|
Post by aztecbolt on Apr 16, 2015 23:47:32 GMT -8
Jim Steeg said that while Fabiani is pushing the perception that the Chargers are not happy with what's going on, Spanos and the Mayor are already talking behind closed doors. That's a huge positive sign amid all the negativity that Fabiani/Grubman are spewing out. People are going to file lawsuits. You could have a perfect proposal for a big project like this but someone out there will oppose it. That's just the world we live in now. Indeed people will file lawsuits ... it would probably be best to avoid one in which the legal remedy would be to have a public vote that should have happened to begin with -- thus delaying or even terminating the project altogether -- because it gives the Chargers an excuse to exit; as such a vote would take too long to organize for their timetable. EDIT: have we learned nothing from the City / Hoteliers effort to avoid a vote regarding the convention center expansion? The mayor said there will be a vote. The convention center fiasco is irrelevant IMO. That was an idiotic attempt to circumvent the 2/3 vote required for a special tax, which will not be involved in any stadium proposal.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Apr 17, 2015 8:40:29 GMT -8
Indeed people will file lawsuits ... it would probably be best to avoid one in which the legal remedy would be to have a public vote that should have happened to begin with -- thus delaying or even terminating the project altogether -- because it gives the Chargers an excuse to exit; as such a vote would take too long to organize for their timetable. EDIT: have we learned nothing from the City / Hoteliers effort to avoid a vote regarding the convention center expansion? The mayor said there will be a vote. The convention center fiasco is irrelevant IMO. That was an idiotic attempt to circumvent the 2/3 vote required for a special tax, which will not be involved in any stadium proposal. I will be curious to see how they get around the sale of public land for private development without a 2/3rds vote.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 17, 2015 9:17:19 GMT -8
If you don't already follow this site: www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2015/4/17/8438731/why-do-the-chargers-hate-their-own-planyou really should, it's good stuff ... "Almost exactly one year ago, the San Diego Chargers were pitching a plan for a countywide vote in 2016, for a stadium and new development in Mission Valley. What gives?"The Chargers' plan from April 2014 -A plan for a countywide vote in November 2016. -The Chargers, partnering with Colony Capital, LLC would contribute $400 million to the project. -The NFL would contribute another $200 million via the G4 Stadium Loan Program. -The remaining cost (estimated at $400 million in the article) being contributed from public sources. -The Chargers do not have a preferred stadium location, and the article explicitly states the team is willing to consider the Qualcomm Site for redevelopment. "The Chargers' desperation over the last 4 months shows, especially when compared to the lack of publicity from the Rams and Raiders, in the strong-arm tactics the they've employed, the numerous misleading and contradictory statements by Fabiani since CSAG was formed, and now the turmoil regarding the situation with their (maybe not for much longer) franchise QB.
CSAG is doing two things here, in my view. First, by not committing themselves or San Diego to a sped-up vote, they are implicitly calling the Chargers' bluff in Carson. Second, and most importantly for San Diego, they are telling the Chargers that they want the deal the Chargers themselves pitched one year ago."
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Apr 17, 2015 10:15:13 GMT -8
In that article from a year ago, Scott Walker never says exactly where he got that info from. Since he quotes Fabiani, it can be assumed that spokeshole was the source but we really don't know for certain.
1090's Dan Sileo (sic?) had somebody from the mayor's office on this morning and asked him whether he though Fabiani has been helpful to reaching a meeting of the minds on building a stadium. The mayor's guy gave about 1.5-minute answer, following which Sileo said "I'll take that as a no" and the mayor's office guy laughed. However this turns out, Fabiani will be laughing too. All the way to the bank.
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Apr 17, 2015 12:37:21 GMT -8
I will be curious to see how they get around the sale of public land for private development without a 2/3rds vote. Easy. The land is not sold, it is leased. An example would be mission bay.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 17, 2015 12:47:35 GMT -8
I will be curious to see how they get around the sale of public land for private development without a 2/3rds vote. Easy. The land is not sold, it is leased. An example would be mission bay. This brings up an interesting problem ... who do you collect property taxes from if the land is still owned by the City? I assume the leases would first have to cover the cost to the developer to build the apartments & condo's ... how much would the property have to be leased for in order to generate enough revenue to pay for the stadium?
