|
Post by rebar619 on Dec 18, 2014 15:14:04 GMT -8
Talk is talk. There are just as many, if not more hurdles to a new campus in MV than there are for a new stadium anywhere. Talk is talk when it is fans on a message board; it's a little more than that when the talk is from SDSU and city officials. CSU/SDSU are one of the few organizations that could indeed develop the Q site. They have the support, resources and time to do it. It is just a matter of time before CSU/SDSU aquires and develops the property. I think you are probably correct that CSU/SDSU could develop the Q site with the time and support they have. I just question if there is the resources, specifically in the CSU system to do so.
|
|
|
Post by SDAztec on Dec 18, 2014 16:09:34 GMT -8
Talk is talk when it is fans on a message board; it's a little more than that when the talk is from SDSU and city officials. CSU/SDSU are one of the few organizations that could indeed develop the Q site. They have the support, resources and time to do it. It is just a matter of time before CSU/SDSU aquires and develops the property. I think you are probably correct that CSU/SDSU could develop the Q site with the time and support they have. I just question if there is the resources, specifically in the CSU system to do so. If anything SDSU is in one of its greatest eras of receiving Financial support. SDSU just raised over 1/2 a Billion in a fairly short amount of time. The fundraising went so well that the University upped the goal another 1/4 Billion. The student center sold the naming rights with a $20 Million donation, and $14 Million was raised for the basketball center. Some of the biggest donors are not even Alumni. The CSU system and SDSU have the resources to qualify for major funding. If the University does acquire the current stadium land, then there will be several phases of development, and as classrooms are designated for certain areas of research/ education, SDSU will partner with major corporations and entities in the area. The City and SDSU will come to an agreement of how best to deal with the Stadium costs and eventual removal.
|
|
|
Post by junior on Dec 18, 2014 16:44:44 GMT -8
It's interesting to speculate about all of this. SDSU Foundation hasn't done much with the Alvarado property it owns. There is a master plan to create classrooms and office space plus a parking structure. College of Ed is rumored to be where the Christmas Tree Dump is now (right between Alvarado Medical Center (AMC) and the student apartments). Seems like that master plan would be put into place long before a Qualcomm Stadium plan would evolve.
The City owns the stadium land and would be the ones to benefit from keeping and developing it. It's not clear that swapping or selling that land would be in their best interest. Add to all of that the underground chemical plume, and it's pretty well certain that the City couldn't give it up unless it mitigated the damages and no one's going to buy it if they have to clean it up. Superfund, anyone?
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Dec 18, 2014 16:57:59 GMT -8
The City owns the stadium land and would be the ones to benefit from keeping and developing it. It's not clear that swapping or selling that land would be in their best interest. Add to all of that the underground chemical plume, and it's pretty well certain that the City couldn't give it up unless it mitigated the damages and no one's going to buy it if they have to clean it up. Superfund, anyone? If the state wants the land, they will get it. They will try and negotiate with the city first and would pay a market rate. If the city doesn't want to negotiate with the state then the state will acquire the property via emanate domain. Cut and dried.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Dec 18, 2014 17:04:45 GMT -8
I think you are probably correct that CSU/SDSU could develop the Q site with the time and support they have. I just question if there is the resources, specifically in the CSU system to do so. If anything SDSU is in one of its greatest eras of receiving Financial support. SDSU just raised over 1/2 a Billion in a fairly short amount of time. The fundraising went so well that the University upped the goal another 1/4 Billion. The student center sold the naming rights with a $20 Million donation, and $14 Million was raised for the basketball center. Some of the biggest donors are not even Alumni. The CSU system and SDSU have the resources to qualify for major funding. If the University does acquire the current stadium land, then there will be several phases of development, and as classrooms are designated for certain areas of research/ education, SDSU will partner with major corporations and entities in the area. The City and SDSU will come to an agreement of how best to deal with the Stadium costs and eventual removal. You are correct and I dont argue that it can be done. Keep in mind though that the improvements that are being tossed around for the Q site will be in the neighborhood of 1/2 a Billion. Not an easy pill to swallow.
