|
Post by ab on Jan 22, 2015 11:29:50 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. So are you saying people are THAT STUPID? 2/3 people wouldn't vote for money that doesn't come out of their pockets? Seriously.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jan 22, 2015 11:34:11 GMT -8
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. Stay with me dude- The new TAX or USER FEE or whatever it's called would be paid for my OUTSIDERS, TOURISTS, BUSINESS PEOPLE AND CONVENTIONEERS AND NOT THE LOCALS. IF PEOPLE ARE TOO STUPID TO NOT VOTE FOR THAT THEY ARE TOO STUPID TO VOTE.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jan 22, 2015 11:39:37 GMT -8
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. So are you saying people are THAT STUPID? 2/3 people wouldn't vote for money that doesn't come out of their pockets? Seriously. It all comes down to how it is presented. So far I would say it has been piss poor at best. I think md's assessment is unfortunately accurate. That being said, there is still time for things to change. Something that does concern me is if things do play out that a new San Diego stadium is built downtown or the Chargers go to LA, what do the Aztecs do? The assumption is that they acquire the Q site (YEA!), but that will cost around $300 million for purchase. There is then still the issue of maintenance of the stadium ($15million/yr IIRC) and the cost to build a new stadium since the Q by many accounts is becoming a safety hazard, so say another $300 million? To me it appears the cost for SDSU to have a new facility on the Q site will cost around $700 million (land+stadium+4yrs of maintenance) (ugh). Where does this money come from? I'm ready to chip in, but damn thats a lot of coin! Am I off on my estimates? How much can we reasonably expect from the CSU?
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jan 22, 2015 11:41:10 GMT -8
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. Stay with me dude- The new TAX or USER FEE or whatever it's called would be paid for my OUTSIDERS, TOURISTS, BUSINESS PEOPLE AND CONVENTIONEERS AND NOT THE LOCALS. IF PEOPLE ARE TOO STUPID TO NOT VOTE FOR THAT THEY ARE TOO STUPID TO VOTE. Careful with your labels. Sometimes people will vote based on what they think is right and wrong, not just based on what is best for them. Thats not called stupidity, its integrity.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jan 22, 2015 11:42:06 GMT -8
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. So are you saying people are THAT STUPID? Â 2/3 people wouldn't vote for money that doesn't come out of their pockets? Â Seriously. I don't think they are stupid. Stadiums aren't money makers for cities and if you make it more expensive for visitors than less visitors will choose to come here. This has a dramatic effect on the City of San Diego for just 10 games a year and that combined with people's reluctance to vote for new taxes makes this method DOA IMO.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Jan 22, 2015 11:44:54 GMT -8
they could very easily write up the user fee for car rentals (ask Phoenix area ) or hotel resort fee stays county wide ( about 15% for most major destination areas) for those not living in a San Diego County . Exclude those who live in San Diego County .
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jan 22, 2015 11:58:33 GMT -8
 To me it appears the cost for SDSU to have a new facility on the Q site will cost around $700 million (land+stadium+4yrs of maintenance) (ugh).  Where does this money come from?  If the land isn't purchased, the city can lease the land to SDSU without a vote of the people and only would require a majority vote from the city council members. Sdsu could continue to use the current stadium or could build a new 40k stadium for $200m or less.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jan 22, 2015 12:21:46 GMT -8
So are you saying people are THAT STUPID? 2/3 people wouldn't vote for money that doesn't come out of their pockets? Seriously. I don't think they are stupid. Stadiums aren't money makers for cities and if you make it more expensive for visitors than less visitors will choose to come here. This has a dramatic effect on the City of San Diego for just 10 games a year and that combined with people's reluctance to vote for new taxes makes this method DOA IMO. That is a bit of a mischaracterization to say that the stadium would be used for just 10 games a year. This is especially true if the facility is downtown. It would be used for many more events than just NFL football.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jan 22, 2015 12:24:19 GMT -8
To me it appears the cost for SDSU to have a new facility on the Q site will cost around $700 million (land+stadium+4yrs of maintenance) (ugh). Where does this money come from? If the land isn't purchased, the city can lease the land to SDSU without a vote of the people and only would require a majority vote from the city council members. Sdsu could continue to use the current stadium or could build a new 40k stadium for $200m or less. I could be wrong, but just to demo the Q will cost near $50 million. I think you are being a bit hopeful on the $200million pricetag. Even so, I would have to think that any final facility will cost upwards of $400million + the cost of lease. Staying in the Q long term is not feasible for SDSU due to cost and maintenance.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Jan 22, 2015 12:42:05 GMT -8
The important thing is to present it as a Multi Purpose Facility with retractable roof. Football games for those who choose to use it from NFL , to Super Bowl Pro Bowl .... , to College : SDSU , Bowls from local to Playoffs increased image and attendance, MLS to World Cup , Concerts can bring in major entertainment , Conventions , Basketball - Regionals to Final Four , Tennis , regular entertainment . Restaurants , Bars , places to go at night or day: Bowling alleys , Movie theaters , Paint Ball , theatre , City Hall buildings ,... some of the other activities that they are doing at the Q or Petco , same thing they do in a lot of cities . Use the Gas Lamp as Mardi Gras West area .
