Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 12:19:47 GMT -8
Why not a stadium in Campo?
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Feb 27, 2015 12:31:46 GMT -8
How? Because some independent person or group came up with an idea outside the box. You're the one who is desperate that you have to badmouth someone else's idea. Your bias since you live in LA is so obvious. Desperado, why don't you come to your senses?
|
|
|
Post by MarshallU on Feb 27, 2015 12:36:33 GMT -8
Not really, I think moving outside the two spots they are looking at now is better for everyone. The Q and downtown sites will be tied up in courts and environmental reviews for a decade. The convention center and hotels aren't jumping at the idea either for financing. Long term better to have a new sports arena downtown as the master plan shows. Looking to other areas in San Diego County, smart move and better leverage to get free land out of it. won't any site that's in San Diego fall prey to the "environmental reviews for a decade"?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Feb 27, 2015 12:56:59 GMT -8
Not really, I think moving outside the two spots they are looking at now is better for everyone. The Q and downtown sites will be tied up in courts and environmental reviews for a decade. The convention center and hotels aren't jumping at the idea either for financing. Long term better to have a new sports arena downtown as the master plan shows. Looking to other areas in San Diego County, smart move and better leverage to get free land out of it. won't any site that's in San Diego fall prey to the "environmental reviews for a decade"? We do know that both the downtown site (hazardous materials from the bus yard) and the Qualcomm site (seepage from the fuel farm) do have environmental clean up issues, don't know about the El Cajon speedway site ... Having said that: If the County of San Diego, City of El Cajon and City of Santee want to partner with the Chargers/NFL to build a stadium there, I say go for it ... as long as SDSU gets Qualcomm as a West Campus. If time is the issue, the downtown site won't be ready for 7 years or so -- and the SDSU expansion into Mission Valley will not take place immediately; but rather over time, piece by piece -- while also restoring some of the San Diego river park land. Moving the Chargers to El Cajon could have a revitalization effect in that area with more and better hotels, restaurants and retail. Who knows, maybe the Spanoi may find some way to make some money on Real Estate in the area too.
|
|
|
Post by smoothcat on Feb 27, 2015 13:31:19 GMT -8
To me, the current location is far and away the most logical place to put it.
I very much doubt they consider a Chula Vista option, too remote.
El Cajon is interesting, but I doubt they do that either.
I am guessing the Task Force will come up with a plan based on the current stadium location.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfred on Feb 27, 2015 13:47:53 GMT -8
I always wondered about land north of the 52 and east of the 15 adjacent to Terrasanta for a new stadium? I'm sure Miramar MC would have a problem?
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Feb 27, 2015 13:58:48 GMT -8
A quote from Mark Fabiani in the stadium chat yesterday when asked about Chula Vista: "We have run out of time now, unfortunately, to be able to start a project from scratch. The Task Force is apparently now going to focus on Qualcomm exclusively, or at least that's the rumor, and if so we will focus there as well."
He sounds so excited to be back at the Q site.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Feb 27, 2015 14:00:53 GMT -8
How? Because some independent person or group came up with an idea outside the box. You're the one who is desperate that you have to badmouth someone else's idea. Your bias since you live in LA is so obvious. Desperado, why don't you come to your senses? That's a perfect avatar you have. Mouth is wide open flapping your gums with NOTHING important to say. Put your keyboard away until you do.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Feb 27, 2015 14:02:03 GMT -8
I always wondered about land north of the 52 and east of the 15 adjacent to Terrasanta for a new stadium? I'm sure Miramar MC would have a problem? Oh Fred. Haven't you heard that "md" knows everything and scoffs at anybody who thinks outside the box?
|
|
|
Post by ab on Feb 27, 2015 14:03:26 GMT -8
To me, the current location is far and away the most logical place to put it. I very much doubt they consider a Chula Vista option, too remote. El Cajon is interesting, but I doubt they do that either. I am guessing the Task Force will come up with a plan based on the current stadium location. You're probably right but it doesn't hurt to think of any other areas that might work. The bottomline is the financing and whether or not a vote is going to be required or not. Location in my mind is secondary.
