|
Post by ab on Jan 22, 2015 8:52:39 GMT -8
I'm not sure what their fair share would be. There are many studies that show the dubious nature of "economic impact studies" when it comes to sports facilities and conventions. Civic pride, while not exactly tangible, is likely the best reason to help the chargers stay. I guess my answer is...I don't know. Every article I have read, even on the UT, says the chargers are willing to put in $200 million. The falcons, for example, are putting in $800 million. I know Spanos is no Arthur Blank. I also don't blame Spanos for trying to get the best deal. If it's in LA, then good luck to him and his family. There seems to be a disconnect in your posts. First you say the Chargers should pay their fair share, then say you have no idea what that is. It seems to me you should have some concept of what the "fairness" is prior to saying Fxxx em. Such inflammatory and careless rhetoric does nothing to advance the discussion and only makes you sound petty. Well said rebar619
|
|
|
Post by azteceric on Jan 22, 2015 9:01:07 GMT -8
And I would look at sections 4 and 24. Due to the stature of SDSU in the local community... seeing the city bend over backwards to screw the university is HIGHLY unlikely. So... SDSU could petition for primary tenant status, or seek transfer of the city's interests in the stadium site to SDSU via eminent domain. This has been hashed out ad nauseam on this board and its precursor(s). Some SDSU fans believe that there is a (mostly privately agreed) process in place to steer a resolution of the Q site strongly in favor of the university, some don't/cannot believe that. No amount of sending electrons back & forth will change that. Go Aztecs. I know its just that if our school doesn't have the money or resources for an on campus stadium it would be tough to get primary status on Qualcomm without the Chargers. Its tax payer money either way (state or local), and transfer of land would probably be up to voters. Lot of tax revenue sitting on that piece of land to give up. It's just a scary situation, I think SDSU needs the Chargers until we have money to do our own thing. 20,000 people at a game 6 days a year is not a stature of the local community when it comes to taxpayer money taking care of a facility sitting empty 359 days a year. Maybe I'm just a glass half empty person though.
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Jan 22, 2015 9:05:18 GMT -8
For convention expansion, I could see the hotel tax, as it brings in a ton of outside interest, throughout the year. Hotel tax on a new stadium is a tougher sell, since it is a marginal increase (people still see Qualcomm) and pro football's economic impact is usually a base revnue, not imported. For San Diego, this is probably even more true than say Dallas, DC or Pittsburgh. SD County folk coming to watch SD (or who their opponent is). For the high cost of public funding a football stadium, the best option is to try and lump it into a downtown redevelopment project. On its own, I don't see the voters approving to pay even 50% of the cost. I would like to see what the economic impact assumptions are, and what the financials scheme is.
|
|
|
Post by azteceric on Jan 22, 2015 9:10:59 GMT -8
For convention expansion, I could see the hotel tax, as it brings in a ton of outside interest, throughout the year. Hotel tax on a new stadium is a tougher sell, since it is a marginal increase (people still see Qualcomm) and pro football's economic impact is usually a base revnue, not imported. For San Diego, this is probably even more true than say Dallas, DC or Pittsburgh. SD County folk coming to watch SD (or who their opponent is). For the high cost of public funding a football stadium, the best option is to try and lump it into a downtown redevelopment project. On its own, I don't see the voters approving to pay even 50% of the cost. I would like to see what the economic impact assumptions are, and what the financials scheme is. Still a lot of details to work out hope we hear something sooner than later, I think though that hotel taxes should be labeled as fees and not taxes. You only pay them when using a service, just like parking meters or state parks.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuballer on Jan 22, 2015 9:12:50 GMT -8
Ive come to a conclusion that the only reason why a stadium hasn't been built is because all party groups involved want to find a sticky way to profit from the deal. The stadium deal is a regional problem that needs to be address accordingly. I personally do not want SDSU to be involved any questionable financial scheme. The school is on the raise and the last thing we want to see is SDSU brand name be tarnish. The Spanos ultimately will need to sit down and write a $400 million dollars check + 200 million from NFL coffins. The rest will come from some type of "special tax" via car rental, hotel, stadium seat licensing fee, and/or entire county/region property tax assessment. The Spanos right now are stalling waiting to see who will build it for free. Instead all they see are other NFL teams building stadiums with ownership group paying for most of the cost.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jan 22, 2015 9:17:58 GMT -8
Ive come to a conclusion that the only reason why a stadium hasn't been built is because all party groups involved want to find a sticky way to profit from the deal. The stadium deal is a regional problem that needs to be address accordingly. I personally do not want SDSU to be involved any questionable financial scheme. The school is on the raise and the last thing we want to see is SDSU brand name be tarnish. The Spanos ultimately will need to sit down and write a $400 million dollars check + 200 million from NFL coffins. The rest will come from some type of "special tax" via car rental, hotel, stadium seat licensing fee, and/or entire county/region property tax assessment. The Spanos right now are stalling waiting to see who will build it for free. Instead all they see are other NFL teams building stadiums with ownership group paying for most of the cost. First part of what you wrote seems right on. The last part about Spanos expecting to pay nothing is pure speculation on your part without any foundation of facts. Your last comment I believe is also inaccurate.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jan 22, 2015 9:18:46 GMT -8
