|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 7, 2015 11:26:18 GMT -8
I have made some important changes to my last post which, I hope, help make my point more clearly. I mentioned parking structures. I think that those would have to be built no matter what the size of any stadium replacing Qualcomm. In fact, even if the property was to be classroom oriented completely with NO stadium, parking structures would be needed.
If the Chargers were really smart (yeah, I know, this my view), they would consider a joint SDSU/Chargers project. Why would they care if students were using new buildings next to a new stadium so long as they could play games on Sundays?
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 7, 2015 11:27:59 GMT -8
Just a quick comment on the title of my piece run by the UT. Its title in the electronic edition is not the same as that of the print edition. The title of the print version is much closer to what I had in mind.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by jiggy on Mar 7, 2015 13:32:03 GMT -8
Ask the Blood Bank , Monarch School , Cancer research , Shop with a Charger, Thanksgiving giveaway and the various organizations that have Chargers players Donate their time to help the community if they would miss the Chargers . Yes the Chargers are a business ( 1 of 32 in NFL ) who make money on their team . Again say the real villains are PAC and B12 who refuse to add SDSU as a member . That membership would fund the majority of the schools needs . The Chargers leaving would not . Also in the article reality check the only way the Aztecs may get new facility to help recruiting could be with the Chargers . What is more important to help recruiting , a state of the art facility not a cozy campus facility. Blood bank Monarch School Shop with a Charger Do you have any idea how much the Pesby's, Price, Jacob, Manchester, Burnham, Shiley, Goodall, KITB, QCOMM, Kroc foundation, Moores, Copley, thee tribes? Let me break this down, www.chargers.com/community/foundationThey have donated $4M over 14+ years. $285K per year. AKA, it is a very small piece of the charitable world. There are lots of reasons to want the Chargers to stay, one being civic pride and overall community vibe, but it certainly isn't for their chartable giving. In fact, it is the lack of community involvement and giving that keeps the wrapper of carpet bagger on the Spanos Clan, imo. Hold on cowboy that 285k is derived from tax free income.let's give a little credit where credit is due.
|
|
|
Post by fowl on Mar 7, 2015 13:34:20 GMT -8
The money the Charger's make is not tax free.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Football Fan on Mar 7, 2015 14:33:22 GMT -8
It's funny how the transplant Chargers haters try to paint the Spanos Family as these evil capitalist who are out to get richer by screwing the public out of their money, but suggest using state money to expand a University while student loan debt is at an all-time high. Sure the Spanos are only concerned about making their business more profitable (as they should be), but let's not act like SDSU would use this "West Campus" to provide free education. They're goal is to make money just like the Chargers. So if you're going to villianize the Spanos for trying to grow their family empire, then do the same to all the state politicians, banks, creditors, loaners, and everyone else who would benefit from a University expansion project. 1. It is a state university, so using state money to fund further development is somewhat axiomatic, and has nothing to do with metadata pertaining to student loan debt - you really think the source of all student loan problems is the affrodable education one can receive in the CSU system? 2. No, it's not. Apples and enimas. I'm guessing SDSU and the Chargers have two entirely different mission statements. 1. "you really think the source of all student loan problems is the affrodable education one can receive in the CSU system?" I never said it was, but please believe there are former CSU students that are going through it. Some of them might have to sell peanuts and popcorn for the Chargers despite having a college degree. 2. They can have two entirely different mission statements but they both involve creating as much income as possible. Higher education is not only a business, but it's also one of the biggest scams in the world.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 7, 2015 15:26:46 GMT -8
2. No, it's not. Apples and enimas. I'm guessing SDSU and the Chargers have two entirely different mission statements. 1. "you really think the source of all student loan problems is the affrodable education one can receive in the CSU system?" I never said it was, but please believe there are former CSU students that are going through it. Some of them might have to sell peanuts and popcorn for the Chargers despite having a college degree. 2. They can have two entirely different mission statements but they both involve creating as much income as possible. Higher education is not only a business, but it's also one of the biggest scams in the world. I think it's worth noting that for those of us with DOE-Student Loans, there is a thing called an Income-Driven Repayment Plan that adjusts the amount you pay based on how much you make. It would help if the US Congress would allow the Federal Government to reduce the interest rate from 6.875% to something more reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Football Fan on Mar 7, 2015 15:43:49 GMT -8
