|
Post by greysuit on Feb 22, 2015 9:34:15 GMT -8
You could write your state senator or congressman. You had some credibility before this response. The scnario is so far fetched I thought you were joking so I responded in jest. Howevwr, the State out ranks the City so they don't have to seek their approval. They can certify an EIR with whatever overidibg considerations they choose. The City can try to sue the State to stop the process. The only checks and balances come if the local state senator or congressmen can garner enough political support to stop the process.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2015 9:40:07 GMT -8
Minor league hockey will not stop the train from leaving the station. The city might sell it to Ernie Hahn or someone else who could continue to operate it as an arena, or not. It's highly doubtful that the Ducks would have gone through the trouble of buying and relocating a team from Virginia to San Diego without having certain things in order ... chief among them being a solid lease for home Ice. IIRC, AEG is part of the Ducks equation and probably have built in some steep penalties should the city attempt to sell the ice out from under them. Those penalties may be what shifted the Chargers focus from selling the Sports Arena and Qualcomm as a method of funding a new stadium to trying to appropriate convention center expansion funds to pay for their stadium. Again, the numbers seem to indicate that the Chargers do have the ability to pay for a majority share of the construction of a new stadium, they just don't want to ... Land: Provided by the City and the County of San Diego (approximate value $200M) Chargers Investment: $200M NFL Loan: $200M Naming Rights: $200M Public Investment: $200M The Chargers have the ability to cover 75% of the construction costs of an $800M football only stadium ... they should be held financially responsible for cost overruns and could use the limited income from PSLs and Luxury Suites to cover those overruns ($100-$200M). Goldman Sachs could finance the entire project privately, with no need for the city or county to issue bonds or put the taxpayers at risk. As I stated before, the $200M public investment could come from a long term lease of the Q site by SDSU, and paid for out of the Campaign, to expand the campus into Mission Valley. As for the Q itself, we could use the renovation of Sun Devil Stadium or Husky Stadium as a model to retool the Q. Financing approved for Sun Devil Stadium renovations www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2015/02/05/financing-approved-asu-sun-devil-stadium-renovations/22951535/The Drive for Husky Stadium| Financial Plan www.huskystadium.com/renovation-information/project-overview/financial-planI don't mean to be insulting but where have you been? Minor leagues hockey teams and indeed entire leagues come and go like a fart in the wind. They are the smallest of small potatoes. We've had a at least a half a dozen teams in this town over the years. The original Gulls were a Bruins minor league franchise. The city may or may not sell the land as a part of the current situation but I can assure you the status of the Mighty Ducks minor league hockey affiliate will have zero impact on the decision.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2015 9:41:59 GMT -8
If the school buys it and uses it as a campus expansion I doubt they will need to build the additional ramps. Considering the property handled 70,000 people at once I don't think it will be necessary. Not daily. And the current level of daily traffic right now dictates the need for new ramps. There is a tipping point.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Feb 22, 2015 9:47:26 GMT -8
It's highly doubtful that the Ducks would have gone through the trouble of buying and relocating a team from Virginia to San Diego without having certain things in order ... chief among them being a solid lease for home Ice. IIRC, AEG is part of the Ducks equation and probably have built in some steep penalties should the city attempt to sell the ice out from under them. Those penalties may be what shifted the Chargers focus from selling the Sports Arena and Qualcomm as a method of funding a new stadium to trying to appropriate convention center expansion funds to pay for their stadium. Again, the numbers seem to indicate that the Chargers do have the ability to pay for a majority share of the construction of a new stadium, they just don't want to ... Land: Provided by the City and the County of San Diego (approximate value $200M) Chargers Investment: $200M NFL Loan: $200M Naming Rights: $200M Public Investment: $200M The Chargers have the ability to cover 75% of the construction costs of an $800M football only stadium ... they should be held financially responsible for cost overruns and could use the limited income from PSLs and Luxury Suites to cover those overruns ($100-$200M). Goldman Sachs could finance the entire project privately, with no need for the city or county to issue bonds or put the taxpayers at risk. As I stated before, the $200M public investment could come from a long term lease of the Q site by SDSU, and paid for out of the Campaign, to expand the campus into Mission Valley. As for the Q itself, we could use the renovation of Sun Devil Stadium or Husky Stadium as a model to retool the Q. Financing approved for Sun Devil Stadium renovations www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2015/02/05/financing-approved-asu-sun-devil-stadium-renovations/22951535/The