|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Jan 15, 2015 20:24:43 GMT -8
Mayor Falconer (an Aztec) last nite said a task force will be named this month to move the issue of a new stadium forward for voter approval as soon as practical. It is interesting that they are now back to two sites -- downtown and the existing Qualcomm site in Mission Valley. Who will be on that task force making the recommendation to the mayor? Is Jim Sterk strong enough to muscle his/our way in? Will anyone be representing the interests of our great university? It will tell us something crucial as the task force is named. Will downtown and convention center expansion interests rule the roost? Or, will a redeveloped Qualcomm site interest prevail for presumably a lesser cost?
If SDSU has a dog in this hunt, downtown is DEAD as SDSU will never play downtown for so many obvious reasons. Re-doing Qualcomm is the only way. Will they let SDSU interests even be involved in this recommendation? The jury has not been named so it certainly is OUT for now.
Clearly, the long-term future of college football in San Diego hangs in the balane.
|
|
|
|
Post by namssa on Jan 15, 2015 20:40:04 GMT -8
Doesn't matter they will never get 2/3rd of the votes. I don't even know if they could get 50%.
|
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jan 15, 2015 20:43:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jan 15, 2015 22:03:29 GMT -8
This didn't take long--Apparently, Steve Cushman is going to be part of the task force (even though the mayor's office isn't confirming it), and Mark Fabiani is seeing red. The Chargers didn't want to have to deal with Cushman, as he is adamant about a convention center expansion that is contiguous and not part of a stadium. He said that the medical conventions (which apparently meet at the San Diego CC quite a bit) are not interested in any facility that is not connected to the current center (as the Chargers proposal calls for another meeting hall and stadium across Harbor Dr.). Also, the convention center board has been saying the same thing since the Chargers came up with this idea (hoping the financing plan that the city and hotels came up with would be shot down, which it was). The Chargers know the city doesn't have enough $$ to both expand the CC and build a new stadium without new taxes, and the team thought they could get their hands on that pot of money before the convention center was expanded, which probably would have given a stadium priority. This will not be pretty.
|
|
|
|
Post by bearfoot on Jan 15, 2015 22:11:01 GMT -8
Disappointing to write the least. Cushman is a long time downtown mover and shaker. He does not like to be crossed. He can say, "he will be the first to write a check for his seat reservations" all he wants, but he totally avoided Kaplan's question about being an impediment to any Chargers new place.
If Cushman is involved, even if it only as a financial guy, wave goodbye to the Chargers.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jan 16, 2015 0:28:19 GMT -8
Disappointing to write the least. Cushman is a long time downtown mover and shaker. He does not like to be crossed. He can say, "he will be the first to write a check for his seat reservations" all he wants, but he totally avoided Kaplan's question about being an impediment to any Chargers new place. If Cushman is involved, even if it only as a financial guy, wave goodbye to the Chargers. The article said Cushman is not involved. Reopening this task force is justified. The state and local economies have changed for the better since 2008, despite what politicians tell us. For starters, look at today's housing prices as opposed to 6 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jan 16, 2015 3:47:36 GMT -8
Mayor Falconer (an Aztec) last nite said a task force will be named this month to move the issue of a new stadium forward for voter approval as soon as practical. It is interesting that they are now back to two sites -- downtown and the existing Qualcomm site in Mission Valley. Who will be on that task force making the recommendation to the mayor? Is Jim Sterk strong enough to muscle his/our way in? Will anyone be representing the interests of our great university? It will tell us something crucial as the task force is named. Will downtown and convention center expansion interests rule the roost? Or, will a redeveloped Qualcomm site interest prevail for presumably a lesser cost? If SDSU has a dog in this hunt, downtown is DEAD as SDSU will never play downtown for so many obvious reasons. Re-doing Qualcomm is the only way. Will they let SDSU interests even be involved in this recommendation? The jury has not been named so it certainly is OUT for now. Clearly, the long-term future of college football in San Diego hangs in the balane. Disagree that the long term future of SDSU football hangs in the balance. If the Chargers get a downtown stadium, SDSU most likely takes over all/most of the Q site. If the Chargers leave, SDSU most likely takes over all/most of the Q site. If, and this is most unlikely, the city renovates (insert laughter) the Q and the Chargers keep playing there... SDSU gets to choose between remaining a tenant or unfolding their plans for an on-campus stadium. So I'm not sure why SDSU needs a voice on the task force. Lobbying to take possession of the Q site either way can just as easily (or much more easily) take place privately outside the confines of the task force... |
|
|
|
Post by adammclane on Jan 16, 2015 5:27:39 GMT -8