1. "you really think the source of all student loan problems is the affrodable education one can receive in the CSU system?" I never said it was, but please believe there are former CSU students that are going through it. Some of them might have to sell peanuts and popcorn for the Chargers despite having a college degree. 2. They can have two entirely different mission statements but they both involve creating as much income as possible. Higher education is not only a business, but it's also one of the biggest scams in the world. I think it's worth noting that for those of us with DOE-Student Loans, there is a thing called an Income-Driven Repayment Plan that adjusts the amount you pay based on how much you make. It would help if the US Congress would allow the Federal Government to reduce the interest rate from 6.875% to something more reasonable. Good for you. Colleges and universities are still a scam.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Mar 7, 2015 15:52:49 GMT -8
Ask the Blood Bank , Monarch School , Cancer research , Shop with a Charger, Thanksgiving giveaway and the various organizations that have Chargers players Donate their time to help the community if they would miss the Chargers . Yes the Chargers are a business ( 1 of 32 in NFL ) who make money on their team . Again say the real villains are PAC and B12 who refuse to add SDSU as a member . That membership would fund the majority of the schools needs . The Chargers leaving would not . Also in the article reality check the only way the Aztecs may get new facility to help recruiting could be with the Chargers . What is more important to help recruiting , a state of the art facility not a cozy campus facility. Blood bank Monarch School Shop with a Charger Do you have any idea how much the Pesby's, Price, Jacob, Manchester, Burnham, Shiley, Goodall, KITB, QCOMM, Kroc foundation, Moores, Copley, thee tribes? Let me break this down, www.chargers.com/community/foundationThey have donated $4M over 14+ years. $285K per year. AKA, it is a very small piece of the charitable world. There are lots of reasons to want the Chargers to stay, one being civic pride and overall community vibe, but it certainly isn't for their chartable giving. In fact, it is the lack of community involvement and giving that keeps the wrapper of carpet bagger on the Spanos Clan, imo. You're not including all the $$ and time the Chargers players donate to the Community even during the season. Also, the Spanos family is from Stockton and they haven't forgotten their roots up there. They also donate plenty of money up there as well. It would be nice to see Spanos & Co more front and center in the community but that doesn't seem to be his style.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Mar 7, 2015 15:54:38 GMT -8
Anti- Chargers or anti-Spano's? Really not a fan of the family and their approach to doing business in San Diego. With respect to feeling Like you lost an arm if they left, would you feel any better if it cost you an arm and a leg if they stayed Being in favor of getting rid of the Chargers because you don't like the Spanos family is more than a little like the old cliche of cutting off your nose to spite your face. The Spanos family will not own the Chargers forever. There were other owners before them, and there will be other owners after them. It's kind of like being anti-American as an American only because you don't like the current President. Change in the people in charge is inevitable. Wait it out and things will eventually go the way you want them to. The Spanos family will not be in charge forever. But if the Chargers leave we will NEVER get another NFL team and a huge percentage of San Diego's population will have lost something that means a whole lot to them. And those who dislike the Spanos family would never know what it is like to have a new owner for SAN DIEGO's NFL team because there wouldn't be a San Diego NFL team. It is amazingly short sighted to be against the Chargers staying in San Diego primarly because you don't like the Spanos family. and others are in favor of the Chargers moving just because they haven't won a Super Bowl. Hell, it's not as if they haven't tried.
|
|
|
Post by obboy13 on Mar 7, 2015 16:59:28 GMT -8
It is with a certain amount of trepidation that I recommend that you take a look at tomorrow's opinion page of the UT. No doubt a variety of reactions will be forthcoming. AzWm Yep that investigative article on the moms was hard hitting and certainly worthy of deep trepidation. I see Pulitzer written all over it.
|
|
|
Post by MarshallU on Mar 7, 2015 17:02:01 GMT -8
Why all the secrecy/drama? Why not just provide it here ? Doesn't feed the ego or provide neatly as long of a "look at me" moment.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 11, 2015 17:01:03 GMT -8
Councilman Scott Sherman has a piece in the UT online edition in which he touts the Mission Valley site for a new "Chargers stadium." Needles to say, that rattled my cage. Here is, for what it's worth, my email response to him on this topic.