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Apr 17, 2015 13:46:08 GMT -8
Easy. The land is not sold, it is leased. An example would be mission bay. This brings up an interesting problem ... who do you collect property taxes from if the land is still owned by the City? I assume the leases would first have to cover the cost to the developer to build the apartments & condo's ... how much would the property have to be leased for in order to generate enough revenue to pay for the stadium? You would still pay property taxes on the 'improvements' to the property; i.e. the buildings. There would be no property taxes on the land itself since it is owned by the city. The majority of the value on any property, such as your house, is in the building, not the physical land anyway.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Apr 17, 2015 14:44:09 GMT -8
In that article from a year ago, Scott Walker never says exactly where he got that info from. Since he quotes Fabiani, it can be assumed that spokeshole was the source but we really don't know for certain. 1090's Dan Sileo (sic?) had somebody from the mayor's office on this morning and asked him whether he though Fabiani has been helpful to reaching a meeting of the minds on building a stadium. The mayor's guy gave about 1.5-minute answer, following which Sileo said "I'll take that as a no" and the mayor's office guy laughed. However this turns out, Fabiani will be laughing too. All the way to the bank. And I would imagine Fabiani has been laughing all the way to the bank for 14 years.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 17, 2015 14:59:17 GMT -8
This brings up an interesting problem ... who do you collect property taxes from if the land is still owned by the City? I assume the leases would first have to cover the cost to the developer to build the apartments & condo's ... how much would the property have to be leased for in order to generate enough revenue to pay for the stadium? You would still pay property taxes on the 'improvements' to the property; i.e. the buildings. There would be no property taxes on the land itself since it is owned by the city. The majority of the value on any property, such as your house, is in the building, not the physical land anyway.You are still not going to capture a significant amount of revenue from such a transaction. As the owners of the property, the City will "allow" the developers to "improve" the site in order to sub-lease units to private individuals. The developers will then act as landlords for the City and administer the sub-leasing of the units on behalf of the City and recouping their (the developers) costs and generating a profit for them. In most transactions, the developer pays the City to lease the property in order to develop it. This situation is more like building a dorm for SDSU, where the developers incur the cost of construction on land provided by the university, and recoup their costs and make profits on the guarantee of student occupancy by SDSU. BTW, the majority of the value of a residential property is indeed the land (at least in CA) EDIT: The land at the Mission Valley site is currently valued at $2M per acre ... that equates to about $500K per 1/4 acre (just so you know)
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 17, 2015 15:33:53 GMT -8
A safe and easy "rule of thumb" for tax purposes for any new construction is 80-20. The land would be 20% of the value and the structures about 80%. There is a reason that the tax assessors continually "adjust" upward the values of a shopping center or office or apartment building at various stages as they are built, then leased out. Obviously a fully rented structure such as mentioned is worth more than one that's empty. So the city will get more and more revenues as structures provide more and more income to the developers.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Apr 17, 2015 16:46:37 GMT -8
www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/government/the-citys-3-biggest-chargers-follies/After reading this now I hope more than ever that the Chargers leave. They have been legally extorting the city for over ten years. Obviously, the city has been incompetent when negotiating with the Chargers in the past. At least the city/county finally hired negotiators who will hopefully know what they are doing. For being San Diego's so called team; they obviously care little for the well being of the city itself. The only thing they really seem to care about is fattening their wallets.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Apr 17, 2015 16:49:26 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Apr 17, 2015 18:32:13 GMT -8
State Reimburses for game day expenses and pays $1 per ticket.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Apr 17, 2015 18:34:24 GMT -8
State Reimburses for game day expenses and pays $1 per ticket. SDSU pays more than the Chargers to use the Q. And for fewer games.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Apr 17, 2015 19:43:44 GMT -8
www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/government/the-citys-3-biggest-chargers-follies/After reading this now I hope more than ever that the Chargers leave. They have been legally extorting the city for over ten years. Obviously, the city has been incompetent when negotiating with the Chargers in the past. At least the city/county finally hired negotiators who will hopefully know what they are doing. For being San Diego's so called team; they obviously care little for the well being of the city itself. The only thing they really seem to care about is fattening their wallets. The ticket guarantee was moronic but that was all Susan Golding. We sure have a history of electing some idiotic mayors, don't we? Again, the city needs to realize that they have a lot more leverage here than not. Call the Chargers bluff and don't give them a lollipop deal this time around.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 17, 2015 19:59:04 GMT -8
State Reimburses for game day expenses and pays $1 per ticket. SDSU pays more than the Chargers to use the Q. And for fewer games. When one signs a contract--assuming no illegality or duress--the contract has to be honored. The city negotiated and executed the current deal. Don't think the Chargers are guilty of scurrilous, or rapscallion behavior, "forcing" the city to do anything. We may not like the history, but the city had their chance to say, no. Any good business entity, or person, will press for everything they can get for their side. So the blame for the current mess, to me, rests solely with the city. Are the Chargers working with the city in good faith now? Maybe not. The past 6 months makes Fabiani seem, if not mendacious, at least artful, but contradictory. Kind of depends on how one interprets the "ground rules", and I don't know if any of us have seen such "rules".