100% agree with hoobs. The sooner the Aztecs get away from the Chargers deal, the better. |
|
|
|
Post by Spud on Jan 16, 2015 5:59:06 GMT -8
Doesn't matter they will never get 2/3rd of the votes. I don't even know if they could get 50%. This. From a political standpoint, Faulconer is on shaky ground. You better be damn sure that you'll get that public vote, or you might become the Mayor who lost the Chargers...I think that there's enough distrust of the Chargers ownership, and the NFL, that anything short of Dean Spanos writing the check for the entire project will not get the 2/3rds. SDSU better have plan B ready to go. |
|
|
|
Post by dbauer on Jan 16, 2015 6:59:18 GMT -8
Doesn't matter they will never get 2/3rd of the votes. I don't even know if they could get 50%. This. From a political standpoint, Faulconer is on shaky ground. You better be damn sure that you'll get that public vote, or you might become the Mayor who lost the Chargers...I think that there's enough distrust of the Chargers ownership, and the NFL, that anything short of Dean Spanos writing the check for the entire project will not get the 2/3rds. SDSU better have plan B ready to go. Yes on Prop C to build Petco received 59% coming off the heels of a world series, even more reason to not be confident in the 2/3 vote passing. Going to be an interesting year of stadium speculation... |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Jan 16, 2015 7:28:27 GMT -8
This didn't take long--Apparently, Steve Cushman is going to be part of the task force (even though the mayor's office isn't confirming it), and Mark Fabiani is seeing red. The Chargers didn't want to have to deal with Cushman, as he is adamant about a convention center expansion that is contiguous and not part of a stadium. He said that the medical conventions (which apparently meet at the San Diego CC quite a bit) are not interested in any facility that is not connected to the current center (as the Chargers proposal calls for another meeting hall and stadium across Harbor Dr.). Also, the convention center board has been saying the same thing since the Chargers came up with this idea (hoping the financing plan that the city and hotels came up with would be shot down, which it was). The Chargers know the city doesn't have enough $$ to both expand the CC and build a new stadium without new taxes, and the team thought they could get their hands on that pot of money before the convention center was expanded, which probably would have given a stadium priority. This will not be pretty. One of the problems with contiguous space is that there is already someone ready to sue that type of expansion, using laws that prohibit limiting access to the coast as his basis. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Jan 16, 2015 7:31:52 GMT -8
Mayor Falconer (an Aztec) last nite said a task force will be named this month to move the issue of a new stadium forward for voter approval as soon as practical. It is interesting that they are now back to two sites -- downtown and the existing Qualcomm site in Mission Valley. Who will be on that task force making the recommendation to the mayor? Is Jim Sterk strong enough to muscle his/our way in? Will anyone be representing the interests of our great university? It will tell us something crucial as the task force is named. Will downtown and convention center expansion interests rule the roost? Or, will a redeveloped Qualcomm site interest prevail for presumably a lesser cost? If SDSU has a dog in this hunt, downtown is DEAD as SDSU will never play downtown for so many obvious reasons. Re-doing Qualcomm is the only way. Will they let SDSU interests even be involved in this recommendation? The jury has not been named so it certainly is OUT for now. Clearly, the long-term future of college football in San Diego hangs in the balane. Disagree that the long term future of SDSU football hangs in the balance. If the Chargers get a downtown stadium, SDSU most likely takes over all/most of the Q site. If the Chargers leave, SDSU most likely takes over all/most of the Q site. If, and this is most unlikely, the city renovates (insert laughter) the Q and the Chargers keep playing there... SDSU gets to choose between remaining a tenant or unfolding their plans for an on-campus stadium. So I'm not sure why SDSU needs a voice on the task force. Lobbying to take possession of the Q site either way can just as easily (or much more easily) take place privately outside the confines of the task force... I don't see how you get to SDSU taking over Qualcomm site. It belongs to city and they will not give it away. A state that foolishly trying to build a bullet train, and build new ways to get water for SoCal has no interest in buying Qualcomm from the City. Tell me about how you are seeing SDSU buying the Q? The money the city would get is important to them so I don't see why they would cut a great deal for SDSU when developers will be willing to pay top dollar for more condos and retail. |
|
|
|
Post by MarshallU on Jan 16, 2015 7:48:32 GMT -8
Disappointing to write the least. Cushman is a long time downtown mover and shaker. He does not like to be crossed. He can say, "he will be the first to write a check for his seat reservations" all he wants, but he totally avoided Kaplan's question about being an impediment to any Chargers new place. If Cushman is involved, even if it only as a financial guy, wave goodbye to the Chargers. The article said Cushman is not involved. Reopening this task force is justified. The state and local economies have changed for the better since 2008, despite what politicians tell us. For starters, look at today's housing prices as opposed to 6 years ago. the mayor called out cushman by name in his speech. he's involved. and is a death blow. |