Mr. Sherman: I just read your piece in the UT regarding a possible new stadium. Much of what you say about the possibilities for development of the current Qualcomm site has merit. However, you have overlooked one very important possibility which I hope you will consider. I refer to the fact that the site in question would be an excellent location for a much needed expansion of San Diego State University. Some of us refer to such an expansion as the West Campus. San Diego State has grown tremendously since my mother went there in the late thirties, my cousin in the early fifties, and I in the early sixties. What was once a small teachers college has become a burgeoning university whose academic reputation has grown along with its new construction. But, as I’m sure know, there is really no more land available on Montezuma Mesa for further expansion. Imagine what S.D.S.U. could do with the Qualcomm site! A research park, additional classrooms, student housing, and support facilities are just some of the projects that could be built there. Such projects are impossible today because of limited space at the university. But there is an additional issue we must consider. What about a new football stadium?
Here is where I find your column lacking. You talk about a Chargers stadium. Well, as a matter of fact there is no “Chargers stadium” at present. There is a city owned stadium used by the Chargers, but also used by the San Diego State Aztecs. Were S.D.S.U. to take over the Mission Valley site, a new stadium could be built in addition to the education-related projects mentioned above. The question is, what kind of stadium? As an S.D.S.U. alumnus and devoted Aztec booster, I favor a stadium much smaller and much less grand than the one the Spanos family desires. A stadium seating about 40,000 would be excellent for the Aztec football program. Perhaps you do not know the disadvantages facing the Aztecs because they must use a stadium that the school does not control. The Q shows it age, is much too big, suffers from the site line problems inherent in the now discredited “multi-use” concept of the ‘60s, and offers S.D.S.U. no income from parking and concessions. And, of course, the school must pay rent. That problem would be solved if the Mission Valley site belonged to the university.
It is instructive to realize that the Aztec basketball program is now one of the best in the nation due in no little part to the fact that the arena in which the team plays is on campus and is owned by the school. Some apparently assume that the Aztecs could play in any new NFL stadium built for the Chargers. The Aztec football program would not benefit from such a situation. Just talk to anyone in the athletic director’s office for details. Aztec football has mostly recovered from its near death experience of the early 2000s, but there are serious challenges facing any school not a member of one of the affluent Power-5 conferences. Believe me when I say that, in the future, not having its own stadium may well threaten the existence of Aztec football. And if football dies, basketball will be dealt a body blow. If you doubt that, just ask serious fans how the program would fare if the Aztecs were forced to play in the Big West Conference.
The creation of an S.D.S.U. West Campus in Mission Valley would be a boon not only to the school, but also to the whole area. Most if not all the benefits associated with the project you mention in your UT piece would apply equally well to the idea I am proposing. The advantage inherent in the S.D.S.U.-to-Mission Valley plan is that any public money spent would go to helping a CSU school further its educational and research missions. Surely that concept trumps giving taxpayer money to a private firm. I am not opposed to the Chargers so long as they are not demanding huge amounts of taxpayers’ money in order to build an opulent venue that they can show off to their fellow billionaires. Keep in mind that most low income people and many middle income people here find it too expensive to attend Charger games.
How about this idea? As an important city official, why not back my idea (and trust me, I am not the only one who favors this) of facilitating a takeover of the current Qualcomm Stadium site for the kind of campus expansion already mentioned? The Aztecs could, for a time at least, continue to play in the Q. Ultimately, a new stadium, one that would be attractive but not grandiose, could replace the Q. Such a more modest stadium would put Aztec football on a solid foundation for another generation or more. As for the Chargers, I’m sure that S.D.S.U. would allow them to continue to play in Qualcomm and eventually in the new stadium that would almost surely be built. If the Chargers are not satisfied with a stadium along the lines of the more modest design I have mentioned, they could of course build their own stadium elsewhere or even move the franchise. Some talk about how the Chargers improve civic pride. I suggest that making the wishes of a private company the first consideration is not the only, and certainly not the best, way to boost civic pride. The key question is this. Which is more important; Using taxpayer money to benefit a for-profit company, or helping this region’s oldest and biggest university take additional strides on it way to becoming a nationally respected institution?
William L. Rupp S.D.S.U., Class lf 1964 Founder of www.aztecmesa.com .
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 11, 2015 17:35:33 GMT -8
Councilman Scott Sherman has a piece in the UT online edition in which he touts the Mission Valley site for a new "Chargers stadium." Needles to say, that rattled my cage. Here is, for what it's worth, my email response to him on this topic.