Drive for Husky Stadium| Financial Plan www.huskystadium.com/renovation-information/project-overview/financial-planI don't mean to be insulting but where have you been? Minor leagues hockey teams and indeed entire leagues come and go like a fart in the wind. They are the smallest of small potatoes. We've had a at least a half a dozen teams in this town over the years. The original Gulls were a Bruins minor league franchise. The city may or may not sell the land as a part of the current situation but I can assure you the status of the Mighty Ducks minor league hockey affiliate will have zero impact on the decision. where have you been? The entire NHL Western Division has made a decision to move all their AHL affiliates from the East coast to the West coast ... do you not think part of the plan was to secure solid long term leases for all the affiliates? It would do untold harm to the parent organization if their affiliate has to find and relocate it's home ice while all the other AHL West teams are seeded. That is just bad business sense and a reach on your part to try down play the value of the Ducks minor league team to the Ducks and the financial burden that would ensue if they had not done their due diligence in selecting San Diego as it's home ice in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Feb 22, 2015 9:47:36 GMT -8
It's highly doubtful that the Ducks would have gone through the trouble of buying and relocating a team from Virginia to San Diego without having certain things in order ... chief among them being a solid lease for home Ice. IIRC, AEG is part of the Ducks equation and probably have built in some steep penalties should the city attempt to sell the ice out from under them. Those penalties may be what shifted the Chargers focus from selling the Sports Arena and Qualcomm as a method of funding a new stadium to trying to appropriate convention center expansion funds to pay for their stadium. Again, the numbers seem to indicate that the Chargers do have the ability to pay for a majority share of the construction of a new stadium, they just don't want to ... Land: Provided by the City and the County of San Diego (approximate value $200M) Chargers Investment: $200M NFL Loan: $200M Naming Rights: $200M Public Investment: $200M The Chargers have the ability to cover 75% of the construction costs of an $800M football only stadium ... they should be held financially responsible for cost overruns and could use the limited income from PSLs and Luxury Suites to cover those overruns ($100-$200M). Goldman Sachs could finance the entire project privately, with no need for the city or county to issue bonds or put the taxpayers at risk. As I stated before, the $200M public investment could come from a long term lease of the Q site by SDSU, and paid for out of the Campaign, to expand the campus into Mission Valley. As for the Q itself, we could use the renovation of Sun Devil Stadium or Husky Stadium as a model to retool the Q. Financing approved for Sun Devil Stadium renovations www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2015/02/05/financing-approved-asu-sun-devil-stadium-renovations/22951535/The Drive for Husky Stadium| Financial Plan www.huskystadium.com/renovation-information/project-overview/financial-planI don't mean to be insulting but where have you been? Minor leagues hockey teams and indeed entire leagues come and go like a fart in the wind. They are the smallest of small potatoes. We've had a at least a half a dozen teams in this town over the years. The original Gulls were a Bruins minor league franchise. The city may or may not sell the land as a part of the current situation but I can assure you the status of the Mighty Ducks minor league hockey affiliate will have zero impact on the decision. True AFAN, and in any case, I'm sure that any tenant's sublease with the Arena, would have to be--at a minimum--co-terminus with the Arena's lease with the City. So if the city chooses to sell, those leases would be expunged. And there is likely a clause in the master lease that allows the city to do that. Although, San Diego has shown a great propensity for stupidity over the years.
|
|
|
Post by greysuit on Feb 22, 2015 9:48:39 GMT -8
Considering the property handled 70,000 people at once I don't think it will be necessary. Not daily. And the current level of daily traffic right now dictates the need for new ramps. There is a tipping point. Nope not daily, during a single peak hour. I know that's not what you meant, but it was a daily attraction when the Padres played there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2015 9:50:40 GMT -8
You had some credibility before this response. The scnario is so far fetched I thought you were joking so I responded in jest. Howevwr, the State out ranks the City so they don't have to seek their approval. They can certify an EIR with whatever overidibg considerations they choose. The City can try to sue the State to stop the process. The only checks and balances come if the local state senator or congressmen can garner enough political support to stop the process. The courts always have something to say. We don't live in a dictatorship. There is a legal process for condemnation. EIR's can and have been overturned. Your argument seems to hinge on the notion that an SDSU expansion represents an overriding and compelling need for the state. I'm pretty certain the courts would disagree.
