|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Mar 26, 2015 10:31:59 GMT -8
Yes, but with a caveat. If 2/3 of the SD electorate are willing to significantly increase taxes in order to pay for at least $600M of a new stadium, they'll stay. Oh and the Chargers are going to have to become convinced of that before the 2015 regular season begins. So guess what, San Diegans. You have five months to commit to a tax increase! The citizens panel already said they aren't going to recommend anything that requires a 2/3 vote. Meaning they will only recommend something which requires approval by the majority of voters? FWIW, somebody already corrected me a couple weeks ago that increasing the hotel tax requires a 2/3 vote so what could the committee therefore possibly mean?
|
|
|
Post by Spud on Mar 26, 2015 10:32:18 GMT -8
That is exactly why the Mayor insists on a vote. The will of the people will speak for the fate of the Chargers. You mean he'll use the vote like a political shield in the hopes of deflecting blame for the loss of the most popular franchise in SD. Sort of...if the Chargers are so beloved in San Diego, then let the people decide. This won't kill Faulkners political aspirations anyway...he has a whole laundry list of people before him he can point the finger at.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 26, 2015 10:36:41 GMT -8
Yes, but with a caveat. If 2/3 of the SD electorate are willing to significantly increase taxes in order to pay for at least $600M of a new stadium, they'll stay. Oh and the Chargers are going to have to become convinced of that before the 2015 regular season begins. So guess what, San Diegans. You have five months to commit to a tax increase! The citizens panel already said they aren't going to recommend anything that requires a 2/3 vote. Yet the Mayor says this, "Says Faulconer: “I’m committed to a public vote." Considering the panel was appointed by the mayor and they answer to him there is no way a vote won't happen. In other words, at minimum, more than 50% of the public would have to support the stadium proposal. Better be one hell of a proposal.
|
|
|
Post by legkick on Mar 26, 2015 10:37:26 GMT -8
The citizens panel already said they aren't going to recommend anything that requires a 2/3 vote. Meaning they will only recommend something which requires approval by the majority of voters? FWIW, somebody already corrected me a couple weeks ago that increasing the hotel tax requires a 2/3 vote so what could the committee therefore possibly mean? The committee means things that don't involve special tax increases, or at least things that can not be characterized as such. Things like infrastructure bonds, certain land sales/leases. Whether or not courts ultimately agree with them is a separate question.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 26, 2015 10:39:11 GMT -8
That is exactly why the Mayor insists on a vote. The will of the people will speak for the fate of the Chargers. You mean he'll use the vote like a political shield in the hopes of deflecting blame for the loss of the most popular franchise in SD. Precisely.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Mar 26, 2015 10:41:41 GMT -8
Meaning they will only recommend something which requires approval by the majority of voters? FWIW, somebody already corrected me a couple weeks ago that increasing the hotel tax requires a 2/3 vote so what could the committee therefore possibly mean? The committee means things that don't involve special tax increases, or at least things that can not be characterized as such. Things like infrastructure bonds, certain land sales/leases. Whether or not courts ultimately agree with them is a separate question. Got it. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Mar 26, 2015 10:56:12 GMT -8
Don't forget that Fabiani told the Task Force to avoid exactly what they are currently doing. Here is an excerpt from Fabiani's letter to the Task force a month or so ago:
"◦As you commence your work, you will find yourselves again and again running squarely into the California Constitution’s two-thirds vote requirement.
◦The City of San Diego has just wasted five years and many millions of taxpayer dollars trying to circumvent the two-thirds vote requirement with an illegal Convention Center expansion tax.
◦The Chargers have no interest in participating in another half- baked scheme to attempt to get around the two-thirds rule.
◦If the funding mechanisms that this Task Force considers cannot win two-thirds approval, when such approval is required by the California Constitution, then they should not be part of your final recommendations."
I would think that if the Chargers truly intended to stay in San Diego they wouldn't give a rats ass how a stadium is funded but what the hell do I know....
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 26, 2015 11:05:29 GMT -8
I don't know and neither do you. BTW, I didn't say anything about how far along any of these projects are. But this I can tell you; only one of these cities currently has an NFL team C'mon man, you know what I mean. The Chargers clearly are going to wherever they can get into a new stadium, they've made no secret of that. The fact that 2 communities in LA already have more political and community commitment/will to build a stadium than San Diego is troubling to say the least. If we can't provide them something and soon they are as good as gone. As a native San Diegan who saw how Petco changed downtown forever I really hope the city finds a way to get them downtown. As an Aztec fan I know that might lead to us playing downtown which is a last option, but the impact on the city will likely be worth it. Trust me, I'm not rooting for the Chargers to leave, just being realistic about what I'm seeing from them and also the NFL. As much as I want the Chargers to vacate Mission Valley (and for SDSU to expand its' campus there), I don't think a downtown stadium would have much of an impact on development there as things keep chugging along with the announcement of a Ballpark highrise coming to East Village at the site on the other side of the trolley tracks from the proposed stadium site.