Mr. Sherman: I just read your piece in the UT regarding a possible new stadium. Much of what you say about the possibilities for development of the current Qualcomm site has merit. However, you have overlooked one very important possibility which I hope you will consider. I refer to the fact that the site in question would be an excellent location for a much needed expansion of San Diego State University. Some of us refer to such an expansion as the West Campus. San Diego State has grown tremendously since my mother went there in the late thirties, my cousin in the early fifties, and I in the early sixties. What was once a small teachers college has become a burgeoning university whose academic reputation has grown along with its new construction. But, as I’m sure know, there is really no more land available on Montezuma Mesa for further expansion. Imagine what S.D.S.U. could do with the Qualcomm site! A research park, additional classrooms, student housing, and support facilities are just some of the projects that could be built there. Such projects are impossible today because of limited space at the university. But there is an additional issue we must consider. What about a new football stadium?
Here is where I find your column lacking. You talk about a Chargers stadium. Well, as a matter of fact there is no “Chargers stadium” at present. There is a city owned stadium used by the Chargers, but also used by the San Diego State Aztecs. Were S.D.S.U. to take over the Mission Valley site, a new stadium could be built in addition to the education-related projects mentioned above. The question is, what kind of stadium? As an S.D.S.U. alumnus and devoted Aztec booster, I favor a stadium much smaller and much less grand than the one the Spanos family desires. A stadium seating about 40,000 would be excellent for the Aztec football program. Perhaps you do not know the disadvantages facing the Aztecs because they must use a stadium that the school does not control. The Q shows it age, is much too big, suffers from the site line problems inherent in the now discredited “multi-use” concept of the ‘60s, and offers S.D.S.U. no income from parking and concessions. And, of course, the school must pay rent. That problem would be solved if the Mission Valley site belonged to the university.
It is instructive to realize that the Aztec basketball program is now one of the best in the nation due in no little part to the fact that the arena in which the team plays is on campus and is owned by the school. Some apparently assume that the Aztecs could play in any new NFL stadium built for the Chargers. The Aztec football program would not benefit from such a situation. Just talk to anyone in the athletic director’s office for details. Aztec football has mostly recovered from its near death experience of the early 2000s, but there are serious challenges facing any school not a member of one of the affluent Power-5 conferences. Believe me when I say that, in the future, not having its own stadium may well threaten the existence of Aztec football. And if football dies, basketball will be dealt a body blow. If you doubt that, just ask serious fans how the program would fare if the Aztecs were forced to play in the Big West Conference.
The creation of an S.D.S.U. West Campus in Mission Valley would be a boon not only to the school, but also to the whole area. Most if not all the benefits associated with the project you mention in your UT piece would apply equally well to the idea I am proposing. The advantage inherent in the S.D.S.U.-to-Mission Valley plan is that any public money spent would go to helping a CSU school further its educational and research missions. Surely that concept trumps giving taxpayer money to a private firm. I am not opposed to the Chargers so long as they are not demanding huge amounts of taxpayers’ money in order to build an opulent venue that they can show off to their fellow billionaires. Keep in mind that most low income people and many middle income people here find it too expensive to attend Charger games.
How about this idea? As an important city official, why not back my idea (and trust me, I am not the only one who favors this) of facilitating a takeover of the current Qualcomm Stadium site for the kind of campus expansion already mentioned? The Aztecs could, for a time at least, continue to play in the Q. Ultimately, a new stadium, one that would be attractive but not grandiose, could replace the Q. Such a more modest stadium would put Aztec football on a solid foundation for another generation or more. As for the Chargers, I’m sure that S.D.S.U. would allow them to continue to play in Qualcomm and eventually in the new stadium that would almost surely be built. If the Chargers are not satisfied with a stadium along the lines of the more modest design I have mentioned, they could of course build their own stadium elsewhere or even move the franchise. Some talk about how the Chargers improve civic pride. I suggest that making the wishes of a private company the first consideration is not the only, and certainly not the best, way to boost civic pride. The key question is this. Which is more important; Using taxpayer money to benefit a for-profit company, or helping this region’s oldest and biggest university take additional strides on it way to becoming a nationally respected institution?
William L. Rupp S.D.S.U., Class lf 1964 Founder of www.aztecmesa.com .
Well said.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Football Fan on Mar 11, 2015 19:21:24 GMT -8
Councilman Scott Sherman has a piece in the UT online edition in which he touts the Mission Valley site for a new "Chargers stadium." Needles to say, that rattled my cage. Here is, for what it's worth, my email response to him on this topic.
