|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 18, 2015 15:44:52 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. Do you care to explain why you think that is so? Let's say that your sister and brother are arguing over what present to buy for Mom and Dad's wedding anniversary. You keep quiet. They finally settle on a gift, one that you think is a bad idea. Later it turns out that the folks are not impressed with the faux Min vase. You tell your sibs that you had had your doubts about the vase from the first. " Why the hell didn't you speak up when we were discussing it, then?" they shout. Moral of the story: If you want to have a say in an important decision, keeping quiet when the issue is being debated means you have no influence on the decision. Right now the city seems to be saying that only finding a way to keep the Chargers in San Diego is important. If would be nice to consider whether helping San Diego's oldest ad biggest institute of higher education expand might not be even more important than using taxpayer's money to help a private company. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 18, 2015 15:51:55 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. Do you care to explain why you think that is so? Let's say that your sister and brother are arguing over what present to buy for Mom and Dad's wedding anniversary. You keep quiet. They finally settle on a gift, one that you think is a bad idea. Later it turns out that the folks are not impressed with the faux Min vase. You tell your sibs that you had had your doubts about the vase from the first. " Why the hell didn't you speak up when we were discussing it, then?" they shout. Moral of the story: If you want to have a say in an important decision, keeping quiet when the issue is being debated means you have no influence on the decision. Right now the city seems to be saying that only finding a way to keep the Chargers in San Diego is important. If would be nice to consider whether helping San Diego's oldest ad biggest institute of higher education expand might not be even more important than using taxpayer's money to help a private company. AzWm That is a ridiculous analogy. How about this instead: a buyer and a seller of an income property already in escrow are having trouble coming to terms on the closing costs -- should the prospective tenant insert themselves into the discussion? If the property falls out of escrow -- the prospective tenant could then negotiate to rent (or buy) directly with the seller. If the prospective tenant inserts themselves into the negotiation -- they could lose the ability to rent (or buy it) from either party.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Apr 18, 2015 16:44:47 GMT -8
Of course the Chargers will blow holes in the proposal at first review. Even if they do like the proposal overall, they're not going to say so. They're still going to bargain for a better deal.
|
|
|
Post by survalli on Apr 18, 2015 18:09:25 GMT -8
it will be condos on the Q site before SDSU could get their hands on it...i guarantee it. developers are already drooling over the possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 18, 2015 20:36:33 GMT -8
it will be condos on the Q site before SDSU could get their hands on it...i guarantee it. developers are already drooling over the possibilities. often when someone is drooling ... it's over something they can't have -- like stooges on the street, watching through a restaurant window as some guy chows down on a thick steak. Those that have the ability to obtain a thing, rarely drool over the thought of it.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 18, 2015 21:57:20 GMT -8
Do you care to explain why you think that is so? Let's say that your sister and brother are arguing over what present to buy for Mom and Dad's wedding anniversary. You keep quiet. They finally settle on a gift, one that you think is a bad idea. Later it turns out that the folks are not impressed with the faux Min vase. You tell your sibs that you had had your doubts about the vase from the first. " Why the hell didn't you speak up when we were discussing it, then?" they shout. Moral of the story: If you want to have a say in an important decision, keeping quiet when the issue is being debated means you have no influence on the decision. Right now the city seems to be saying that only finding a way to keep the Chargers in San Diego is important. If would be nice to consider whether helping San Diego's oldest ad biggest institute of higher education expand might not be even more important than using taxpayer's money to help a private company. AzWm That is a ridiculous analogy. How about this instead: a buyer and a seller of an income property already in escrow are having trouble coming to terms on the closing costs -- should the prospective tenant insert themselves into the discussion? If the property falls out of escrow -- the prospective tenant could then negotiate to rent (or buy) directly with the seller. If the prospective tenant inserts themselves into the negotiation -- they could lose the ability to rent (or buy it) from either party. Well, I'm not crazy about your analogy, either, to tell you the truth. First, at present there is no deal, no escrow, so your analogy is faulty. The whole "deal" is a mess. The Chargers, a for-profit private firm, is trying to pressure the city government to give it many millions of dollars of taxpayer money so it can have a new venue in which to do business. For a start that is improper.
