|
Post by hoobs on Apr 18, 2015 8:00:31 GMT -8
And isn't the Mayor on record stating unequivocally that there will be no deal for a new stadium without a vote?
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Apr 18, 2015 8:23:03 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. No, actually some people can see the public relations nightmare they would be creating by taking advantage of the City. The Chargers fell into this snare almost immediately and eventually gave up the guarantee. Having not learned any lesson, a team who could not sell out the Q at 65K let alone 73K, decided to blunder again and box the city into paying for damages for the removal of seats the Chargers had no hope of selling. You would have thought that the Chargers could have taken a step back and said, you know what let's allow the city to get current with the ADA and agree to the modification without damages. This is called giving the sleeves off of your vest. But that is not how the Charger's roll. And just because you have a contract does not mean you enforce it to the letter of the law every time, for instance you have a client that is buying 1M units per year from you with 24 months left in the contractual pricing. If they approach you and ask for a reduction in price starting now, you could answer no we have a contract and we are enforcing it, or more realistically you will want to tie up the revenue stream today and not let it go out to bid so you will agree to the modification for an extension of the term or some other consideration. That's in a private transaction, once you are dealing with a public entity on the other end then you need to be damn sure your interactions will be viewed in a neutral to positive light. Being measured on when to give and when to take. What we have seen from the Chargers is all take. As for the vote, either there will be one or there will be lawsuit putting a hold to everything. In addition, the council members and mayor that try to circumvent the electorate will feel the consequences of their decisions. I guess they could say, we did everything to the letter of the law, and maybe legally they did but there are long term ramifications for decisions. So unless the pols in town are all done with their "careers", there will be a vote.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Apr 18, 2015 8:34:21 GMT -8
Believe the Mayor has said , he expects to put what ever proposal and finance plan the group comes up with to a vote . If the NFL, not Spanos, says that it needs a vote of approval in 2015 , then the mayor could adjust the time table, as he has done or maybe bring it before the City Council for a vote .or what ever he chooses to do . Nothing is in stone . as we have seen things change daily .
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 18, 2015 8:49:25 GMT -8
Believe the Mayor has said , he expects to put what ever proposal and finance plan the group comes up with to a vote . If the NFL, not Spanos, says that it needs a vote of approval in 2015 , then the mayor could adjust the time table, as he has done or maybe bring it before the City Council for a vote .or what ever he chooses to do . Nothing is in stone . as we have seen things change daily . We are already in April of 2015, the CSAG will announce their findings on May 20, 2015 ... someone will have to check on the timetable to get a measure on a ballot in 2015 as far as I know, the only measure possibly being voted on this year would be One Paseo.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Apr 18, 2015 9:37:16 GMT -8
Why would there be no public vote when the mayor has publicly stated on multiple occasions that there will be a public vote on any proposal. Depending on what the CSAG/mayor/city/county propose it will likely legally require a vote of some kind anyway. What percentage is yet to be determined.
If there is no legal vote required and the mayor goes back on his word he already made about a public vote to the public his political future (and anyone associated with making that decision) will be over.
Talk about political suicide...
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 18, 2015 10:06:06 GMT -8
Why would there be no public vote when the mayor has publicly stated on multiple occasions that there will be a public vote on any proposal. Depending on what the CSAG/mayor/city/county propose it will likely legally require a vote of some kind anyway. What percentage is yet to be determined. If there is no legal vote required and the mayor goes back on his word he already made about a public vote to the public his political future (and anyone associated with making that decision) will be over. Talk about political suicide... As someone else already mentioned, the City can do a RFP for leasing the property. That does not require a vote--except perhaps by the council. The City School district does this all the time. As do the Community College districts. As does the Port Authority, etc.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 18, 2015 10:15:56 GMT -8
Why would there be no public vote when the mayor has publicly stated on multiple occasions that there will be a public vote on any proposal. Depending on what the CSAG/mayor/city/county propose it will likely legally require a vote of some kind anyway. What percentage is yet to be determined. If there is no legal vote required and the mayor goes back on his word he already made about a public vote to the public his political future (and anyone associated with making that decision) will be over. Talk about political suicide... I agree that there should be a public vote, not doing so would only invite lawsuits to force one ... much like the convention center expansion. If a vote only occurs because of a lawsuit, I am fairly certain that the retribution by the people, angered over a process that tried to cut them out -- would result in a resounding "no". At the same time, I would have to admit that over the years the City Council and the Mayors office have not been particularly adroit at protecting the City from extortion by the Chargers & the NFL -- this includes, but is not limited to the stadium expansion, the ticket guarantee, the rent renegotiation (that pays the Chargers to play at the Q) and everything else. I hope that the Mayor and the City Council can stick to their guns this time and do this the right way ... with a fair and reasonable plan that receives a public vote -- and let the chips fall where they may. But when it comes to the Chargers and the NFL, I wouldn't count out another backroom deal that once again robs the City treasury to give the Chargers whatever they want.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Apr 18, 2015 10:15:55 GMT -8