Mr. Sherman: I just read your piece in the UT regarding a possible new stadium. Much of what you say about the possibilities for development of the current Qualcomm site has merit. However, you have overlooked one very important possibility which I hope you will consider. I refer to the fact that the site in question would be an excellent location for a much needed expansion of San Diego State University. Some of us refer to such an expansion as the West Campus. San Diego State has grown tremendously since my mother went there in the late thirties, my cousin in the early fifties, and I in the early sixties. What was once a small teachers college has become a burgeoning university whose academic reputation has grown along with its new construction. But, as I’m sure know, there is really no more land available on Montezuma Mesa for further expansion. Imagine what S.D.S.U. could do with the Qualcomm site! A research park, additional classrooms, student housing, and support facilities are just some of the projects that could be built there. Such projects are impossible today because of limited space at the university. But there is an additional issue we must consider. What about a new football stadium?
Here is where I find your column lacking. You talk about a Chargers stadium. Well, as a matter of fact there is no “Chargers stadium” at present. There is a city owned stadium used by the Chargers, but also used by the San Diego State Aztecs. Were S.D.S.U. to take over the Mission Valley site, a new stadium could be built in addition to the education-related projects mentioned above. The question is, what kind of stadium? As an S.D.S.U. alumnus and devoted Aztec booster, I favor a stadium much smaller and much less grand than the one the Spanos family desires. A stadium seating about 40,000 would be excellent for the Aztec football program. Perhaps you do not know the disadvantages facing the Aztecs because they must use a stadium that the school does not control. The Q shows it age, is much too big, suffers from the site line problems inherent in the now discredited “multi-use” concept of the ‘60s, and offers S.D.S.U. no income from parking and concessions. And, of course, the school must pay rent. That problem would be solved if the Mission Valley site belonged to the university.
It is instructive to realize that the Aztec basketball program is now one of the best in the nation due in no little part to the fact that the arena in which the team plays is on campus and is owned by the school. Some apparently assume that the Aztecs could play in any new NFL stadium built for the Chargers. The Aztec football program would not benefit from such a situation. Just talk to anyone in the athletic director’s office for details. Aztec football has mostly recovered from its near death experience of the early 2000s, but there are serious challenges facing any school not a member of one of the affluent Power-5 conferences. Believe me when I say that, in the future, not having its own stadium may well threaten the existence of Aztec football. And if football dies, basketball will be dealt a body blow. If you doubt that, just ask serious fans how the program would fare if the Aztecs were forced to play in the Big West Conference.
The creation of an S.D.S.U. West Campus in Mission Valley would be a boon not only to the school, but also to the whole area. Most if not all the benefits associated with the project you mention in your UT piece would apply equally well to the idea I am proposing. The advantage inherent in the S.D.S.U.-to-Mission Valley plan is that any public money spent would go to helping a CSU school further its educational and research missions. Surely that concept trumps giving taxpayer money to a private firm. I am not opposed to the Chargers so long as they are not demanding huge amounts of taxpayers’ money in order to build an opulent venue that they can show off to their fellow billionaires. Keep in mind that most low income people and many middle income people here find it too expensive to attend Charger games.
How about this idea? As an important city official, why not back my idea (and trust me, I am not the only one who favors this) of facilitating a takeover of the current Qualcomm Stadium site for the kind of campus expansion already mentioned? The Aztecs could, for a time at least, continue to play in the Q. Ultimately, a new stadium, one that would be attractive but not grandiose, could replace the Q. Such a more modest stadium would put Aztec football on a solid foundation for another generation or more. As for the Chargers, I’m sure that S.D.S.U. would allow them to continue to play in Qualcomm and eventually in the new stadium that would almost surely be built. If the Chargers are not satisfied with a stadium along the lines of the more modest design I have mentioned, they could of course build their own stadium elsewhere or even move the franchise. Some talk about how the Chargers improve civic pride. I suggest that making the wishes of a private company the first consideration is not the only, and certainly not the best, way to boost civic pride. The key question is this. Which is more important; Using taxpayer money to benefit a for-profit company, or helping this region’s oldest and biggest university take additional strides on it way to becoming a nationally respected institution?
William L. Rupp S.D.S.U., Class lf 1964 Founder of www.aztecmesa.com .