|
|
|
Post by junior on Dec 18, 2014 18:40:57 GMT -8
The City owns the stadium land and would be the ones to benefit from keeping and developing it. It's not clear that swapping or selling that land would be in their best interest. Add to all of that the underground chemical plume, and it's pretty well certain that the City couldn't give it up unless it mitigated the damages and no one's going to buy it if they have to clean it up. Superfund, anyone? If the state wants the land, they will get it. They will try and negotiate with the city first and would pay a market rate. If the city doesn't want to negotiate with the state then the state will acquire the property via emanate domain. Cut and dried. The State would then be responsible for the tank farm leakage cleanup. Could be in the ten millions just to find out it's going to be in the hundred millions. They could, of course, go after the oil companies - but politics says that won't happen in our lifetimes. It creates a serious crimp in your "cut and dried" analysis.
|
|
|
Post by SDAztec on Dec 18, 2014 20:20:02 GMT -8
If the state wants the land, they will get it. They will try and negotiate with the city first and would pay a market rate. If the city doesn't want to negotiate with the state then the state will acquire the property via emanate domain. Cut and dried. The State would then be responsible for the tank farm leakage cleanup. Could be in the ten millions just to find out it's going to be in the hundred millions. They could, of course, go after the oil companies - but politics says that won't happen in our lifetimes. It creates a serious crimp in your "cut and dried" analysis. From the study done on the stadium issue... www.sandiego.gov/chargersissues/pdf/finalreport.pdf"...in 1992, it was determined that a gasoline leak from the Mission Valley Terminal had entered into the groundwater on the site. Clean up efforts have been taking place since 1992 and are the responsibility of the owner of the Mission Valley Terminal and the oil companies located at the terminal. Current plans call for the cleanup of contamination underlying Qualcomm Stadium by 2015."
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Dec 18, 2014 21:35:27 GMT -8
I wouldnt be surprised if the chargers ultimately build on the q site like originally discussed way back win.
Sterk falconer and the spanos can make this extremely profitable
Expect a big announcement from falconer in jan 2015
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Dec 18, 2014 21:36:00 GMT -8
When
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Dec 18, 2014 22:17:12 GMT -8
The State would then be responsible for the tank farm leakage cleanup. Could be in the ten millions just to find out it's going to be in the hundred millions. They could, of course, go after the oil companies - but politics says that won't happen in our lifetimes. It creates a serious crimp in your "cut and dried" analysis. From the study done on the stadium issue... www.sandiego.gov/chargersissues/pdf/finalreport.pdf"...in 1992, it was determined that a gasoline leak from the Mission Valley Terminal had entered into the groundwater on the site. Clean up efforts have been taking place since 1992 and are the responsibility of the owner of the Mission Valley Terminal and the oil companies located at the terminal. Current plans call for the cleanup of contamination underlying Qualcomm Stadium by 2015." ...And there was a letter to the editor in the U-T in April of this year, written by the VP of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, stating that the cleanup was just about complete.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 18, 2014 22:46:23 GMT -8
I'm not sure how the Chargers could build a stadium on the Q site if the land still belongs to the city. If the Chargers pay for it, isn't it their property? I guess if that were to happen it would not be the worst of all scenarios. The problem is, the Aztecs would still be the barely-tolerated step children.
One other question. How big would such a stadium be? I would hope that it would be smaller, maybe the low '60s in seating capacity. Anything to make an Aztec crowd of 25,000 to 30,000 look not quite as skimpy.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Dec 19, 2014 8:37:07 GMT -8
I wouldnt be surprised if the chargers ultimately build on the q site like originally discussed way back win. Sterk falconer and the spanos can make this extremely profitable Expect a big announcement from falconer in jan 2015 It still gets back to $$$. I highly doubt that any tax issue to benefit the Chargers would pass by the 2/3 majority required.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Dec 19, 2014 10:54:28 GMT -8
I wouldnt be surprised if the chargers ultimately build on the q site like originally discussed way back win. Sterk falconer and the spanos can make this extremely profitable Expect a big announcement from falconer in jan 2015 It still gets back to $$$. I highly doubt that any tax issue to benefit the Chargers would pass by the 2/3 majority required. Even if it is TOT that only will impact out of towners?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 11:39:31 GMT -8
I wouldnt be surprised if the chargers ultimately build on the q site like originally discussed way back win. Sterk falconer and the spanos can make this extremely profitable Expect a big announcement from falconer in jan 2015 It still gets back to $$$. I highly doubt that any tax issue to benefit the Chargers would pass by the 2/3 majority required.That's why getting to a Super Bowl first is imperative.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Dec 19, 2014 12:07:47 GMT -8
Any way Chargers are going to play at the Q in 2015 . So every one can start planning if there will be any progress on any front for a new facility , any where or we just spin our wheels . Do hope the Aztecs concentrate on putting a quality team on the field that wins the MW Championship and even the G5 Bowl . Remember it is all about the team ,not the stadium. Plus there are not enough sports fans who go to any San Diego Sporting Event , maybe we can all try to work together to some things accomplished . Good Holiday Wishes to all.