If I own a restaurant but the building I am leasing for that enterprise is old and inadequate (at least in my opinion), what would happen if I asked the city to pay half the costs of building a bigger and nicer building? I would hope that the city council would tell me to go pound sand. I would hope that the council members would criticize me for trying to deal in crony capitalism. How is that different from what is happening in the case of the current effort to build a new "Chargers" stadium? But instead of the council telling the Chargers to build their own damned stadium, the city is practically bending over to accommodate the Spanoses.
I think it would be totally appropriate for SDSU to speak up. The university should condemn the current effort to gratify the Chargers as an obvious case of crony capitalism. Furthermore, the university should state boldly that the best use of the Mission Valley site would be to expand San Diego State's campus. "Help us expand SDSU rather than figuring out a way to pay off the Spanos family." Waiting to see what happens without having at least made a public appeal to consider the West Campus plan will almost certainly mean that SDSU expansion to Mission Valley will never take place.
The narrative has to be changed. Right now it's; "How can we keep the Chargers in San Diego?" It should be; "How can we help San Diego State make needed expansions?" Of course, it's easy to see why the city is even remotely considering helping the Chargers instead of putting money into projects that would benefit average San Diegans. City leaders are bowing to pressure from well off citizens (and likely business groups as well) who are more interested in attending NFL games than they are in repairing streets in Southeast or expanding library hours. This is a clear cut case of misplaced priorities.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Apr 19, 2015 7:44:47 GMT -8
it will be condos on the Q site before SDSU could get their hands on it...i guarantee it. developers are already drooling over the possibilities. often when someone is drooling ... it's over something they can't have -- like stooges on the street, watching through a restaurant window as some guy chows down on a thick steak. Those that have the ability to obtain a thing, rarely drool over the thought of it. What HNT said. Developers can covet the land all they want but a higher and better use is clearly SDSU's ability to expand its impacted campus so all such developers would do is delay things through a lawsuit while simultaneously wasting their money.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 19, 2015 9:09:33 GMT -8
That is a ridiculous analogy. How about this instead: a buyer and a seller of an income property already in escrow are having trouble coming to terms on the closing costs -- should the prospective tenant insert themselves into the discussion? If the property falls out of escrow -- the prospective tenant could then negotiate to rent (or buy) directly with the seller. If the prospective tenant inserts themselves into the negotiation -- they could lose the ability to rent (or buy it) from either party. Well, I'm not crazy about your analogy, either, to tell you the truth. First, at present there is no deal, no escrow, so your analogy is faulty. The whole "deal" is a mess. The Chargers, a for-profit private firm, is trying to pressure the city government to give it many millions of dollars of taxpayer money so it can have a new venue in which to do business. For a start that is improper.
If I own a restaurant but the building I am leasing for that enterprise is old and inadequate (at least in my opinion), what would happen if I asked the city to pay half the costs of building a bigger and nicer building? I would hope that the city council would tell me to go pound sand. I would hope that the council members would criticize me for trying to deal in crony capitalism. How is that different from what is happening in the case of the current effort to build a new "Chargers" stadium? But instead of the council telling the Chargers to build their own damned stadium, the city is practically bending over to accommodate the Spanoses.
I think it would be totally appropriate for SDSU to speak up. The university should condemn the current effort to gratify the Chargers as an obvious case of crony capitalism. Furthermore, the university should state boldly that the best use of the Mission Valley site would be to expand San Diego State's campus. "Help us expand SDSU rather than figuring out a way to pay off the Spanos family." Waiting to see what happens without having at least made a public appeal to consider the West Campus plan will almost certainly mean that SDSU expansion to Mission Valley will never take place.
The narrative has to be changed. Right now it's; "How can we keep the Chargers in San Diego?" It should be; "How can we help San Diego State make needed expansions?" Of course, it's easy to see why the city is even remotely considering helping the Chargers instead of putting money into projects that would benefit average San Diegans. City leaders are bowing to pressure from well off citizens (and likely business groups as well) who are more interested in attending NFL games than they are in repairing streets in Southeast or expanding library hours. This is a clear cut case of misplaced priorities.