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Feb 22, 2015 10:06:24 GMT -8
I'm kinda hard pressed to think that when the Chargers leave , the current site that be the Q will be automatically "willed" to SDSU. As has been mentioned on this thread one should not assume there are not other viable interests that would be at play. This is San Diego after all. And as I've maintained, San Diego is not a sports town, (my beloved AAA hockey team aside). I also agree there would be potential legal issues relating to most anything relating to sports. That's how this city operates. Assuming the city and county sigh a collective yawn when the Chargers depart, I'm hard pressed to think that a region of some 3,000,000 residents that can hardly generate 35,000 fans to an Aztec football game is going to cry foul if the Aztecs find themselves with no place to play. And certainly not if they felt one penny would have to come out of their own pockets to make it work. I also agree that a lot has to fall into place for the city to open its arms to an extended State campus and football stadium. Should I say it? 7-6 records aren't going to do it. Again, it all "sounds" so good on paper.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2015 10:26:14 GMT -8
Need to clarify once again that I am not opposed to SDSU expanding on the site as long as the city receives fair market value and the quality of life issues are addressed. I should also re-state my opposition to another football stadium being built there or anywhere else for that matter because the only investment worse than one football stadium is two football stadiums.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Feb 22, 2015 10:46:59 GMT -8
Need to clarify once again that I am not opposed to SDSU expanding on the site as long as the city receives fair market value and the quality of life issues are addressed. I should also re-state my opposition to another football stadium being built there or anywhere else for that matter because the only investment worse than one football stadium is two football stadiums. As long as taxpayers are not directly responsible, why would you care how many stadiums or arenas are in San Diego? If the Chargers privately finance a football only stadium downtown on land provided by the city and county -- and as part of that deal, SDSU obtains a long term lease and development rights at the Q in exchange for a sum of money that would (in turn) aid the Chargers in the building of their downtown stadium ... and SDSU chooses to privately finance a number of buildings on the Qualcomm site including a renovated stadium. What would be the net impact on you? Let the free and open capitalist market work for the 2 stadiums (Aztec Warrior Stadium vs. Chargers Stadium) like it does for the 2 arenas (Viejas vs. Valley View) when booking events.
|
|
|
Post by csfoster on Feb 22, 2015 10:47:12 GMT -8
Need to clarify once again that I am not opposed to SDSU expanding on the site as long as the city receives fair market value and the quality of life issues are addressed. I should also re-state my opposition to another football stadium being built there or anywhere else for that matter because the only investment worse than one football stadium is two football stadiums. One replaces the other and the Chargers remain in town.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Feb 22, 2015 10:52:36 GMT -8
One nugget that came out of this joint use proposal in Carson, is the color-changing scheme. I'm sure it's not cheap, but it does seem like there's a solution to the blue seats for the Chargers, and red or black seats for Aztec games. Very interesting, and eliminates at least one of the "problems" posed by many.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 22, 2015 15:26:23 GMT -8
I'm kinda hard pressed to think that when the Chargers leave , the current site that be the Q will be automatically "willed" to SDSU. As has been mentioned on this thread one should not assume there are not other viable interests that would be at play. This is San Diego after all. And as I've maintained, San Diego is not a sports town, (my beloved AAA hockey team aside). I also agree there would be potential legal issues relating to most anything relating to sports. That's how this city operates. Assuming the city and county sigh a collective yawn when the Chargers depart, I'm hard pressed to think that a region of some 3,000,000 residents that can hardly generate 35,000 fans to an Aztec football game is going to cry foul if the Aztecs find themselves with no place to play. And certainly not if they felt one penny would have to come out of their own pockets to make it work. I also agree that a lot has to fall into place for the city to open its arms to an extended State campus and football stadium. Should I say it? 7-6 records aren't going to do it. Again, it all "sounds" so good on paper. If it came down to either doing something or allowing San Diego State's Division I status go down the toilet (I refer to all sports, including the inevitability that SDSU's successful basketball program would be mortally wounded) or finding a way to make sure that the Aztecs will always have a football venue, the latter is going to happen. This is not Fullerton, Long Beach, or even Alabama, Birmingham. If your brother-in-law constantly whines that things aren't going well financially at his house, you may just yawn and think to yourself Damn, he's whining again. But if Sis, whom you trust, calls and says that they are about to have their house foreclosed on, you are probably not going to say to her; Tough luck, why did you marry such a loser? No, in such a case, most people would get off their behinds and start figuring out how Sis and her spouse can be helped. I guess I believe that if the situation became dire, we would discover that there is a lot more support for Aztec football in this community that some apparently believe. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by merkarrand on Feb 22, 2015 16:31:37 GMT -8
Leave the lineup alone? However, when the press is applied make sure Polee is at the 1 postion. Neither Shrigley or Obrien have the quickness or speed to contain pressure.
|
|
|
Post by K2Aztec73 on Feb 22, 2015 16:33:38 GMT -8
Leave the lineup alone? However, when the press is applied make sure Polee is at the 1 postion. Neither Shrigley or Obrien have the quickness or speed to contain pressure. Nice threadjack...