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Jan 22, 2015 12:49:23 GMT -8
If the land isn't purchased, the city can lease the land to SDSU without a vote of the people and only would require a majority vote from the city council members. Sdsu could continue to use the current stadium or could build a new 40k stadium for $200m or less. I could be wrong, but just to demo the Q will cost near $50 million. I think you are being a bit hopeful on the $200million pricetag. Even so, I would have to think that any final facility will cost upwards of $400million + the cost of lease. Staying in the Q long term is not feasible for SDSU due to cost and maintenance. I understand the additional costs from demo and remediation, along with battling legal and marginal cost of construction from a national baseline, but even if that portion cost $120M, we have no business spending $400M on just getting a stadium up. $350M is doable. Site acq could be a much better opportunity for extra campus space as well. It's a ton of cash, that is the problem. We don't have the endowment to draw from or use as security, so it would take an incredible effort of fundraising for land and structure, but man, it would be something.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jan 22, 2015 12:52:34 GMT -8
So are you saying people are THAT STUPID? 2/3 people wouldn't vote for money that doesn't come out of their pockets? Seriously. It all comes down to how it is presented. So far I would say it has been piss poor at best. I think md's assessment is unfortunately accurate. That being said, there is still time for things to change. Something that does concern me is if things do play out that a new San Diego stadium is built downtown or the Chargers go to LA, what do the Aztecs do? The assumption is that they acquire the Q site (YEA!), but that will cost around $300 million for purchase. There is then still the issue of maintenance of the stadium ($15million/yr IIRC) and the cost to build a new stadium since the Q by many accounts is becoming a safety hazard, so say another $300 million? To me it appears the cost for SDSU to have a new facility on the Q site will cost around $700 million (land+stadium+4yrs of maintenance) (ugh). Where does this money come from? I'm ready to chip in, but damn thats a lot of coin! Am I off on my estimates? How much can we reasonably expect from the CSU? "It all comes down to how it is presented." Exactly. Hasn't an increase in TOT already been turned down by the voters (at least) once? And, IIRC, it was fought by the hoteliers--they wanted it to fail.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jan 22, 2015 12:54:43 GMT -8
The important thing is to present it as a Multi Purpose Facility with retractable roof. Football games for those who choose to use it from NFL , to Super Bowl Pro Bowl .... , to College : SDSU , Bowls from local to Playoffs increased image and attendance, MLS to World Cup , Concerts can bring in major entertainment , Conventions , Basketball - Regionals to Final Four , Tennis , regular entertainment . Restaurants , Bars , places to go at night or day: Bowling alleys , Movie theaters , Paint Ball , theatre , City Hall buildings ,... some of the other activities that they are doing at the Q or Petco , same thing they do in a lot of cities . Use the Gas Lamp as Mardi Gras West area . And you are already fighting uphill when you use the word "convention", since the convention center board is dead-set against it.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jan 22, 2015 14:24:47 GMT -8
To me it appears the cost for SDSU to have a new facility on the Q site will cost around $700 million (land+stadium+4yrs of maintenance) (ugh). Where does this money come from? If the land isn't purchased, the city can lease the land to SDSU without a vote of the people and only would require a majority vote from the city council members. Sdsu could continue to use the current stadium or could build a new 40k stadium for $200m or less. So md are you funding the SDSU stadium? How much was the Houston and Louisville stadiums? Stanfords?