This letter is basically just the same transplant Charger envy non-sense that's plagued every stadium thread on this board. "Imagine what S.D.S.U. could do with the Qualcomm site! A research park, additional classrooms, student housing, and support facilities are just some of the projects that could be built there."Put more students in debt? "It is instructive to realize that the Aztec basketball program is now one of the best in the nation due in no little part to the fact that the arena in which the team plays is on campus and is owned by the school."You mean the same arena the team played in when Coach Fisher had to give tickets away in order for folks to show up to games? Or the same arena that didn't sellout until over 10 years after it opened, and the team had to start 20-0 and win their first NCAA tournament game for it to happen? So winning had nothing to do with the program's success? They just built an arena and 10 years later, *poof*, a college basketball powerhouse! "Some apparently assume that the Aztecs could play in any new NFL stadium built for the Chargers. The Aztec football program would not benefit from such a situation."Potential recruits wouldn't want to play their home games in the same new stadium that they see some of their favorite NFL players perform in on national TV? Playing in a new NFL stadium would be bad for the program? I don't understand this argument. "The key question is this. Which is more important; Using taxpayer money to benefit a for-profit company, or helping this region’s oldest and biggest university take additional strides on it way to becoming a nationally respected institution?"Yes let's use taxpayer money to help a CSU school raise tuition and put more students in debt, therefore creating more wealth for banks and creditors who benefit from such. Those are private for-profit companies also, but they're not holding the SDSU football program hostage by sharing a venue with them so it's perfectly fine.
|
|
|
Post by Ambivalent_Fan on Mar 11, 2015 19:41:21 GMT -8
Councilman Scott Sherman has a piece in the UT online edition in which he touts the Mission Valley site for a new "Chargers stadium." Needles to say, that rattled my cage. Here is, for what it's worth, my email response to him on this topic.
Mr. Sherman: I just read your piece in the UT regarding a possible new stadium. Much of what you say about the possibilities for development of the current Qualcomm site has merit. However, you have overlooked one very important possibility which I hope you will consider. I refer to the fact that the site in question would be an excellent location for a much needed expansion of San Diego State University. Some of us refer to such an expansion as the West Campus. San Diego State has grown tremendously since my mother went there in the late thirties, my cousin in the early fifties, and I in the early sixties. What was once a small teachers college has become a burgeoning university whose academic reputation has grown along with its new construction. But, as I’m sure know, there is really no more land available on Montezuma Mesa for further expansion. Imagine what S.D.S.U. could do with the Qualcomm site! A research park, additional classrooms, student housing, and support facilities are just some of the projects that could be built there. Such projects are impossible today because of limited space at the university. But there is an additional issue we must consider. What about a new football stadium?
Here is where I find your column lacking. You talk about a Chargers stadium. Well, as a matter of fact there is no “Chargers stadium” at present. There is a city owned stadium used by the Chargers, but also used by the San Diego State Aztecs. Were S.D.S.U. to take over the Mission Valley site, a new stadium could be built in addition to the education-related projects mentioned above. The question is, what kind of stadium? As an S.D.S.U. alumnus and devoted Aztec booster, I favor a stadium much smaller and much less grand than the one the Spanos family desires. A stadium seating about 40,000 would be excellent for the Aztec football program. Perhaps you do not know the disadvantages facing the Aztecs because they must use a stadium that the school does not control. The Q shows it age, is much too big, suffers from the site line problems inherent in the now discredited “multi-use” concept of the ‘60s, and offers S.D.S.U. no income from parking and concessions. And, of course, the school must pay rent. That problem would be solved if the Mission Valley site belonged to the university.
It is instructive to realize that the Aztec basketball program is now one of the best in the nation due in no little part to the fact that the arena in which the team plays is on campus and is owned by the school. Some apparently assume that the Aztecs could play in any new NFL stadium built for the Chargers. The Aztec football program would not benefit from such a situation. Just talk to anyone in the athletic director’s office for details. Aztec football has mostly recovered from its near death experience of the early 2000s, but there are serious challenges facing any school not a member of one of the affluent Power-5 conferences. Believe me when I say that, in the future, not having its own stadium may well threaten the existence of Aztec football. And if football dies, basketball will be dealt a body blow. If you doubt that, just ask serious fans how the program would fare if the Aztecs were forced to play in the Big West Conference.