AzWm I am not going to go back and forth with you on analogies ... There really isn't going to be a perfect one in which a private, for-profit corporation can demand from the local government a building to be constructed for the express benefit of that private company to manufacture that companies product. It would be even more rare to find an analogy that contains a 3rd party, that would tangentially benefit from the construction of the building at taxpayer expense to manufacture their own product too -- but that same 3rd party could just as easily benefit from the building not being constructed either. In your first analogy you tried to use a family squabble ... was that a subconscious admission that this situation between the City, County, the Chargers and San Diego State feels like a family affair -- but it isn't. It is an emotionally-charged, politically-tenuous and financially perilous game of brinksmanship between a private company and those purport to represent the public good at both the City & County level. The State has already injected itself into this issue once (by way of advocacy from Sen. Marty Block). You are entitled to your opinion that State should be more vocal and try to sabotage the Chargers & City's negotiation over a new stadium. I believe that SDSU could realize a greater benefit if the deal fell through and the property fell to San Diego State, but SDSU would not actually be harmed if the the deal between the Chargers and the City succeeds.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 20, 2015 7:57:13 GMT -8
Well, I'm not crazy about your analogy, either, to tell you the truth. First, at present there is no deal, no escrow, so your analogy is faulty. The whole "deal" is a mess. The Chargers, a for-profit private firm, is trying to pressure the city government to give it many millions of dollars of taxpayer money so it can have a new venue in which to do business. For a start that is improper.
If I own a restaurant but the building I am leasing for that enterprise is old and inadequate (at least in my opinion), what would happen if I asked the city to pay half the costs of building a bigger and nicer building? I would hope that the city council would tell me to go pound sand. I would hope that the council members would criticize me for trying to deal in crony capitalism. How is that different from what is happening in the case of the current effort to build a new "Chargers" stadium? But instead of the council telling the Chargers to build their own damned stadium, the city is practically bending over to accommodate the Spanoses.
I think it would be totally appropriate for SDSU to speak up. The university should condemn the current effort to gratify the Chargers as an obvious case of crony capitalism. Furthermore, the university should state boldly that the best use of the Mission Valley site would be to expand San Diego State's campus. "Help us expand SDSU rather than figuring out a way to pay off the Spanos family." Waiting to see what happens without having at least made a public appeal to consider the West Campus plan will almost certainly mean that SDSU expansion to Mission Valley will never take place.
The narrative has to be changed. Right now it's; "How can we keep the Chargers in San Diego?" It should be; "How can we help San Diego State make needed expansions?" Of course, it's easy to see why the city is even remotely considering helping the Chargers instead of putting money into projects that would benefit average San Diegans. City leaders are bowing to pressure from well off citizens (and likely business groups as well) who are more interested in attending NFL games than they are in repairing streets in Southeast or expanding library hours. This is a clear cut case of misplaced priorities.
AzWm I am not going to go back and forth with you on analogies ... There really isn't going to be a perfect one in which a private, for-profit corporation can demand from the local government a building to be constructed for the express benefit of that private company to manufacture that companies product. It would be even more rare to find an analogy that contains a 3rd party, that would tangentially benefit from the construction of the building at taxpayer expense to manufacture their own product too -- but that same 3rd party could just as easily benefit from the building not being constructed either. In your first analogy you tried to use a family squabble ... was that a subconscious admission that this situation between the City, County, the Chargers and San Diego State feels like a family affair -- but it isn't. It is an emotionally-charged, politically-tenuous and financially perilous game of brinksmanship between a private company and those purport to represent the public good at both the City & County level. The State has already injected itself into this issue once (by way of advocacy from Sen. Marty Block). You are entitled to your opinion that State should be more vocal and try to sabotage the Chargers & City's negotiation over a new stadium. I believe that SDSU could realize a greater benefit if the deal fell through and the property fell to San Diego State, but SDSU would not actually be harmed if the the deal between the Chargers and the City succeeds.
I just can't understand this point. If the deal succeeds, SDSU will never, ever, get to expand to Mission Valley. I think such expansion is more important than the stadium issue per se. Since there is no more room for expansion on the Mesa, not being able to expand to where the Q now sits would surely seem like harm to me. As I have posted before, saying nothing and doing nothing while other parties wheel and deal is a sure way to have no influence whatsoever on the process.