|
|
|
Post by adammclane on Jan 16, 2015 7:48:37 GMT -8
Disagree that the long term future of SDSU football hangs in the balance. If the Chargers get a downtown stadium, SDSU most likely takes over all/most of the Q site. If the Chargers leave, SDSU most likely takes over all/most of the Q site. If, and this is most unlikely, the city renovates (insert laughter) the Q and the Chargers keep playing there... SDSU gets to choose between remaining a tenant or unfolding their plans for an on-campus stadium. So I'm not sure why SDSU needs a voice on the task force. Lobbying to take possession of the Q site either way can just as easily (or much more easily) take place privately outside the confines of the task force... I don't see how you get to SDSU taking over Qualcomm site. It belongs to city and they will not give it away. A state that foolishly trying to build a bullet train, and build new ways to get water for SoCal has no interest in buying Qualcomm from the City. Tell me about how you are seeing SDSU buying the Q? The money the city would get is important to them so I don't see why they would cut a great deal for SDSU when developers will be willing to pay top dollar for more condos and retail. You buy the Q for a west campus with a package of fundraising, bonds, naming rights, etc. SDSU buying the property then mostly funds the city's portion of building a new home for the Chargers. The Chargers will have to kick in something, and ultimately tax payers are going to kick in something. The inability to get these deals done is just about having the wrong people at the table. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2015 7:54:57 GMT -8
I don't see how you get to SDSU taking over Qualcomm site. It belongs to city and they will not give it away. A state that foolishly trying to build a bullet train, and build new ways to get water for SoCal has no interest in buying Qualcomm from the City. Tell me about how you are seeing SDSU buying the Q? The money the city would get is important to them so I don't see why they would cut a great deal for SDSU when developers will be willing to pay top dollar for more condos and retail. You buy the Q for a west campus with a package of fundraising, bonds, naming rights, etc. SDSU buying the property then mostly funds the city's portion of building a new home for the Chargers. The Chargers will have to kick in something, and ultimately tax payers are going to kick in something. The inability to get these deals done is just about having the wrong people at the table. The inability to get anything done when it comes to government is about having the wrong people at the table. The right people have no interest in involving themselves with government. (Yes, that is a generalization but in my opinion more the rule than the exception.) |
|
|
|
Post by aztecbb on Jan 16, 2015 8:16:45 GMT -8
The Chargers are being short sighted (shocking, I know) about trying to keep Cushman off the committee. The purpose of the committee is to come up with a solution that works for all parties AND can garner a 2/3 vote.
Spanos and Fabiani could be a committee of 2 and propose a revolving stadium with a retractable roof and nothing but skyboxes but it wouldn't matter if you can't get the votes.
They need guys like Cushman, Sanders, Donna Frye or the recommendation of the committee will be seen as biased for the billionaire's and the vote will be dead on arrival.
|
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jan 16, 2015 8:36:34 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jan 16, 2015 9:00:52 GMT -8
The article said Cushman is not involved. Reopening this task force is justified. The state and local economies have changed for the better since 2008, despite what politicians tell us. For starters, look at today's housing prices as opposed to 6 years ago. the mayor called out cushman by name in his speech. he's involved. and is a death blow. Cushman is not on the task force. He said it himself on the 1090 yesterday: link |
|
|
|
Post by untitled on Jan 16, 2015 9:13:19 GMT -8
public money should not fund it whatsoever. How many studies have to point out that it's almost always a bad investment before people can separate what they want with what is right?
|
|
|
|
Post by zollner on Jan 16, 2015 9:30:39 GMT -8
Yesterday afternoon on the D. Smith show on 1090 he had Fabiani on. Man was Fabiani pissed. He was most pissed at the mayor's mention of Cushman. This was the first time I've heard the Charger mouth piece mention moving to LA. The Charger plan is to get the hotel owners to pass a room tax, that is voted on, develop the Q site as a money making scheme for the city to collect taxes, and have a convention ctr/stadium complex built.
On the other station, 1360 I think, the host Hartman suggested that what is needed is big time investors to invest in this stadium complex. Right, investors want a return on their investment and they know that stadiums are money losers not money makers. I read a while ago that bond holders in NY and NJ are still paying off bonds on two stadiums that have already been torn down.
The city is going to need to borrow hundreds of million of dollars just to fix the roads and some infrastructure repairs. The Chargers want the tax payers to pay for a new sandbox for a billionaire owner, good luck, people are little bit smarter then that.
|
|