The creation of an S.D.S.U. West Campus in Mission Valley would be a boon not only to the school, but also to the whole area. Most if not all the benefits associated with the project you mention in your UT piece would apply equally well to the idea I am proposing. The advantage inherent in the S.D.S.U.-to-Mission Valley plan is that any public money spent would go to helping a CSU school further its educational and research missions. Surely that concept trumps giving taxpayer money to a private firm. I am not opposed to the Chargers so long as they are not demanding huge amounts of taxpayers’ money in order to build an opulent venue that they can show off to their fellow billionaires. Keep in mind that most low income people and many middle income people here find it too expensive to attend Charger games.
How about this idea? As an important city official, why not back my idea (and trust me, I am not the only one who favors this) of facilitating a takeover of the current Qualcomm Stadium site for the kind of campus expansion already mentioned? The Aztecs could, for a time at least, continue to play in the Q. Ultimately, a new stadium, one that would be attractive but not grandiose, could replace the Q. Such a more modest stadium would put Aztec football on a solid foundation for another generation or more. As for the Chargers, I’m sure that S.D.S.U. would allow them to continue to play in Qualcomm and eventually in the new stadium that would almost surely be built. If the Chargers are not satisfied with a stadium along the lines of the more modest design I have mentioned, they could of course build their own stadium elsewhere or even move the franchise. Some talk about how the Chargers improve civic pride. I suggest that making the wishes of a private company the first consideration is not the only, and certainly not the best, way to boost civic pride. The key question is this. Which is more important; Using taxpayer money to benefit a for-profit company, or helping this region’s oldest and biggest university take additional strides on it way to becoming a nationally respected institution?
William L. Rupp S.D.S.U., Class lf 1964 Founder of www.aztecmesa.com .
This letter is basically just the same transplant Charger envy non-sense that's plagued every stadium thread on this board. "Imagine what S.D.S.U. could do with the Qualcomm site! A research park, additional classrooms, student housing, and support facilities are just some of the projects that could be built there."Put more students in debt? "It is instructive to realize that the Aztec basketball program is now one of the best in the nation due in no little part to the fact that the arena in which the team plays is on campus and is owned by the school."You mean the same arena the team played in when Coach Fisher had to give tickets away in order for folks to show up to games? Or the same arena that didn't sellout until over 10 years after it opened, and the team had to start 20-0 and win their first NCAA tournament game for it to happen? So winning had nothing to do with the program's success? They just built an arena and 10 years later, *poof*, a college basketball powerhouse! "Some apparently assume that the Aztecs could play in any new NFL stadium built for the Chargers. The Aztec football program would not benefit from such a situation."Potential recruits wouldn't want to play their home games in the same new stadium that they see some of their favorite NFL players perform in on national TV? Playing in a new NFL stadium would be bad for the program? I don't understand this argument. "The key question is this. Which is more important; Using taxpayer money to benefit a for-profit company, or helping this region’s oldest and biggest university take additional strides on it way to becoming a nationally respected institution?"Yes let's use taxpayer money to help a CSU school raise tuition and put more students in debt, therefore creating more wealth for banks and creditors who benefit from such. Those are private for-profit companies also, but they're not holding the SDSU football program hostage by sharing a venue with them so it's perfectly fine. There is a simply solution...ask the citizens of San Diego to vote... A) Build a new stadium and give it to the Chargers... B) Sell / Lease the land to the State to create a SDSU west campus C) Sell the land to developers to create housing / retail D) None of the above The sooner the vote the better...