|
|
|
Post by SuperAztec on Apr 17, 2015 20:49:12 GMT -8
This brings up an interesting problem ... who do you collect property taxes from if the land is still owned by the City? I assume the leases would first have to cover the cost to the developer to build the apartments & condo's ... how much would the property have to be leased for in order to generate enough revenue to pay for the stadium? You would still pay property taxes on the 'improvements' to the property; i.e. the buildings. There would be no property taxes on the land itself since it is owned by the city. The majority of the value on any property, such as your house, is in the building, not the physical land anyway. Not always the case. I do not know about MV, but at the beach, the land is worth way more.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Apr 17, 2015 21:43:42 GMT -8
SDSU pays more than the Chargers to use the Q. And for fewer games. When one signs a contract--assuming no illegality or duress--the contract has to be honored. The city negotiated and executed the current deal. Don't think the Chargers are guilty of scurrilous, or rapscallion behavior, "forcing" the city to do anything. We may not like the history, but the city had their chance to say, no. Any good business entity, or person, will press for everything they can get for their side. So the blame for the current mess, to me, rests solely with the city. Are the Chargers working with the city in good faith now? Maybe not. The past 6 months makes Fabiani seem, if not mendacious, at least artful, but contradictory. Kind of depends on how one interprets the "ground rules", and I don't know if any of us have seen such "rules". Actually no, good business entities realize the perils of their decisions. In this instance taking advantage of incompetent city officials was never going to end well for the Chargers. 1. You are dealing with a government agency who could make your life a living hell. 2. Politicians have the bully pulpit and can use it against you if they suddenly wake up to the fleecing. 3. and most importantly the city is a representative body of San Diego citizens. The same ones Spanos needs a yeah vote from. So Yes, Spanos and his ultimate greed greased the city for 50M+. But what he has created is a political environment where the average citizen is rooting that the Chargers leave the city, diminishing any leverage they would have from offering the NFL product and providing the city pols the political capital to dictate terms to the Chargers and still leaving it up to the electorate to give Spanos the boot. If Carson turns out to be a ruse as some are suspecting (and honestly after hearing the NFL asking to rush a decision, I tend to agree) then Spanos and clan are in a terrible position. They will have forced a vote where the most likely answer is no and they are either left with coming back to the table with no cards or moving the team to Carson or more likely being the Rams B!tch in Inglewood. That would be sweet justice for an organization that has loathed the Padres and Aztecs. A good business man understands that you need to leave meat on the bone and that you need to cut deals that are sustainable and long tailed.
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Apr 17, 2015 23:39:05 GMT -8
ok everyone off your high horse.
We all would have taken the deal susan golding proposed. IT was a dumb deal and the spanoses saw the advantage.
And it will not be a 2/3 vote...in fact, I don't suspect there will be a vote at all.
Listen to what day and steeg said recently and the chances of any vote by the public are diminishing daily.
Dean and the gang have won and will get a stadium in san diego which has been their goal all along.
It is simple negotiation tactics. Have leverage and aim high...which leads ultimately taking less than advertised and really winning in the end.
Mark this post.
before the football season starts the chargers and the politicians will strike a deal that does not require a vote.
Deal with that.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Apr 17, 2015 23:54:28 GMT -8
ok everyone off your high horse. We all would have taken the deal susan golding proposed. IT was a dumb deal and the spanoses saw the advantage. And it will not be a 2/3 vote...in fact, I don't suspect there will be a vote at all. Listen to what day and steeg said recently and the chances of any vote by the public are diminishing daily. Dean and the gang have won and will get a stadium in san diego which has been their goal all along. It is simple negotiation tactics. Have leverage and aim high...which leads ultimately taking less than advertised and really winning in the end. Mark this post. before the football season starts the chargers and the politicians will strike a deal that does not require a vote. Deal with that. Steeg is the forgotten individual in all of this. He knows the Chargers in and out and I assume he's still very close with Dean Spanos and he knows what Spanos truly wants and if you listen to his interviews it almost sounds like he's speaking for Spanos at times, even as a member of the CSAG. Steeg wouldn't be going through this whole drama and wasting his and all the other CSAG member's time and money as well as the mayors time and the city's money if he knew Spanos really wanted out. I hate to sound like a broken record but it just makes no financial sense for the Chargers to move to LA and Steeg would be the first one to know this. That being said, how in the world are they going to construct a deal without a vote?
|
|