The West Campus idea really is a once-in-a-lifetime proposition. I would hate to see it disappear by default.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 20, 2015 9:59:15 GMT -8
I am not going to go back and forth with you on analogies ... There really isn't going to be a perfect one in which a private, for-profit corporation can demand from the local government a building to be constructed for the express benefit of that private company to manufacture that companies product. It would be even more rare to find an analogy that contains a 3rd party, that would tangentially benefit from the construction of the building at taxpayer expense to manufacture their own product too -- but that same 3rd party could just as easily benefit from the building not being constructed either. In your first analogy you tried to use a family squabble ... was that a subconscious admission that this situation between the City, County, the Chargers and San Diego State feels like a family affair -- but it isn't. It is an emotionally-charged, politically-tenuous and financially perilous game of brinksmanship between a private company and those purport to represent the public good at both the City & County level. The State has already injected itself into this issue once (by way of advocacy from Sen. Marty Block). You are entitled to your opinion that State should be more vocal and try to sabotage the Chargers & City's negotiation over a new stadium. I believe that SDSU could realize a greater benefit if the deal fell through and the property fell to San Diego State, but SDSU would not actually be harmed if the the deal between the Chargers and the City succeeds.
I just can't understand this point. If the deal succeeds, SDSU will never, ever, get to expand to Mission Valley. I think such expansion is more important than the stadium issue per se. Since there is no more room for expansion on the Mesa, not being able to expand to where the Q now sits would surely seem like harm to me. As I have posted before, saying nothing and doing nothing while other parties wheel and deal is a sure way to have no influence whatsoever on the process.
The West Campus idea really is a once-in-a-lifetime proposition. I would hate to see it disappear by default.
AzWm
Just because expansion into Mission Valley would be incredibly fortuitous -- 166 mostly open acres as close to main campus as it is ... it is not the only expansion plan that SDSU has. Over the years the university has been buying property adjacent and nearer to campus than the Q that actually costs less than $2M per acre. Not gaining control of the Mission Valley site would not actually harm SDSU, as the University would continue to obtain nearby properties and refocus on improving the Mesa campus -- as a full Mission Valley expansion would no longer be an option. Once the stadium debate is settled, the university will decide how best to allocate it's resources ... for all we know, SDSU could end up with 60 acres at the Q because of residential development restrictions and an $800M NFL/FBS stadium practically on the West campus. In 20 years (or less), when the Chargers demand another stadium, SDSU could end up with the rest of the Mission Valley site.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 20, 2015 10:36:52 GMT -8
I just can't understand this point. If the deal succeeds, SDSU will never, ever, get to expand to Mission Valley. I think such expansion is more important than the stadium issue per se. Since there is no more room for expansion on the Mesa, not being able to expand to where the Q now sits would surely seem like harm to me. As I have posted before, saying nothing and doing nothing while other parties wheel and deal is a sure way to have no influence whatsoever on the process.
The West Campus idea really is a once-in-a-lifetime proposition. I would hate to see it disappear by default.
AzWm
Just because expansion into Mission Valley would be incredibly fortuitous -- 166 mostly open acres as close to main campus as it is ... but it is not the only expansion plan that SDSU has. Over the years the university has been buying property adjacent and nearer to campus than the Q that actually costs less than $2M per acre. Not gaining control of the Mission Valley site would not actually harm SDSU, as the University would continue to obtain nearby properties and refocus on improving the Mesa campus -- as a full Mission Valley expansion would no longer be an option. Once the stadium debate is settled, the university will decide how best to allocate it's resources ... for all we know, SDSU could end up with 60 acres at the Q because of residential development restrictions and an $800M NFL/FBS stadium practically on the West campus. In 20 years (or less), when the Chargers demand another stadium, SDSU could end up with the rest of the Mission Valley site. Good points. In addition, SDSU should have been, and could still be, much more efficient with their land and structures. High-rise (8 stories or higher) office, classrooms, apartments, parking structures---not just 2,3 and 4-story buildings---would allow greater capacity with no additional cost for land.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2015 11:13:36 GMT -8