|
|
|
Post by legkick on Mar 26, 2015 11:13:19 GMT -8
Don't forget that Fabiani told the Task Force to avoid exactly what they are currently doing. Here is an excerpt from Fabiani's letter to the Task force a month or so ago: No, he didn't. He used his typical weasal words, in a preemptive strike on CSAG. We don't know yet what funding mechanisms CSAG will recommend, only that they will not recommend anything that they believe will require a 2/3 vote. That is astute on CSAG's part - no special tax increase will get a 2/3 majority in this city/county. We do need to wait and see what they recommend. If it is anything like the self-tax sham that the hoteliers tried to get over, I'll be right there with you condemning it. However, there appear to be certain types of bonds, certain types of land sales, and certain types of lease arrangements that may not require a 2/3 vote. Do I think it will work? From a purely economic point of view, probably not; LA, for all its warts, is much more financially attractive to an owner that claims he is cash poor and unable to self fund.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 26, 2015 11:25:14 GMT -8
There are several issues that would require a public vote (to varying majorities)
Among them: 55% County Bridge Loan 66% Tax increase Majority (50% +1) to 60% or 66% for approval of public lands for private development (the majority needed depends on the designation of the public land itself)
That is to say nothing of the CEQA challenges and infrastructure improvements needed to increase the residential development of Mission Valley to pay for a new stadium ... there are currently 12,000 residential units in the valley with another 9000+ already approved -- getting another 8300 or so residential units approved to pay for the stadium would increase the current population of Mission Valley by 150%. This would mean more schools, fire houses, roads and libraries to service that increase would have to be paid for as well.
The city is already has a $1.7 billion infrastructure repair gap and has just approved a $120M infrastructure bond the other day.
"The bonds will pay part of the cost for libraries in Mission Hills, San Carlos, San Ysidro and Skyline with $11 million. They will also provide $27 million to partially fund fire stations in City Heights, Skyline Hills, Hillcrest, Point Loma and the Home Avenue area.
Other projects covered by the bonds will include $48 million for road repairs, $22 million for storm drains, $600,000 for the Mission Beach boardwalk, $400,000 to light sports fields in Tierrasanta and $320,000 for a lifeguard station in South Mission Beach."
One way or another, this stadium project will cost the tax payers much more than anyone is letting on.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Mar 26, 2015 11:42:31 GMT -8
Fabiani isn't being paid millions upon millions of dollars for all these years to be a nice guy and to make everyone feel sunshine and flowers. The guy is extremely smart, crafty and calculating and is IMO playing his role to perfection. He's paid to get results and look at what's happened since Kroenke made the Inglewood announcement. He's organized the whole Carson sham and that has brought on more progress in San Diego in two months than it has in has in the past 14 years. He's going to keep this act up until the financing plan comes out and if/when that is agreed upon, you're going to see the Chargers and Fabiani change their tune from adversarial to rallying the troops for support.
The whole thing is rubbing a lot of people the wrong way but I think it ultimately was the best strategy to get things done in San Diego.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 26, 2015 11:46:17 GMT -8
Fabiani isn't being paid millions upon millions of dollars for all these years to be a nice guy and to make everyone feel sunshine and flowers. The guy is extremely smart, crafty and calculating and is IMO playing his role to perfection. He's paid to get results and look at what's happened since Kroenke made the Inglewood announcement. He's organized the whole Carson sham and that has brought on more progress in San Diego in two months than it has in has in the past 14 years. He's going to keep this act up until the financing plan comes out and if/when that is agreed upon, you're going to see the Chargers and Fabiani change their tune from adversarial to rallying the troops for support. The whole thing is rubbing a lot of people the wrong way but I think it ultimately was the best strategy to get things done in San Diego. If nothing else, Fabiani has got the Raiders, Oakland city and Alameda county to work together for a stadium solution there ... and they didn't have to pay him anything (at least I don't think they paid him anything)
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 26, 2015 12:12:26 GMT -8
I think the Chargers have already made up their mind and are moving to L.A. Yes, but with a caveat. If 2/3 of the SD electorate are willing to significantly increase taxes in order to pay for at least $600M of a new stadium, they'll stay. Oh and the Chargers are going to have to become convinced of that before the 2015 regular season begins. So guess what, San Diegans. You have five months to commit to a tax increase! I haven't followed the issue in the same detail as many of you have. Is it correct to say that the Chargers can basically leave whenever they want to? How long before they actually relocate must they give notice to the city? Are the Chargers still liable for an exit fee? In any event, I am somewhat surprised that they are still in San Diego, given that business considerations must have indicated the advisability of moving the franchise for some years by now. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 26, 2015 12:30:40 GMT -8
Yes, but with a caveat. If 2/3 of the SD electorate are willing to significantly increase taxes in order to pay for at least $600M of a new stadium, they'll stay. Oh and the Chargers are going to have to become convinced of that before the 2015 regular season begins. So guess what, San Diegans. You have five months to commit to a tax increase! I haven't followed the issue in the same detail as many of you have. Is it correct to say that the Chargers can basically leave whenever they want to? How long before they actually relocate must they give notice to the city? Are the Chargers still liable for an exit fee? In any event, I am somewhat surprised that they are still in San Diego, given that business considerations must have indicated the advisability of moving the franchise for some years by now. AzWm from what I understand, the Chargers are now year to year ... and if they leave before the last stadium improvement is paid off -- they must pay for part of the balance before they go. That amount has kept the Chargers in place for awhile (especially when coupled with the amount they would have to pay the NFL as a relocation fee), but that amount goes down every year and won't be an obstacle for much longer (not sure it is one at this point).