For convention expansion, I could see the hotel tax, as it brings in a ton of outside interest, throughout the year. Hotel tax on a new stadium is a tougher sell, since it is a marginal increase (people still see Qualcomm) and pro football's economic impact is usually a base revnue, not imported. For San Diego, this is probably even more true than say Dallas, DC or Pittsburgh. SD County folk coming to watch SD (or who their opponent is). For the high cost of public funding a football stadium, the best option is to try and lump it into a downtown redevelopment project. On its own, I don't see the voters approving to pay even 50% of the cost. I would like to see what the economic impact assumptions are, and what the financials scheme is. Still a lot of details to work out hope we hear something sooner than later, I think though that hotel taxes should be labeled as fees and not taxes. You only pay them when using a service, just like parking meters or state parks. I was wondering about re-labeling them as something else and if that would work. I believe you are on to something.
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Jan 22, 2015 9:19:25 GMT -8
For convention expansion, I could see the hotel tax, as it brings in a ton of outside interest, throughout the year. Hotel tax on a new stadium is a tougher sell, since it is a marginal increase (people still see Qualcomm) and pro football's economic impact is usually a base revnue, not imported. For San Diego, this is probably even more true than say Dallas, DC or Pittsburgh. SD County folk coming to watch SD (or who their opponent is). For the high cost of public funding a football stadium, the best option is to try and lump it into a downtown redevelopment project. On its own, I don't see the voters approving to pay even 50% of the cost. I would like to see what the economic impact assumptions are, and what the financials scheme is. Still a lot of details to work out hope we hear something sooner than later, I think though that hotel taxes should be labeled as fees and not taxes. You only pay them when using a service, just like parking meters or state parks. Good catch, that's what I meant. I think the "But for" crowd are going to negate any sort of argument if someone cites Petco as an example of good use of public spending on sports venues. And I think they have a valid point, but there can be a reasonable approach to getting a stadium, but there is so much gap to cover that someone is going to have to bend a bit. What financial incentives are in play for this one, and is there anything more than hotel fees that are being tossed around? I am assuming they aren't going to do GO Bonds, and if I recall, TIF's aren't authorized in CA anymore, right?
|
|
|
Post by doctorsteve on Jan 22, 2015 9:19:29 GMT -8
I'm not sure what their fair share would be. There are many studies that show the dubious nature of "economic impact studies" when it comes to sports facilities and conventions. Civic pride, while not exactly tangible, is likely the best reason to help the chargers stay. I guess my answer is...I don't know. Every article I have read, even on the UT, says the chargers are willing to put in $200 million. The falcons, for example, are putting in $800 million. I know Spanos is no Arthur Blank. I also don't blame Spanos for trying to get the best deal. If it's in LA, then good luck to him and his family. There seems to be a disconnect in your posts. First you say the Chargers should pay their fair share, then say you have no idea what that is. It seems to me you should have some concept of what the "fairness" is prior to saying Fxxx em. Such inflammatory and careless rhetoric does nothing to advance the discussion and only makes you sound petty. Oh, please. it's a message board. I don't blame them for wanting to seek the best deal (i.e., fleece taxpayers), but why should I have any idea of fair share? I haven't done an in-depth study of economic impact. You want me to know the exact amount? Okay. How about the city bonds against the TOT and sales tax increase it would see with a new stadium/development. The chargers pay for the rest? The chargers also pay for infrastructure repair. Chargers also lease the building from the city, but keep all concessions/other revenue from outside events. Is that better? Yeah, I boiled down my opinion to "f x x x 'em." I elucidated when you asked. So what? I don't have all the answers; I'm just some dude.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jan 22, 2015 9:20:28 GMT -8
And I would look at sections 4 and 24. Due to the stature of SDSU in the local community... seeing the city bend over backwards to screw the university is HIGHLY unlikely. So... SDSU could petition for primary tenant status, or seek transfer of the city's interests in the stadium site to SDSU via eminent domain. This has been hashed out ad nauseam on this board and its precursor(s). Some SDSU fans believe that there is a (mostly privately agreed) process in place to steer a resolution of the Q site strongly in favor of the university, some don't/cannot believe that. No amount of sending electrons back & forth will change that. Go Aztecs. I know its just that if our school doesn't have the money or resources for an on campus stadium it would be tough to get primary status on Qualcomm without the Chargers. Its tax payer money either way (state or local), and transfer of land would probably be up to voters. Lot of tax revenue sitting on that piece of land to give up. It's just a scary situation, I think SDSU needs the Chargers until we have money to do our own thing. 20,000 people at a game 6 days a year is not a stature of the local community when it comes to taxpayer money taking care of a facility sitting empty 359 days a year. Maybe I'm just a glass half empty person though. I believe IF SDSU could afford a new on-campus stadium that it would have been started by now.