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Feb 22, 2015 17:12:17 GMT -8
Need to clarify once again that I am not opposed to SDSU expanding on the site as long as the city receives fair market value and the quality of life issues are addressed. I should also re-state my opposition to another football stadium being built there or anywhere else for that matter because the only investment worse than one football stadium is two football stadiums. As long as taxpayers are not directly responsible, why would you care how many stadiums or arenas are in San Diego? If the Chargers privately finance a football only stadium downtown on land provided by the city and county -- and as part of that deal, SDSU obtains a long term lease and development rights at the Q in exchange for a sum of money that would (in turn) aid the Chargers in the building of their downtown stadium ... and SDSU chooses to privately finance a number of buildings on the Qualcomm site including a renovated stadium. What would be the net impact on you? Let the free and open capitalist market work for the 2 stadiums (Aztec Warrior Stadium vs. Chargers Stadium) like it does for the 2 arenas (Viejas vs. Valley View) when booking events.
In simple terms the Chargers WILL partially finance a new stadium. One thing is for goddamn sure, they WILL NOT finance it 100% whether it's on city owned land or not. What has been going on for 13 years is how the debt is going to be divvied up. Time is money and the cost to build one goes up annually. Stubbornness and stupidity has ruled on both sides and it appears they've priced themselves out of San Diego after this many years. That joint venture in LA is proof of that. JMO
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Feb 22, 2015 17:21:01 GMT -8
As long as taxpayers are not directly responsible, why would you care how many stadiums or arenas are in San Diego? If the Chargers privately finance a football only stadium downtown on land provided by the city and county -- and as part of that deal, SDSU obtains a long term lease and development rights at the Q in exchange for a sum of money that would (in turn) aid the Chargers in the building of their downtown stadium ... and SDSU chooses to privately finance a number of buildings on the Qualcomm site including a renovated stadium. What would be the net impact on you? Let the free and open capitalist market work for the 2 stadiums (Aztec Warrior Stadium vs. Chargers Stadium) like it does for the 2 arenas (Viejas vs. Valley View) when booking events.
In simple terms the Chargers WILL partially finance a new stadium. One thing is for goddamn sure, they WILL NOT finance it 100% whether it's on city owned land or not. What has been going on for 13 years is how the debt is going to be divvied up. Time is money and the cost to build one goes up annually. Stubbornness and stupidity has ruled on both sides and it appears they've priced themselves out of San Diego after this many years. That joint venture in LA is proof of that. JMO
Again, the numbers seem to indicate that the Chargers do have the ability to pay for a majority share of the construction of a new stadium, they just don't want to ...
Land: Provided by the City and the County of San Diego (approximate value $200M) Chargers Investment: $200M NFL Loan: $200M Naming Rights: $200M Public Investment: $200M The Chargers have the ability to cover 75% of the construction costs of an $800M football only stadium ... they should be held financially responsible for cost overruns and could use the limited income from PSLs and Luxury Suites to cover those overruns ($100-$200M). Goldman Sachs could finance the entire project privately, with no need for the city or county to issue bonds or put the taxpayers at risk.
As I stated before, the $200M public investment could come from a long term lease of the Q site by SDSU, and paid for out of the Campaign, to expand the campus into Mission Valley. As for the Q itself, we could use the renovation of Sun Devil Stadium or Husky Stadium as a model to retool the Q. Financing approved for Sun Devil Stadium renovations www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2015/02/05/financing-approved-asu-sun-devil-stadium-renovations/22951535/The Drive for Husky Stadium| Financial Plan www.huskystadium.com/renovation-information/project-overview/financial-plan
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Feb 22, 2015 17:45:32 GMT -8
In simple terms the Chargers WILL partially finance a new stadium. One thing is for goddamn sure, they WILL NOT finance it 100% whether it's on city owned land or not. What has been going on for 13 years is how the debt is going to be divvied up. Time is money and the cost to build one goes up annually. Stubbornness and stupidity has ruled on both sides and it appears they've priced themselves out of San Diego after this many years. That joint venture in LA is proof of that. JMO
Again, the numbers seem to indicate that the Chargers do have the ability to pay for a majority share of the construction of a new stadium, they just don't want to ...
