|
Post by rebar619 on Jan 22, 2015 15:47:16 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. You seem to operate from the point of view that a stadium would be for NFL use only. As has been "discussed to death" this most assuredly not be the case. It would be a regional asset for many uses, not a facility dedicated to one user.
|
|
|
Post by untitled on Jan 22, 2015 15:48:16 GMT -8
Do not weep for the billionaire, for though it is true he was once much richer in merriment and accommodation, and now sits alone by the fireside in his decrepit stadium, he is still richer than you. Hallelujah. Amen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2015 17:09:12 GMT -8
Do not weep for the billionaire, for though it is true he was once much richer in merriment and accommodation, and now sits alone by the fireside in his decrepit stadium, he is still richer than you. Hallelujah. Amen. How about a giant water park/BMX/Skate Park/Paint Ball/Skeet Shooting Combo park where Qualcomm is?
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jan 22, 2015 17:29:15 GMT -8
Do not weep for the billionaire, for though it is true he was once much richer in merriment and accommodation, and now sits alone by the fireside in his decrepit stadium, he is still richer than you. Hallelujah. Amen. How about a giant water park/BMX/Skate Park/Paint Ball/Skeet Shooting Combo park where Qualcomm is? Or Hunger Games arena.
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Jan 22, 2015 17:53:07 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. You seem to operate from the point of view that a stadium would be for NFL use only. As has been "discussed to death" this most assuredly not be the case. It would be a regional asset for many uses, not a facility dedicated to one user. Tell us more about these regional benefits. Please. Because for 14 years, no one has been able to properly articulate them. Let me start: Aztecs - a downtown stadium does not help us Conventions - despite what the chargers say, the convention industry experts, who bring far more money to this region than the chargers, say a multi purpose stadium that is not attached to the convention center will not work for their purposes. Bowl games - great. There are two more weekends to add to the mix. Revitalizing downtown - already been done .... By Petco Park Super Bowls - it took 14 years to get an all star game here after Petco park opened. That was one of the things they promised in the prop c campaign. Additionally, it's been well documented that these are losers for e city that hosts them, particularly given the requirements by the NFL - free blocks of hotel rooms, free cars, free police services, etc. Super Bowls as a benefit are a farce. So, please, enlighten us to these regional befits. We have time.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jan 23, 2015 10:23:09 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. My use of caps was for the ONE person I was responding to since he seems a little slow at comprehending what I was writing. re your last statement, please share a link to that 'info" Line 1 - I have no idea Paragraph 2 - Again, people rent cars without knowing all the taxes and fees until they actually get there to pick up the car. Nobody is going to not go somewhere because the car rentals are a few bucks more than before. Phoenix has jacked the car rates and their tourism hasn't been hurt. Try renting a car in Phoenix this coming week w/ Super Bowl. Hotel prices have been going up and that's not stopping people from visiting. I doubt by raising the hotel "user fees" or whatever they want to call it wouldn't affect the hotel owners one bit.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jan 23, 2015 10:29:01 GMT -8
You seem to operate from the point of view that a stadium would be for NFL use only. As has been "discussed to death" this most assuredly not be the case. It would be a regional asset for many uses, not a facility dedicated to one user. Tell us more about these regional benefits. Please. Because for 14 years, no one has been able to properly articulate them. Let me start: Aztecs - a downtown stadium does not help us Conventions - despite what the chargers say, the convention industry experts, who bring far more money to this region than the chargers, say a multi purpose stadium that is not attached to the convention center will not work for their purposes. Bowl games - great. There are two more weekends to add to the mix. Revitalizing downtown - already been done .... By Petco Park Super Bowls - it took 14 years to get an all star game here after Petco park opened. That was one of the things they promised in the prop c campaign. Additionally, it's been well documented that these are losers for e city that hosts them, particularly given the requirements by the NFL - free blocks of hotel rooms, free cars, free police services, etc. Super Bowls as a benefit are a farce. So, please, enlighten us to these regional befits. We have time. re Conventions above- The convention experts are then wrong. Explain how Atlanta has not benefited from having the Georgia Dome and Phillips Arena in the same complex as the Georgia World Congress (Convention Center). Apparently it really works for them since they're building their new stadium right next door to the Georgia Dome. Re Super Bowls, yes the NFL has gotten more greedy under the new Commissioner. But you can't underestimate the affect it has on future tourism from people watching games on TV and seeing the sights of the city. There's no way to quantify the benefit of that. Same goes for Holiday Bowl, Poinsettia Bowl, Every Chargers game and I suspect even those AZTECS game that are televised more than just locally. Also re Super Bowl, there are far more people who travel to the host city during Super Bowl weekend who DO NOT attend the game but do spend their $$$ in the restaurants, bars, hotels etc.... PS- Maybe they have been properly articulated but your mind is just closed too tight to want to listen. Just sayin