Why would there be no public vote when the mayor has publicly stated on multiple occasions that there will be a public vote on any proposal. Depending on what the CSAG/mayor/city/county propose it will likely legally require a vote of some kind anyway. What percentage is yet to be determined. If there is no legal vote required and the mayor goes back on his word he already made about a public vote to the public his political future (and anyone associated with making that decision) will be over. Talk about political suicide... As someone else already mentioned, the City can do a RFP for leasing the property. That does not require a vote--except perhaps by the council. The City School district does this all the time. As do the Community College districts. As does the Port Authority, etc. The mayor said there would be a vote regardless of if one was legally required or not.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Apr 18, 2015 10:25:24 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. Definitely not on paper since the Spanoi have theoretically been paying $3M per year in rent whereas in 2013 (not gonna bother figuring 2014), SDSU paid almost exactly $200K. However, because of all the times the city as said to the Chargers, Thank you, sir, may I have another, the Chargers have lately been effectively paying nothing. So you're correct. The more I read, the more hilarious this whole saga is. Thankfully, as a resident of the city of Los Angeles, I won't be paying for the Rams to build a stadium in Inglewood - where I'm pretty sure the Chargers will again be paying rent.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 18, 2015 10:28:37 GMT -8
Why would there be no public vote when the mayor has publicly stated on multiple occasions that there will be a public vote on any proposal. Depending on what the CSAG/mayor/city/county propose it will likely legally require a vote of some kind anyway. What percentage is yet to be determined. If there is no legal vote required and the mayor goes back on his word he already made about a public vote to the public his political future (and anyone associated with making that decision) will be over. Talk about political suicide... As someone else already mentioned, the City can do a RFP for leasing the property. That does not require a vote--except perhaps by the council. The City School district does this all the time. As do the Community College districts. As does the Port Authority, etc. I suppose the question becomes leasing as what? Has anyone established if the land at Mission Valley has any restrictions on it (like a recreational designation)? What about the portion of the property owned by the Water Dept? In the end, doesn't any plan that involves the residential development (the level required to fund the stadium) still have to pass CEQA? RFPs will not stop lawsuits regarding land use or fair compensation, and I thought the name of this game was speeding to a finish in 2015?
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 18, 2015 10:31:27 GMT -8
As someone else already mentioned, the City can do a RFP for leasing the property. That does not require a vote--except perhaps by the council. The City School district does this all the time. As do the Community College districts. As does the Port Authority, etc. The mayor said there would be a vote regardless of if one was legally required or not. Could be wrong, but they've always mentioned that in the context of "selling" not leasing.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 18, 2015 10:37:07 GMT -8
As someone else already mentioned, the City can do a RFP for leasing the property. That does not require a vote--except perhaps by the council. The City School district does this all the time. As do the Community College districts. As does the Port Authority, etc. I suppose the question becomes leasing as what? Has anyone established if the land at Mission Valley has any restrictions on it (like a recreational designation)? What about the portion of the property owned by the Water Dept? In the end, doesn't any plan that involves the residential development (the level required to fund the stadium) still have to pass CEQA? RFPs will not stop lawsuits regarding land use or fair compensation, and I thought the name of this game was speeding to a finish in 2015? Those are all good questions. Hard to imagine---well not really, with this city---that those issues have not already been asked and answered. But CEQA applies to just about everything, not just residential. And interestingly here's one exemption: Class 2 consists of replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities. (Guidelines §15302)
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 18, 2015 10:42:31 GMT -8
I suppose the question becomes leasing as what? Has anyone established if the land at Mission Valley has any restrictions on it (like a recreational designation)? What about the portion of the property owned by the Water Dept? In the end, doesn't any plan that involves the residential development (the level required to fund the stadium) still have to pass CEQA? RFPs will not stop lawsuits regarding land use or fair compensation, and I thought the name of this game was speeding to a finish in 2015? Those are all good questions. Hard to imagine---well not really, with this city---that those issues have not already been asked and answered. But CEQA applies to just about everything, not just residential. And interestingly here's one exemption: Class 2 consists of replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities. (Guidelines §15302)I am pretty sure that exemption only applies to the structure being reconstructed or the structure replacing it -- and does not apply to any additional development that is not attached to the structure. I am also certain that this City has tried to circumvent rules in the past and hoped not to get caught (ADA compliance at the stadium, convention center expansion "hotelier fees") ... not sure why we should think they wouldn't try to do something similar here in the name of expediency.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 18, 2015 11:29:32 GMT -8
I have not had the stomach to keep as close an eye on this whole thing as I probably should have. But it seems to me that there is a drift toward the Chargers' getting the whole county to build them a nice, new stadium. As a resident of Fallbrook, I would hate to have to pay taxes to make the Spanonses' dream come true.
