ballot proposal. I realize it will probably be a long wait.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 11:51:44 GMT -8
The fate of the convention center will be decided by the Port and the hotel owners. Their gambit, attempting to levy an occupancy tax without a 2/3 vote in order to fund expansion, was shot down in court and will NOT be put up for a vote. That leaves either a self funded expansion ( Let's not forget that the Spanos's aren't the only billionaires in the equation here) or compromise and coalition in order to get most of what they want. They have been saying all along that their clients have stated that they need "contiguous" space in order to host big events. This was horseshit when they first said and it remains horseshit to this day. What they really mean is that they want convention center square footage to remain entirely on Port controlled property so that the revenues continue to flow to the Port. Minneapolis, San Francisco and Vegas need contiguous space. People come to SD to enjoy the weather, not hide from it. As far as SDSU, they are a non-player by CHOICE. They will end up playing wherever the new stadium is built. This is the down side of being too clever by half. The university needs to get on board, commit some resources ( far, FAR fewer BTW than the resources necessary to build their own building) and political clout to the effort in order to get some consideration in design, amenities and lease terms. IMO, and this is only my opinion, what we will see is the city, port, Chargers and downtown boys swing for the fences with a grand, unified infrastructure initiative funded mainly by Transient Occupancy taxes. it will encompass a new stadium, arena and convention center expansion. I don't think there's enough of a constituency to get any of these things done separately but a critical mass may be possible when all of the goodies are combined. The key in this town is to minimize meaningful opposition which usually comes from a few places; unions,environmentalists, the Port, political gadfly's/ populist crusaders and minorities in order to get something done. A plan not on the bay front ( sorry enviros- no soup for you), on the edge of an under served community ( Barrio Logan) offering revenue potential to the port and holding the potential for thousands of union jobs will be tough to beat at the ballot box. Respectfully, I disagree. I still think the facilities will be separate, and the stadium will be at the Qualcomm site. At this point, I await the ballot proposal. I realize it will probably be a long wait. I've been wrong before. Plenty. We'll see. San Diego politics are seldom boring.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Sept 24, 2014 12:40:52 GMT -8
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. Plans are nice but funding gets those plans built. I don't know if SDSU athletics can raise enough for a new stadium (and if there were to be another stadium either downtown or at the Q site raising money wold be harder). If the Aztecs don't get a P5 berth a commitment of that amount of money could end up bankrupting the program. Finally, I don't think the stadium is the biggest barrier the university has in getting into the P5. I do agree that a sports arena downtown makes more sense than a football stadium but only if we have a major tenant in the works. Both the NHL and the NBA have more games so the comparison to what Petco Park has done for local businesses is more applicable. More dates means more people more often in the downtown restaurants and bars. I don't think the NBA is a real possibility (the Lakers own this market and won't give it up easily). I'm not sure about how the Kings and the Ducks would feel about a franchise in San Diego. I would love to have an NHL franchise here (I used to go to the old Gulls and Mariner games).
|
|
|
Post by sleepy on Sept 24, 2014 12:51:54 GMT -8
Charger Stadium? Exactly.
|
|