|
|
|
Post by OldSlowWhiteBaller on Jan 23, 2015 10:40:09 GMT -8
I believe a referendum to approve a increase in any taxes will FAIL to garner the 2/3 majority needed. Absent tax revenue thrown into the financial equation.....it's extremely unlikely that Dean Spanos et al will throw in 1 Billion+ of their own money for a new stadium. Las Vegas Chargers anyone? Los Angeles Chargers? I think the Rams are going to L.A, which leaves nowhere to go unless Vegas can get approved by the league.....looks like more broken water pipes and infrastructure rotting is gonna be happening at the "Q". Options are very limited. I for one would be bummed to see the Chargers go elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by OldSlowWhiteBaller on Jan 23, 2015 10:47:21 GMT -8
wow, it's almost like I don't give a $#!+ what happens to the chargers' stadium problem provided it involves no public money and they pay for the land. We could even hang a banner saying, "This is the House that Free Enterprise Built." We could also get Enterprise rentals for the naming rights! now, does anyone else think Winston looking pure as hell on his 2 triples last night is a sign that God is an SDSU fan? I thought Free Enterprise ended in 2007-2008?.............God loves Winston and the Aztecs!
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Jan 23, 2015 10:49:50 GMT -8
Tell us more about these regional benefits. Please. Because for 14 years, no one has been able to properly articulate them. Let me start: Aztecs - a downtown stadium does not help us Conventions - despite what the chargers say, the convention industry experts, who bring far more money to this region than the chargers, say a multi purpose stadium that is not attached to the convention center will not work for their purposes. Bowl games - great. There are two more weekends to add to the mix. Revitalizing downtown - already been done .... By Petco Park Super Bowls - it took 14 years to get an all star game here after Petco park opened. That was one of the things they promised in the prop c campaign. Additionally, it's been well documented that these are losers for e city that hosts them, particularly given the requirements by the NFL - free blocks of hotel rooms, free cars, free police services, etc. Super Bowls as a benefit are a farce. So, please, enlighten us to these regional befits. We have time. re Conventions above- The convention experts are then wrong. Explain how Atlanta has not benefited from having the Georgia Dome and Phillips Arena in the same complex as the Georgia World Congress (Convention Center). Apparently it really works for them since they're building their new stadium right next door to the Georgia Dome. Re Super Bowls, yes the NFL has gotten more greedy under the new Commissioner. But you can't underestimate the affect it has on future tourism from people watching games on TV and seeing the sights of the city. There's no way to quantify the benefit of that. Same goes for Holiday Bowl, Poinsettia Bowl, Every Chargers game and I suspect even those AZTECS game that are televised more than just locally. Also re Super Bowl, there are far more people who travel to the host city during Super Bowl weekend who DO NOT attend the game but do spend their $$$ in the restaurants, bars, hotels etc.... PS- Maybe they have been properly articulated but your mind is just closed too tight to want to listen. Just sayin Please do not make assumptions about me. I've been listening intently for 14 years. And your facts simply don't pan out. Georgia's Convention Center is 3.9 Million Square Feet. Ours is currently 2.6 million square feet, hence the need for expansion. As for the premise that Superbowls make money, all of those reports use multiplier effects. That is, they don't count all the other things that are pushed aside while they are here. When Comic Con comes to town, other events and activities are not halted or displaced. A Superbowl demands the attention, space and investment of everyone and everything. It's like a swarm of locust. So nothing else can contribute to the economy at that time. Look at what the mayor Glendale recently said about this week's superbowl: ktar.com/103/1801078/Glendale-mayor-Were-losing-money-by-hosting-Super-Bowl "We don't receive any taxes from the actual game so we have to depend on people that are going to the Westgate area and surrounding areas," he said. The game will undoubtedly see thousands of people pour into the Westgate area, but Weiers feels his city is merely trading business for business. "We're taking our normal visitors and displacing them with other people," he said. "Is there a net profit there?" And finally, I'm sure our tourism industry will do just fine without a super bowl. Hasn't seemed to hurt us in the last 11 years.
|
|
|
Post by doctorsteve on Jan 23, 2015 11:40:59 GMT -8
I lied; I'm back (since all us jerks on this website keep talking about 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. If it were profitable, it would be done privately on private land. The "anti-development" crowd would lose any lawsuit. Things only get tricky when it's publicly funded.