But there may be another way to look at this whole thing. Perhaps the Chargers think that all this hullabaloo about committees, etc. will serve as protection against the inevitable backlash that will come their way when they finally announce that they are moving. They could say, "Well, all that could be done to get the stadium built was done. We tried our best, the city tried its best. Sorry, but we can't help it; no way a new stadium will be built here. Thanks for your support, fans, but we are out of here."
As for SDSU, I don't hear anything coming from the Mesa indicating that the university would like to make Mission Valley the new west campus. If nobody speaks up on behalf of that plan, it's not going to get done. Looks like SDSU is just passive, sitting back and hoping that whatever happens won't hurt the Aztecs too much. What a lousy strategy!
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Apr 18, 2015 11:42:19 GMT -8
Dean Spanos definitely doesn't want to be viewed as the next Art Modell, that's true. On the "west campus" thing, SDSU administrators have spoken about that several times over the years. Monetarily, the idea differs considerably from just building a football stadium. Just as an example, vast admission impaction and the paucity of room to build more classrooms and dorms on the current campus are reasons to think that contrary to a football stadium, funding would be provided by the state.
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Apr 18, 2015 13:12:14 GMT -8
Dean Spanos definitely doesn't want to be viewed as the next Art Modell, that's true. On the "west campus" thing, SDSU administrators have spoken about that several times over the years. Monetarily, the idea differs considerably from just building a football stadium. Just as an example, vast admission impaction and the paucity of room to build more classrooms and dorms on the current campus are reasons to think that contrary to a football stadium, funding would be provided by the state. As I'm noo where near SD, I was told by a booster that at a luncheon the administration was asked if there was any monies earmarked for such an endeavor and after considerable hemming and hawing, the answer was "no". Given the value of this land, I remain hard pressed to envision anything but an NFL stadium or an extension of "Hazard Center" to the east with trolley stop(s), condos, townhomes, and shops. I just can't see the "STATE" with all its other challenges ponying up millions of dollars for State University constructions. But then, in spite of all the "experts" on this board, nobody really knows WHAT will happen do they?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 18, 2015 13:21:54 GMT -8
Dean Spanos definitely doesn't want to be viewed as the next Art Modell, that's true. On the "west campus" thing, SDSU administrators have spoken about that several times over the years. Monetarily, the idea differs considerably from just building a football stadium. Just as an example, vast admission impaction and the paucity of room to build more classrooms and dorms on the current campus are reasons to think that contrary to a football stadium, funding would be provided by the state. As I'm noo where near SD, I was told by a booster that at a luncheon the administration was asked if there was any monies earmarked for such an endeavor and after considerable hemming and hawing, the answer was "no". Given the value of this land, I remain hard pressed to envision anything but an NFL stadium or an extension of "Hazard Center" to the east with trolley stop(s), condos, townhomes, and shops. I just can't see the "STATE" with all its other challenges ponying up millions of dollars for State University constructions. But then, in spite of all the "experts" on this board, nobody really knows WHAT will happen do they? This is barely worth responding to ... I will just say this: What SDSU can do with its' resources in relation to the Mission Valley site and expansion of campus is actually substantial. What the City, County and Chargers end up doing with the site should be resolved before SDSU decides how and where to direct those resources. Any other course of action would be unwise and to insert themselves into the situation between the City and the Chargers would do more harm than good as far as obtaining the site should negotiations fail.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Apr 18, 2015 14:09:38 GMT -8
As I'm noo where near SD, I was told by a booster that at a luncheon the administration was asked if there was any monies earmarked for such an endeavor and after considerable hemming and hawing, the answer was "no". Given the value of this land, I remain hard pressed to envision anything but an NFL stadium or an extension of "Hazard Center" to the east with trolley stop(s), condos, townhomes, and shops. I just can't see the "STATE" with all its other challenges ponying up millions of dollars for State University constructions. But then, in spite of all the "experts" on this board, nobody really knows WHAT will happen do they? This is barely worth responding to ... I will just say this: What SDSU can do with its' resources in relation to the Mission Valley site and expansion of campus is actually substantial. What the City, County and Chargers end up doing with the site should be resolved before SDSU decides how and where to direct those resources. Any other course of action would be unwise and to insert themselves into the situation between the City and the Chargers would do more harm than good as far as obtaining the site should negotiations fail. Of course it is. Even if the city of SD didn't want to sell the land to the university, developing the land for a higher and better use for the public is exactly the type of thing eminent domain was designed to do. And for anybody who says the eminent domain principle doesn't apply because the land isn't owned by a private entity, I'll say what I've said before on that issue. Although it's by no means my area of expertise, I've tried to find something on the Net which says that a higher level of government like the state can't impose eminent domain on the real property of a local government entity and haven't been able to find a single thing which says as much.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 18, 2015 14:15:55 GMT -8