|
|
|
Post by alohaboarder on Jan 22, 2015 9:21:02 GMT -8
We already have a 10.5 transient occupancy tax in San Diego on every hotel stay. This generates about 90 million in revenue for the city annually. What percent goes back into promoting the city? Absolutely zero. Thus the hotels created the TMD which is short for tourism marketing district. That is a 1.5 percent fee on top of the 10.5. This fee was supposed to go into marketing San Diego as a destination and to promote such things as the poinsettia bowl, holiday bowl, and other such events. The scumbag Filner and democrats decided that this fee was meant for them. Now were caught up in litigation over 12.5% of tax revenue intended for things such as building a new stadium which is now being spent on wasteful government spending. In the meantime other cities are using these tax revenues to get stuff done. This is a prime example of why companies are leaving this city and state. Okay so lets limit government wasteful spending and pull back 25% of the TOT going to the general fund. Take the 38.1 percent going to promotion programs. Give back the remaining percent back to the tourism industry to market the city. Then allocate 50% of TOT to help finance the stadium. The Chargers probably are looking at about a 200 million shortfall. 7.8%= about 80-100 million annually. Allocate 50% of that to the new stadium over the next two years. That will give you a $100 million. Also, according to some news articles I read last year during the expansion fight, the convention center is obligated to give more than half of its city stipend to the TMD for promotions. The TMD is not a tax. I wasn't referring to the TMD as a way to get funds. The TOT and TMD are two different items. The municipal code also states "§33.1615.1 Hours of Play - Bowling It is further declared to be unlawful for any person to play, cause to be played, or permit to be played, the game of bowling, in The City of San Diego, between the hours of 2:00 o’clock A.M. and 6:00 o’clock A.M. (Incorp. 1—22—1952 by O—5046 N.S., contained in O—2329 N.S. adopted 12—16—1941.)" The owners of houses with Christmas lights on them past February second may be fined up to $250.
|
|
|
Post by doctorsteve on Jan 22, 2015 9:27:32 GMT -8
No, people don't like new taxes. I don't think 2/3rds of voters would vote for a new tax. Fine, it might not be $1.4 billion; it might be more, it might be less. The fact of the matter is that the chargers don't want to pay their fair share, so f x x x 'em. Really? How many local hotel room and car rentals do you use/year? I doubt many locals use any of them SO why wouldn't they welcome money from tourists, conventioneers, and business travelers rather than themselves to help pay for a new stadium? If people are that stupid then this city er ah town has more problems than I thought. What is your opinion of "fair" share? There's no magic number here. Since you seem to have the time to research it all, tell us how much each team paid as their "fair" share who are playing in semi-new to new stadiums? I believe that the Chargers/Spanoses should pay some as I believe that the citizens of our County (not just City) should pay some. With naming rights that could approach $150-$200 mill, car rental/hotel taxes that would eventually pay a helluva lot, loan from the NFL, Spanoses money and the County's money, it can be done. There's just too many fools in the way. Dude, the padres went to the world series and the measure for their new stadium received less than 60% of the vote. People are hesitant to pay for new taxes, even if they aren't directly paying them. I don't care if "other teams" got to fleece other cities. That's their problem. I have no interest in it. Say no to corporate welfare, dogg. It seems the county has no interest. A .10 cent regional sales tax increase would probably generate a $#!+ ton of money, but is anyone willing to vote on it? Are the chargers willing to pay for a ballot measure? I haven't heard anything like that.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jan 22, 2015 9:28:33 GMT -8
Atlanta is a truly global city and the financial, transportation and media hub for the entire Southeastern U.S. Over the past 30 years, it has morphed into essentially the New York City of the South. By comparison, Atlanta has 28 Fortune 1000 companies and 5 Fortune 100 companies -- among the greatest concentrations of corporate might of any city in the U.S. It's largest companies include such household names as Home Depot, UPS, Coca-Cola and Delta Airlines. San Diego has no Fortune 100 companies and 5 Fortune 1000 firms: Qualcomm, CareFusion, PriceSmart, Sempra Energy, and Leap Wireless. The big corporations drive much of the season ticket sales and luxury stadium box sales for these new billion-dollar sports edifices. That's why Atlanta has a shiny new stadium, and we don't. I would think that 18 and 22 year old stadiums could still be pretty shiny.