Now on to other things. Here's an old-ass University of Michigan website laying out the pros and cons of stadium subsidies. My problems with the pros: Job Creation + Job Multipliers: After the temporary construction jobs dry up, we are left with (normally) pretty s#!++y service and hospitality industry jobs. Spin-off Development + Expanding the Tax Base: If there is no actual new development, then increased property values won't help a thing because of Prop 13 (1978). We're stuck with 1% of the original Assessed Value (barring another 2/3 majority vote to raise property taxes). Marketing the City: San Diego has no problem marketing itself; it ain't Cleveland. But we do have a really annoying Hulu Plus commercial thanks to the TMD. Intangibles: Civic Pride. Can't really argue with this one, as it is "intangible." Here's a nice summary of stadium myths. Here is a quick guide to California Prop 26 (aka the reason we can't magically raise taxes and fees [carbon emission fees notwithstanding])Here's an interview with the architect of the proposed (and failed) 2004 TOT increase. He explains that the 2/3 majority "is almost an insurmountable threshold." I'm sure many of you disagree and don't like what I've presented; that's fine. I just don't think we should try to keep the Chargers at all costs.
|
|
|
Post by sleepy on Jan 23, 2015 11:49:45 GMT -8
I wish I had a link to the story that came out in the days right after the 2003 Super Bowl in San Diego. Local businesses and vendors were actually COMPLAINING about the presence of the Super Bowl and how it had driven down their business. Small vendors that had set up specifically for the game complained of a lack of business.
The upshot was that, sure, a lot of money came rolling into San Diego that week -- but it all ended up in a very few, corporate, well-connected, hands. The boom that supposedly comes with a corporate-driven event was never seen by the rank-and-file local businesses.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jan 23, 2015 11:56:04 GMT -8
I lied; I'm back (since all us jerks on this website keep talking about 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. If it were profitable, it would be done privately on private land. The "anti-development" crowd would lose any lawsuit. Things only get tricky when it's publicly funded.
Now on to other things. Here's an old-ass University of Michigan website laying out the pros and cons of stadium subsidies. My problems with the pros: Job Creation + Job Multipliers: After the temporary construction jobs dry up, we are left with (normally) pretty s#!++y service and hospitality industry jobs. Spin-off Development + Expanding the Tax Base: If there is no actual new development, then increased property values won't help a thing because of Prop 13 (1978). We're stuck with 1% of the original Assessed Value (barring another 2/3 majority vote to raise property taxes). Marketing the City: San Diego has no problem marketing itself; it ain't Cleveland. But we do have a really annoying Hulu Plus commercial thanks to the TMD. Intangibles: Civic Pride. Can't really argue with this one, as it is "intangible." Here's a nice summary of stadium myths. Here is a quick guide to California Prop 26 (aka the reason we can't magically raise taxes and fees [carbon emission fees notwithstanding])Here's an interview with the architect of the proposed (and failed) 2004 TOT increase. He explains that the 2/3 majority "is almost an insurmountable threshold." I'm sure many of you disagree and don't like what I've presented; that's fine. I just don't think we should try to keep the Chargers at all costs. Private property does NOT shield anything from lawsuits and blockage. You obviously have never been involved in real estate or development. Not even sure if you've ever lived in California, or read the paper.
|
|
|
Post by doctorsteve on Jan 23, 2015 12:10:25 GMT -8
The "anti-development" crowd would lose any lawsuit. Private property does NOT shield anything from lawsuits and blockage. Check out what I said. Maybe I should have qualified it with "eventually." Never said it would shield it from a lawsuit. There are always NIMBYs trying to stop everything, but it has to be easier when there is no public money involved. Maybe it's not?