Just because expansion into Mission Valley would be incredibly fortuitous -- 166 mostly open acres as close to main campus as it is ... but it is not the only expansion plan that SDSU has. Over the years the university has been buying property adjacent and nearer to campus than the Q that actually costs less than $2M per acre. Not gaining control of the Mission Valley site would not actually harm SDSU, as the University would continue to obtain nearby properties and refocus on improving the Mesa campus -- as a full Mission Valley expansion would no longer be an option. Once the stadium debate is settled, the university will decide how best to allocate it's resources ... for all we know, SDSU could end up with 60 acres at the Q because of residential development restrictions and an $800M NFL/FBS stadium practically on the West campus. In 20 years (or less), when the Chargers demand another stadium, SDSU could end up with the rest of the Mission Valley site. Good points. In addition, SDSU should have been, and could still be, much more efficient with their land and structures. High-rise (8 stories or higher) office, classrooms, apartments, parking structures---not just 2,3 and 4-story buildings---would allow greater capacity with no additional cost for land. Legit point, but I would think Adm would be slow to build vertically for fear of making the campus less "beautiful". I have the feeling going vertical is the last option, but who knows.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 20, 2015 11:19:55 GMT -8
Good points. In addition, SDSU should have been, and could still be, much more efficient with their land and structures. High-rise (8 stories or higher) office, classrooms, apartments, parking structures---not just 2,3 and 4-story buildings---would allow greater capacity with no additional cost for land. Legit point, but I would think Adm would be slow to build vertically for fear of making the campus less "beautiful". I have the feeling going vertical is the last option, but who knows. Could be, and there is much less of the "East Coast" mentality in SoCal. Also, going up does have higher costs. Construction costs go up (steel, extra fire issues) faster as you get over 4 or 5 stories. But I just have never even seen it considered.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 20, 2015 11:23:00 GMT -8
Good points. In addition, SDSU should have been, and could still be, much more efficient with their land and structures. High-rise (8 stories or higher) office, classrooms, apartments, parking structures---not just 2,3 and 4-story buildings---would allow greater capacity with no additional cost for land. Legit point, but I would think Adm would be slow to build vertically for fear of making the campus less "beautiful". I have the feeling going vertical is the last option, but who knows. at some point, the campus will have to address it's urban setting. SDSU is no longer in a suburb ...
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 20, 2015 11:27:20 GMT -8
Legit point, but I would think Adm would be slow to build vertically for fear of making the campus less "beautiful". I have the feeling going vertical is the last option, but who knows. Could be, and there is much less of the "East Coast" mentality in SoCal. Also, going up does have higher costs. Construction costs go up (steel, extra fire issues) faster as you get over 4 or 5 stories. But I just have never even seen it considered. I expect the campus will slowly mix in taller buildings over time ... we're now an urban campus, as the city has grown up around us -- we'll have to grow up and out as best we can with a mix of buildings that blend as many of our needs as possible. Classrooms, dorms, retail, parking and open spaces will all have to be integrated and blended as the campus continues to evolve.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 15:10:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Apr 21, 2015 15:14:56 GMT -8
It will be interesting to see the results of the NFL draft & what the CSAG proposes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 15:17:02 GMT -8
It will be interesting to see the results of the NFL draft & what the CSAG proposes. From the piece... After talking with city leaders and task force members, the Chargers and NFL aren’t seeing a workable plan within a workable timetable to keep the Chargers in San Diego. NFL Vice President Eric Grubman repeatedly expressed his concerns, which were shared by the Chargers, in the meeting.
“Our view is that Mr. Grubman spoke both clearly and candidly about the situation we all face,” said Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani.
At least in the eyes of the NFL and Chargers — the audience San Diego needs to satisfy most right now — the plans being presented don’t add up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 15:23:08 GMT -8
and more...
Among the biggest concerns:
• Bringing on a developer for a large-scale, mixed-use project complicates the process and adds another set of financial interests that could hurt the project’s progress.
• Despite the sense of urgency created by Carson and the NFL’s looming decision about who will relocate to Los Angeles, the task force is creating a lengthy process potentially subject to voter approval, with no guarantee of success, to get the various aspects of the development approved.
• By ignoring the Chargers’ wishes for a downtown stadium and choosing the site the Chargers dislike most, San Diego is alienating the team.
• By identifying mixed-use development and funding sources such as parking, rent, naming rights and personal seat licensing to help finance the stadium, it not only creates concerns about financing but potentially siphons off team revenues to the developer.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Apr 21, 2015 15:45:29 GMT -8
And yet Fabiani keeps saying both in the media and to the CSAG privately that they are agnostic to MV or Downtown. The only reason the Chargers "prefer" downtown is because according to Fabiani, 'based on their research that is more doable since they've tried MV before and it didn't work' (which is a whole different debate).
And of course there's no workable plan right now. We're not going to know that until May 20th whether it's a feasible plan or not and whether or not.
|
|