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Feb 27, 2015 14:04:09 GMT -8
I always wondered about land north of the 52 and east of the 15 adjacent to Terrasanta for a new stadium? I'm sure Miramar MC would have a problem? That may be an area of unknown unexploded ordinance left over from when the area was used for artillery practice. Tierrasanta had a lot of this problem as I recall.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Feb 27, 2015 14:22:36 GMT -8
Desperado, why don't you come to your senses? That's a perfect avatar you have. Mouth is wide open flapping your gums with NOTHING important to say. Put your keyboard away until you do. You've been out ridin' fences for so long now...
|
|
|
Post by missiontrails on Feb 27, 2015 14:30:24 GMT -8
I always wondered about land north of the 52 and east of the 15 adjacent to Terrasanta for a new stadium? I'm sure Miramar MC would have a problem? That may be an area of unknown unexploded ordinance left over from when the area was used for artillery practice. Tierrasanta had a lot of this problem as I recall. Not only that, it's protected land belonging to Mission Trails, and I'm not about to give up any of my land to the carpet baggers from Stockton. (OK, the city owns it.)
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Feb 27, 2015 14:34:10 GMT -8
February 22nd, 2015: “We will continue to work to produce a viable stadium plan that is fair for San Diegans, protects taxpayers and can be approved by the voters.” -Mayor Faulconer
February 26th, 2015: "First, a public vote provides a mandate for the project and helps to push it through all of the roadblocks that big projects face in California. Second, if we didn't put the proposal on the ballot, you can be sure that opponents of the proposal would gather signatures and put their own "no" vote proposal on the ballot. And of course, you are always better having a vote on a ballot measure that you craft -- as opposed to a vote on a measure crafted by your opponents." -Mark Fabiani
I don't think that the Chargers and Mayor would be talking about a vote at the point if they weren't going to have one. I think its really interesting that the Chargers are insisting on the 2/3rds approval as its DOA.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Feb 27, 2015 14:37:47 GMT -8
How? Because some independent person or group came up with an idea outside the box. You're the one who is desperate that you have to badmouth someone else's idea. Your bias since you live in LA is so obvious. Desperado, why don't you come to your senses? Seriously guys, cant we have a conversation about this without sounding like a couple of catty bitches? It is a waste of everyone's time. I hate to be the "can't we all just get along" guy, but these sophomoric burn sessions make us all look bad. Sack up and discuss this like educated adults. FWIW I didn't think MD's comment about it being desperation time was a dig, but an apt observation. I am inclined to agree with him.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Feb 27, 2015 14:42:37 GMT -8
February 22nd, 2015: “We will continue to work to produce a viable stadium plan that is fair for San Diegans, protects taxpayers and can be approved by the voters.” -Mayor Faulconer February 26th, 2015: "First, a public vote provides a mandate for the project and helps to push it through all of the roadblocks that big projects face in California. Second, if we didn't put the proposal on the ballot, you can be sure that opponents of the proposal would gather signatures and put their own "no" vote proposal on the ballot. And of course, you are always better having a vote on a ballot measure that you craft -- as opposed to a vote on a measure crafted by your opponents." -Mark Fabiani I don't think that the Chargers and Mayor would be talking about a vote at the point if they weren't going to have one. I think its really interesting that the Chargers are insisting on the 2/3rds approval as its DOA. I have been thinking the same thing. Then again I puke a little bit every time Fabiani speaks. He belabors the point of a 2/3 vote, while Ron Roberts (in whom I have much more trust) talks of other options. I feel like every time Fabiani speaks a Charger fan dies. The guy just sounds like such a dick.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 14:54:51 GMT -8
It may be raining, but there's a rainbow above you....
|
|
|
Post by aztecttcas on Feb 27, 2015 15:30:13 GMT -8
I met with a City Councilman this morning about another issue and the Chargers came up. They are OK with letting the Chargers go... then building a new stadium after they leave to attract another team. Faulconer has his work cut out for him in getting support. It's not that the City doesn't want a stadium... they just dont want the Chargers. They know San Diego is very attractive and another team would gladly relocate here. Interesting
|
|
|
Post by ron on Feb 27, 2015 15:56:40 GMT -8
I met with a City Councilman this morning about another issue and the Chargers came up. They are OK with letting the Chargers go... then building a new stadium after they leave to attract another team. Faulconer has his work cut out for him in getting support. It's not that the City doesn't want a stadium... they just dont want the Chargers. They know San Diego is very attractive and another team would gladly relocate here. Interesting That seems hard to believe. It would look like another small town move for a city that can't seem to escape that description. I don't see a stadium being built after the Chargers leave.
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Feb 27, 2015 16:00:00 GMT -8
I call bull$#!+ on what the councilman said unless it was Donna gyre circa 2003.
It's going to be at Qualcomm and willbe a 55 percent vote. The 2/3 vote pertains to the downtown site that deals with hotel taxes and rental car tax.
|
|