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jan 23, 2015 12:22:44 GMT -8
Private property does NOT shield anything from lawsuits and blockage. Check out what I said. Maybe I should have qualified it with "eventually." Never said it would shield it from a lawsuit. There are always NIMBYs trying to stop everything, but it has to be easier when there is no public money involved. Maybe it's not? I would NOT put money on the proposition that an "anti-development" lawsuit (usually on a pretext of environmental or labor, or traffic, etc. issues)would fail. I can quote many examples of abandoned projects up and down California, on private property, with private money, with millions of dollars spent.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jan 23, 2015 12:49:09 GMT -8
I lied; I'm back (since all us jerks on this website keep talking about 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. If it were profitable, it would be done privately on private land. The "anti-development" crowd would lose any lawsuit. Things only get tricky when it's publicly funded.
Now on to other things. Here's an old-ass University of Michigan website laying out the pros and cons of stadium subsidies. My problems with the pros: Job Creation + Job Multipliers: After the temporary construction jobs dry up, we are left with (normally) pretty s#!++y service and hospitality industry jobs. Spin-off Development + Expanding the Tax Base: If there is no actual new development, then increased property values won't help a thing because of Prop 13 (1978). We're stuck with 1% of the original Assessed Value (barring another 2/3 majority vote to raise property taxes). Marketing the City: San Diego has no problem marketing itself; it ain't Cleveland. But we do have a really annoying Hulu Plus commercial thanks to the TMD. Intangibles: Civic Pride. Can't really argue with this one, as it is "intangible." Here's a nice summary of stadium myths. Here is a quick guide to California Prop 26 (aka the reason we can't magically raise taxes and fees [carbon emission fees notwithstanding])Here's an interview with the architect of the proposed (and failed) 2004 TOT increase. He explains that the 2/3 majority "is almost an insurmountable threshold." I'm sure many of you disagree and don't like what I've presented; that's fine. I just don't think we should try to keep the Chargers at all costs. Your link to Michigan is a hokey term paper that is poorly written with several strawman assuptions that make it in general a waste of time. Again, I have to say that you are only arguing against a stadium with no offering of how you think a stadium would be a palatable option for the City. You keep throwing around absolutes like, "I just don't think we should try to keep the Chargers at all costs". I dont think anyone is saying that on AztecMesa. Instead of lobbing bombs, how about your contribute to the conversation? Would I vote for a TOT that would contribute to a stadium? Yes, but the hitch is that there needs to be an analysis that shows there would not be a significant impact to tourism by doing so that would cost San Diego in the long run. It really is just math, unless you are like some that argue that public money should never be spent towards private enterprise. I respect and understand that argument, though I don't think it applies in this case.
|
|
|
Post by doctorsteve on Jan 23, 2015 15:13:23 GMT -8
My intention in linking the s#!++y website was to generate discussion. I never said that website was well-written or even good, but it did lay out many of the arguments (of both sides) in a concise manner. That's it. Speaking of f****** straw men. Why don't you offer up a suggestion? Do you know what it's going to take? I don't know, but it's more than $200 million (sourced here). People keep arguing for tax and fee increases, but I say it's impossible in this political environment. Voter turnout in San Diego is traditionally terrible. The people who do turn out are also the people who are less likely to vote for tax increases. The other problem with a TOT increase, as others have noted, is that hoteliers will fight it. For the most part, games are attended by regional fans (be they Chargers fans or otherwise) who don't pay for hotels. They're a VERY powerful lobby. Why doesn't it apply?
|
|
|
Post by doctorsteve on Jan 23, 2015 15:16:37 GMT -8
Check out what I said. Maybe I should have qualified it with "eventually." Never said it would shield it from a lawsuit. There are always NIMBYs trying to stop everything, but it has to be easier when there is no public money involved. Maybe it's not? I would NOT put money on the proposition that an "anti-development" lawsuit (usually on a pretext of environmental or labor, or traffic, etc. issues)would fail. I can quote many examples of abandoned projects up and down California, on private property, with private money, with millions of dollars spent. Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by legkick on Jan 23, 2015 15:22:55 GMT -8
re your last statement, please share a link to that 'info" Cute putting scare quotes around the word info. Completely disingenuous as well, and really lazy. However, since you can't be bothered to look it up yourself, here is your link. The rest of your post is just a bunch of assumptions that you have no factual basis for positing. In the real world, comparative tax rates do matter. Similarly, tax increases do have marginal effects on the behavior of those impacted. No, I'm not going to link to you every study that demonstrates it. I believe you have been living in California for at least a while, Bruce. How many times have tax increases even made it to the ballot since Prop 13 was passed? How many got a 2/3 vote?
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jan 24, 2015 4:41:30 GMT -8
|
|