This is barely worth responding to ... I will just say this: What SDSU can do with its' resources in relation to the Mission Valley site and expansion of campus is actually substantial. What the City, County and Chargers end up doing with the site should be resolved before SDSU decides how and where to direct those resources. Any other course of action would be unwise and to insert themselves into the situation between the City and the Chargers would do more harm than good as far as obtaining the site should negotiations fail. Of course it is. Even if the city of SD didn't want to sell the land to the university, developing the land for a higher and better use for the public is exactly the type of thing eminent domain was designed to do. And for anybody who says the eminent domain principle doesn't apply because the land isn't owned by a private entity, I'll say what I've said before on that issue. Although it's by no means my area of expertise, I've tried to find something on the Net which says that a higher level of government like the state can't impose eminent domain on the real property of a local government entity and haven't been able to find a single thing which says as much. true ... but they would first try to negotiate a land swap for State property in Otay, La Jolla or Miramar etc.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Apr 18, 2015 15:23:28 GMT -8
I have not had the stomach to keep as close an eye on this whole thing as I probably should have. But it seems to me that there is a drift toward the Chargers' getting the whole county to build them a nice, new stadium. As a resident of Fallbrook, I would hate to have to pay taxes to make the Spanonses' dream come true. But there may be another way to look at this whole thing. Perhaps the Chargers think that all this hullabaloo about committees, etc. will serve as protection against the inevitable backlash that will come their way when they finally announce that they are moving. They could say, " Well, all that could be done to get the stadium built was done. We tried our best, the city tried its best. Sorry, but we can't help it; no way a new stadium will be built here. Thanks for your support, fans, but we are out of here." As for SDSU, I don't hear anything coming from the Mesa indicating that the university would like to make Mission Valley the new west campus. If nobody speaks up on behalf of that plan, it's not going to get done. Looks like SDSU is just passive, sitting back and hoping that whatever happens won't hurt the Aztecs too much. What a lousy strategy!
AzWm It would be foolish and premature for SDSU to make any official statements of their desire to obtain the MV site until the Charger situation is resolved. SDSU can't afford to appear to be anything more than a willing partner with all parties involved to find a long term stadium solution. When the Chargers leave that is when SDSU will pursue options that will lead to campus expansion at MV in addition to plans for a smaller stadium to be built. I like the fact that most recently Senator Marty Block & JMI/John Moores has advocated on behalf of SDSU. It is no mistake that Block & JMI made those public statements. Those are two powerful allies to have on our side. www.kusi.com/clip/11186441/senator-proposes-qualcomm-be-used-by-san-diego-state-universitywww.mighty1090.com/episode/dan-sileo-030515-steve-peace/"Also of interest to John Moores in particular is a non-economic issue that from our standpoint at JMI is that piece of property in Mission Valley is probably the only place in which San Diego State University can find any room to grow. And you look ahead 50 years from now; candidly it's probably more important that University's growth capacity is accommodated than which site is selected for the Chargers or what happens to a convention center when you look at the future of this community. And so we want to make sure the interest of San Diego State academically, educationally as well as their athletic program is accommodated." I know SDSU has significant political clout in the city/county (Particularly Ron Roberts & Kevin Faulconer). Who knows what conversations SDSU has had behind closed doors. For SDSU it is a win-win situation. If in the unlikely event it looks like the Chargers Are going to get a stadium built SDSU can advocate for what it wants in the stadium and they still have a place for the Aztecs to play (granted it is NOT my ideal scenario). If the Chargers leave town (best case scenario for SDSU) SDSU moves forward with MV campus/stadium expansion. IMO I don't belive the Chargers will get a stadium deal. But I will reserve judgement til May 20th when the Chargers will begin to blow holes in the proposal the CSAG recommends to the mayor.
|
|