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Football Fan on Mar 11, 2015 19:49:50 GMT -8
This letter is basically just the same transplant Charger envy non-sense that's plagued every stadium thread on this board. "Imagine what S.D.S.U. could do with the Qualcomm site! A research park, additional classrooms, student housing, and support facilities are just some of the projects that could be built there."Put more students in debt? "It is instructive to realize that the Aztec basketball program is now one of the best in the nation due in no little part to the fact that the arena in which the team plays is on campus and is owned by the school."You mean the same arena the team played in when Coach Fisher had to give tickets away in order for folks to show up to games? Or the same arena that didn't sellout until over 10 years after it opened, and the team had to start 20-0 and win their first NCAA tournament game for it to happen? So winning had nothing to do with the program's success? They just built an arena and 10 years later, *poof*, a college basketball powerhouse! "Some apparently assume that the Aztecs could play in any new NFL stadium built for the Chargers. The Aztec football program would not benefit from such a situation."Potential recruits wouldn't want to play their home games in the same new stadium that they see some of their favorite NFL players perform in on national TV? Playing in a new NFL stadium would be bad for the program? I don't understand this argument. "The key question is this. Which is more important; Using taxpayer money to benefit a for-profit company, or helping this region’s oldest and biggest university take additional strides on it way to becoming a nationally respected institution?"Yes let's use taxpayer money to help a CSU school raise tuition and put more students in debt, therefore creating more wealth for banks and creditors who benefit from such. Those are private for-profit companies also, but they're not holding the SDSU football program hostage by sharing a venue with them so it's perfectly fine. There is a simply solution...ask the citizens of San Diego to vote... A) Build a new stadium and give it to the Chargers... B) Sell / Lease the land to the State to create a SDSU west campus C) Sell the land to developers to create housing / retail D) None of the above The sooner the vote the better... All options except D will benefit the already wealthy more than the citizens of San Diego. Me personally would mostly benefit from A, since I enjoy watching pro football and have no interest in attending college or purchasing an expensive home in Mission Valley. Others may choose otherwise. Either way someone's getting paid bigtime and it most likely won't be the voters.
|
|
|
Post by Ambivalent_Fan on Mar 11, 2015 21:24:10 GMT -8
Explain you rationale as to why option B) would make wealthy San Diegans more wealthy...
It appears that on the surface that option B) would allow SDSU to expand to help to educate more people making San Diego a more educated community...maybe again my logic is flawed...so help me to understand your point that an expanded SDSU campus is a bad deal for San Diego?
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Football Fan on Mar 11, 2015 21:40:31 GMT -8
Explain you rationale as to why option B) would make wealthy San Diegans more wealthy... It appears that on the surface that option B) would allow SDSU to expand to help to educate more people making San Diego a more educated community...maybe again my logic is flawed...so help me to understand your point that an expanded SDSU campus is a bad deal for San Diego? I never said expanding the SDSU campus would be a bad deal. The argument against the Chargers getting a new stadium is it would benefit a private company at the expense of taxpayers. Well, expanding SDSU would benefit multiple private companies at the expense of taxpayers and students. Education is fine and dandy, but let's not pretend that it's free and doesn't come with potential debt.
|
|
|
Post by Ambivalent_Fan on Mar 11, 2015 22:41:09 GMT -8
On one hand you are explicitly saying that you "never said that expanding the SDSU campus would be a bad deal"
But then you go on to say "expanding SDSU would benefit multiple private companies at the expense of taxpayers and students".
There were roughly 84,000 applicants trying to vie for roughly 8,000 freshman admission slots. Therefore the demand is much higher for a SDSU education than the current supply. Expanding the campus to allow for more admissions would allow those students access to higher education which in turn would benefit the community as a whole. How does better education enrich "multiple private companies" unless it's your argument that those companies unfairly benefit from an educated workforce (forgetting that many of those graduates will eventually find work in government, non-profits, and entrepreneurial ventures as well as employment).
What is your proposed alternative to an educated workforce that benefits multiple private companies?
Do you think that students are not paying enough for their education and are instead burdening taxpayers? If so...then your argument should be for higher tuition payments given the overwhelming demand for a SDSU diploma.
I'm rather lost in your logic at this point...
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Football Fan on Mar 11, 2015 22:55:06 GMT -8
On one hand you are explicitly saying that you "never said that expanding the SDSU campus would be a bad deal" But then you go on to say "expanding SDSU would benefit multiple private companies at the expense of taxpayers and students". There were roughly 84,000 applicants trying to vie for roughly 8,000 freshman admission slots. Therefore the demand is much higher for a SDSU education than the current supply. Expanding the campus to allow for more admissions would allow those students access to higher education which in turn would benefit the community as a whole. How does better education enrich "multiple private companies" unless it's your argument that those companies unfairly benefit from an educated workforce (forgetting that many of those graduates will eventually find work in government, non-profits, and entrepreneurial ventures as well as employment). What is your proposed alternative to an educated workforce that benefits multiple private companies? Do you think that students are not paying enough for their education and are instead burdening taxpayers? If so...then your argument should be for higher tuition payments given the overwhelming demand for a SDSU diploma. I'm rather lost in your logic at this point... You're just lost.
|
|