Land: Provided by the City and the County of San Diego (approximate value $200M) Chargers Investment: $200M NFL Loan: $200M Naming Rights: $200M Public Investment: $200M The Chargers have the ability to cover 75% of the construction costs of an $800M football only stadium ... they should be held financially responsible for cost overruns and could use the limited income from PSLs and Luxury Suites to cover those overruns ($100-$200M). Goldman Sachs could finance the entire project privately, with no need for the city or county to issue bonds or put the taxpayers at risk.
As I stated before, the $200M public investment could come from a long term lease of the Q site by SDSU, and paid for out of the Campaign, to expand the campus into Mission Valley. As for the Q itself, we could use the renovation of Sun Devil Stadium or Husky Stadium as a model to retool the Q. Financing approved for Sun Devil Stadium renovations www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2015/02/05/financing-approved-asu-sun-devil-stadium-renovations/22951535/The Drive for Husky Stadium| Financial Plan www.huskystadium.com/renovation-information/project-overview/financial-planHow do you know they have the dough and how do you know a stadium would only cost $800 million? If you make them responsible for overruns would they be able to use their own construction company to build it?
|
|
|
Post by Ambivalent_Fan on Feb 22, 2015 17:56:46 GMT -8
Need to clarify once again that I am not opposed to expanding on the site as long as the city receives fair market value and the quality of life issues are addressed. I should also re-state my opposition to another football stadium being built there or anywhere else for that matter because the only investment worse than one football stadium is two football stadiums. Just curious...why the heck do you care whether or not the city gets fair compensation?...the Chargers have been ripping the city off for years (as reported recently...the City actually pays the Chargers to play at Qualcomm...due to credits paid back to the Chargers for ADA compliance issues) www.voiceofsandiego.org/must-reads/fact-check-city-pays-chargers-play-qualcomm-stadium/What are your thoughts on those developments? Is it any wonder why the majority of San Diegans want the Chargers to build their own damn stadium...
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Feb 22, 2015 18:25:52 GMT -8
Again, the numbers seem to indicate that the Chargers do have the ability to pay for a majority share of the construction of a new stadium, they just don't want to ...
Land: Provided by the City and the County of San Diego (approximate value $200M) Chargers Investment: $200M NFL Loan: $200M Naming Rights: $200M Public Investment: $200M The Chargers have the ability to cover 75% of the construction costs of an $800M football only stadium ... they should be held financially responsible for cost overruns and could use the limited income from PSLs and Luxury Suites to cover those overruns ($100-$200M). Goldman Sachs could finance the entire project privately, with no need for the city or county to issue bonds or put the taxpayers at risk.
As I stated before, the $200M public investment could come from a long term lease of the Q site by SDSU, and paid for out of the Campaign, to expand the campus into Mission Valley. As for the Q itself, we could use the renovation of Sun Devil Stadium or Husky Stadium as a model to retool the Q. Financing approved for Sun Devil Stadium renovations www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2015/02/05/financing-approved-asu-sun-devil-stadium-renovations/22951535/The Drive for Husky Stadium| Financial Plan www.huskystadium.com/renovation-information/project-overview/financial-planHow do you know they have the dough and how do you know a stadium would only cost $800 million? If you make them responsible for overruns would they be able to use their own construction company to build it? First off, the Chargers initial ask was for a $800M stadium for which the City was to pay half and the Chargers the other half ... Then the Chargers wanted the stadium to be more than just for football, asking for a soft roof to be included, increasing the cost of the stadium to $1B, and asking the city to cover the difference by selling the Sports Arena and Qualcomm. Then they tried to make the stadium a non-contiguous extension of the convention center, once again increasing the costs to over $1.2B and asking the city to cover everything over the Chargers/NFL investment of $400M. Most other projects by private companies on leased city land are paid for by the private company and using their own construction companies and covering their own cost overruns. This need not be any different. EDIT: As for what SDSU can afford to do ... SDSU's endowment is just over $190M. Campanile Foundation assets are approximately $230MPresident Leadership Fund past its initial target of $500M and is closer to $750M as they have a new target of raising $1 Billion SDSU does have the ability to issue its own bonds, as does the CSU system for larger projects and the State can come in on even bigger ones ... in this case acquiring the Qualcomm site would be to expand the campus and chances are all three entities (SDSU, the CSU and the State) would share in the project costs.
|
|