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Dec 19, 2014 12:48:41 GMT -8
I'm not sure how the Chargers could build a stadium on the Q site if the land still belongs to the city. If the Chargers pay for it, isn't it their property? I guess if that were to happen it would not be the worst of all scenarios. The problem is, the Aztecs would still be the barely-tolerated step children. One other question. How big would such a stadium be? I would hope that it would be smaller, maybe the low '60s in seating capacity. Anything to make an Aztec crowd of 25,000 to 30,000 look not quite as skimpy. AzWm I'm chiming in late to this party, but I would assume any stadium for the Charger's would have to have "Super Bowl capacity". Part of the incentive. It would essentially put the Aztecs right where they started and get me to once again ask as I did years ago to ANYBODY, why wasn't Peterson gutted for a new basketball arena?!? And please, spare me the blah blah blah blah. I know the day it was announced that, what is now the University of Phoenix Stadium, would be constructed, I have to cash a CD every time I rent a car. Hey, no problem, because, fortunately I have family in Chandler so I don't have to empty my savings to rent a hotel room.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Dec 19, 2014 22:10:59 GMT -8
I'm not sure how the Chargers could build a stadium on the Q site if the land still belongs to the city. If the Chargers pay for it, isn't it their property? I guess if that were to happen it would not be the worst of all scenarios. The problem is, the Aztecs would still be the barely-tolerated step children. One other question. How big would such a stadium be? I would hope that it would be smaller, maybe the low '60s in seating capacity. Anything to make an Aztec crowd of 25,000 to 30,000 look not quite as skimpy. AzWm I'm chiming in late to this party, but I would assume any stadium for the Charger's would have to have "Super Bowl capacity". Part of the incentive. It would essentially put the Aztecs right where they started and get me to once again ask as I did years ago to ANYBODY, why wasn't Peterson gutted for a new basketball arena?!? And please, spare me the blah blah blah blah. I know the day it was announced that, what is now the University of Phoenix Stadium, would be constructed, I have to cash a CD every time I rent a car. Hey, no problem, because, fortunately I have family in Chandler so I don't have to empty my savings to rent a hotel room. Agree 100%. SDSU's biggest mistake was building a basketball stadium on top of the football stadium. Peterson is too small to build a basketball arena but there are multiple locations on campus that could have accommodated an 8,000-10,000 seat basketball arena. We wouldn't even be having this conversation about a new football stadium for SDSU because Aztec Bowl was originally designed to be expanded to 45,000 seats. But it is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Proud Aztec on Dec 20, 2014 7:56:49 GMT -8
I looked at a map of SDSU from my iPhone map. There is literally no where to built an on campus stadium without buying additional land and destroy some preexiating structures. That's just not going to happen. There are a lot of little strips of land that would fit a football field but would not accommodate the seatings. I also heard on the news last night that one of the MUST for a new Chargers stadium is that the owner does not want the stadium to be built on Q site. He wants it in downtown by the water. There is no other way. We ride this train with Chargers until the end
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 8:05:07 GMT -8
I looked at a map of SDSU from my iPhone map. There is literally no where to built an on campus stadium without buying additional land and destroy some preexiating structures. That's just not going to happen. There are a lot of little strips of land that would fit a football field but would not accommodate the seatings. I also heard on the news last night that one of the MUST for a new Chargers stadium is that the owner does not want the stadium to be built on Q site. He wants it in downtown by the water. There is no other way. We ride this train with Chargers until the end How many times do we have to go over this? There is ABSOULTELY enough room for an on campus stadium. Does somebody have to pull out the photoshop AGAIN?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 8:10:00 GMT -8
I looked at a map of SDSU from my iPhone map. There is literally no where to built an on campus stadium without buying additional land and destroy some preexiating structures. That's just not going to happen. There are a lot of little strips of land that would fit a football field but would not accommodate the seatings. I also heard on the news last night that one of the MUST for a new Chargers stadium is that the owner does not want the stadium to be built on Q site. He wants it in downtown by the water. There is no other way. We ride this train with Chargers until the end Word is that is not what SDSU has planned. Btw, the owner doesn't want the stadium to be built on the Q site? So if the city decided they were going to build an all new stadium at the Q site the owner would say nah we won't play there?
|
|