|
|
|
Post by doctorsteve on Jan 22, 2015 9:33:01 GMT -8
Here's the last thing I'm going to post about this: If building a stadium was profitable, then no one would ever fight about it. You're right, TMD is an "assessment," but that's really just semantics. Good luck beating your head against the wall trying to figure out "why don't they just build it!?"
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Jan 22, 2015 9:42:36 GMT -8
If the Chargers go to LA with the Rams . That opens up the Raiders to look for the best deal , they can find in Oakland , San Antonio , St Louis or even in San Diego . So does that really help trading the Chargers for the Raiders . They could do a fee for Hotels for the convention center and a rental car fee (same as they did in Arizona to raise money for their facility ) for the multi purpose facility .
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jan 22, 2015 10:46:23 GMT -8
Here's the last thing I'm going to post about this: If building a stadium was profitable, then no one would ever fight about it. You're right, TMD is an "assessment," but that's really just semantics. Good luck beating your head against the wall trying to figure out "why don't they just build it!?" Doctorsteve, your statement above: "If building...fight about it." is problematic. A moment's reflection will tell you that, of course that's not accurate. Profitability, or not, there is a good sized portion of the citizenry which routinely fights against any and all development. That includes, land fills, apartments, grocery stores, housing, etc. etc., which are all profitable, unless the owner screws up. I can assert, without concern, that a "profitable" proposal on a new stadium would open the woodwork for the anti-development crowd to flow out and throw down multiple lawsuits to slow, or block it altogether.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jan 22, 2015 10:53:41 GMT -8
Here's the last thing I'm going to post about this: If building a stadium was profitable, then no one would ever fight about it. You're right, TMD is an "assessment," but that's really just semantics. Good luck beating your head against the wall trying to figure out "why don't they just build it!?" No one would ever fight about it? Thats cute. Exactly how long have you been in San Diego? People would fight about if the sky is blue. A stadium is profitable to San Diego. What is required by those putting together a plan for financing the stadium is to show what real profits the city will obtain from having a stadium built (real money and secondary benefits such as advertising) and compare that with the money the people of the city will put in. Shouldnt be that difficult to do.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jan 22, 2015 11:03:25 GMT -8
Don't you think the public would vote for a new hotel/car rental tax to help pay for a new stadium SINCE it doesn't come out of their pockets? No, not a chance. If they would it would've have been proposed a long time ago rather than still not having a legitimate proposal 14 years into the stadium search. The 2/3rds hurdle is going to be damn near impossible and you wouldn't hear the mayor constantly refer to this 2/3rd requirement if he were going to skirt the issue. The days of getting stuff like this passed without a vote died the day the redevelopment agencies were shut down.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2015 11:12:24 GMT -8
Would be great if the Sports Arena can be renovated and used by the Aztecs. We have outgrown Viejas and need to expand to at least a 15,000 seat stadium especially as basketball finally gets popular in San Diego. Great for the city of San Diego
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jan 22, 2015 11:17:56 GMT -8
If the Chargers go to LA with the Rams . That opens up the Raiders to look for the best deal , they can find in Oakland , San Antonio , St Louis or even in San Diego . So does that really help trading the Chargers for the Raiders . San Diego is the 23rd largest media market of 32 teams in the NFL. The only way the Raiders would leave Oakland to come to San Diego (or any other smaller market) would be if the City of San Diego incentivized them by building them a new stadium. Good luck with that. Have you heard a peep of the City incentivizing any NBA teams since the Rockets and Clippers left? If the Chargers leave San Diego its almost certainly the last time an NFL franchise resides here.
|
|