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jan 22, 2015 14:28:36 GMT -8
So are you saying people are THAT STUPID? 2/3 people wouldn't vote for money that doesn't come out of their pockets? Seriously. I don't think they are stupid. Stadiums aren't money makers for cities and if you make it more expensive for visitors than less visitors will choose to come here. This has a dramatic effect on the City of San Diego for just 10 games a year and that combined with people's reluctance to vote for new taxes makes this method DOA IMO. Really? How many times have you booked a hotel or a car in another city and KNEW what all the taxes etc...were before you got your bill at the hotel? I doubt Phoenix has been hurt by raising their hotel/car rental FEES. That's a bunch of bunk. How can they NOT be stupid by voting against a new tax when it's not coming out of their pockets? Typical small town mentality. San Diego and San Diegans amaze me for their goal of remaining small time even though that ship sailed decades ago.
|
|
|
Post by legkick on Jan 22, 2015 15:02:47 GMT -8
Stay with me dude- The new TAX or USER FEE or whatever it's called would be paid for my OUTSIDERS, TOURISTS, BUSINESS PEOPLE AND CONVENTIONEERS AND NOT THE LOCALS. IF PEOPLE ARE TOO STUPID TO NOT VOTE FOR THAT THEY ARE TOO STUPID TO VOTE. By your use of "logic" and the ever authoritative ALL CAPS, why haven't the TOT and rental car taxes been repeatedly raised in the past in San Diego? Things to consider: First, San Diego wants to stay competitive in the tourism business - one way to do that is to have lower TOT rates than other tourist destinations. Second, generally speaking, if someone raises a tax on outsiders, such as lets say a tariff on goods from China, then the affected party usually raises taxes back, so there are indirect and direct "negative" affects. Third, the hotel industry has a significant lobby in town and they would push back hard on raising taxes unless they are convinced that the return will outweigh the added cost. By the way, the Arizona rental car tax for the stadium was recently ruled unconstitutional, in large part because vehicle tax revenue is supposed to go to vehicle-related things like highways.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2015 15:07:10 GMT -8
Stay with me dude- The new TAX or USER FEE or whatever it's called would be paid for my OUTSIDERS, TOURISTS, BUSINESS PEOPLE AND CONVENTIONEERS AND NOT THE LOCALS. IF PEOPLE ARE TOO STUPID TO NOT VOTE FOR THAT THEY ARE TOO STUPID TO VOTE. By your use of "logic" and the ever authoritative ALL CAPS, why haven't the TOT and rental car taxes been repeatedly raised in the past in San Diego? Things to consider: First, San Diego wants to stay competitive in the tourism business - one way to do that is to have lower TOT rates than other tourist destinations. Second, generally speaking, if someone raises a tax on outsiders, such as lets say a tariff on goods from China, then the affected party usually raises taxes back, so there are indirect and direct "negative" affects. Third, the hotel industry has a significant lobby in town and they would push back hard on raising taxes unless they are convinced that the return will outweigh the added cost. By the way, the Arizona rental car tax for the stadium was recently ruled unconstitutional, in large part because vehicle tax revenue is supposed to go to vehicle-related things like highways. WHAT? ?? Since when are taxes constitutional under the Declaration of Independence? Sick.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jan 22, 2015 15:24:21 GMT -8
If the land isn't purchased, the city can lease the land to SDSU without a vote of the people and only would require a majority vote from the city council members. Sdsu could continue to use the current stadium or could build a new 40k stadium for $200m or less. So md are you funding the SDSU stadium? How much was the Houston and Louisville stadiums? Stanfords? Houston was $128 million and has just got built. Stanford was $100 million and was built in 2006 Louisville just expanded their stadium so this is from the schools website: "Papa John's Cardinal Stadium was built for $63 million in 1998 with a capacity of 42,000. The stadium was expanded to 55,000 in 2010 for a cost of $72 million."
|
|
|
Post by untitled on Jan 22, 2015 15:28:37 GMT -8
All of the ideas in here have been discussed to death by all in involved for the last 14 years. If they were viable, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The chargers should establish a fund, and all the people desperate to keep them here can donate to it and all the people who don't care if they stay can go on with our lives without someone reaching into our wallets for their hobby. I'm legitimately interested in how many would donate.
Maybe they should start a Kickstarter page. There, a new idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2015 15:32:08 GMT -8
All of the ideas in here have been discussed to death by all in involved for the last 14 years. If they were viable, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The chargers should establish a fund, and all the people desperate to keep them here can donate to it and all the people who don't care if they stay can go on with our lives without someone reaching into our wallets for their hobby. I'm legitimately interested in how many would donate. Maybe they should start a Kickstarter page. There, a new idea. Wow that kinda sounds like too much of a free market economy. That won't work. lol.
|
|