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Mar 26, 2015 12:31:18 GMT -8
Yes, but with a caveat. If 2/3 of the SD electorate are willing to significantly increase taxes in order to pay for at least $600M of a new stadium, they'll stay. Oh and the Chargers are going to have to become convinced of that before the 2015 regular season begins. So guess what, San Diegans. You have five months to commit to a tax increase! I haven't followed the issue in the same detail as many of you have. Is it correct to say that the Chargers can basically leave whenever they want to? How long before they actually relocate must they give notice to the city? Are the Chargers still liable for an exit fee? In any event, I am somewhat surprised that they are still in San Diego, given that business considerations must have indicated the advisability of moving the franchise for some years by now. AzWm The Chargers have an exit clause in their lease and they can leave during a window between February 1 to May 1 every year. The exit (penalty) fee I believe was approximately $17 million for last year and it gradually decreases until the lease expires in 2020. They're still in San Diego because there has never been a viable stadium proposal in LA that made sense and IMO there still isn't.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Mar 26, 2015 12:34:31 GMT -8
Yes, but with a caveat. If 2/3 of the SD electorate are willing to significantly increase taxes in order to pay for at least $600M of a new stadium, they'll stay. Oh and the Chargers are going to have to become convinced of that before the 2015 regular season begins. So guess what, San Diegans. You have five months to commit to a tax increase! I haven't followed the issue in the same detail as many of you have. Is it correct to say that the Chargers can basically leave whenever they want to? How long before they actually relocate must they give notice to the city? Are the Chargers still liable for an exit fee? In any event, I am somewhat surprised that they are still in San Diego, given that business considerations must have indicated the advisability of moving the franchise for some years by now. AzWm I think the Chargers have a 3 month window each year (Feb to April) that they can notify the city their intentions for the following year (stay or go). They committed early to staying in SD for the 2015 season. There is an exit fee that decreases on a sliding scale through I believe 2020, but whatever that exit fee is, it doesn't come anywhere near the amount needed to pay off the bonds from the last stadium expansion. And the other people that posted before me just type faster, I guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 12:47:43 GMT -8
Yes, but with a caveat. If 2/3 of the SD electorate are willing to significantly increase taxes in order to pay for at least $600M of a new stadium, they'll stay. Oh and the Chargers are going to have to become convinced of that before the 2015 regular season begins. So guess what, San Diegans. You have five months to commit to a tax increase! I haven't followed the issue in the same detail as many of you have. Is it correct to say that the Chargers can basically leave whenever they want to? How long before they actually relocate must they give notice to the city? Are the Chargers still liable for an exit fee? In any event, I am somewhat surprised that they are still in San Diego, given that business considerations must have indicated the advisability of moving the franchise for some years by now. AzWm It's not the exit fee, it's the entrance fee. A team moving into LA is going to owe around a billion to the league among other expenses.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 26, 2015 12:49:04 GMT -8
I haven't followed the issue in the same detail as many of you have. Is it correct to say that the Chargers can basically leave whenever they want to? How long before they actually relocate must they give notice to the city? Are the Chargers still liable for an exit fee? In any event, I am somewhat surprised that they are still in San Diego, given that business considerations must have indicated the advisability of moving the franchise for some years by now. AzWm I think the Chargers have a 3 month window each year (Feb to April) that they can notify the city their intentions for the following year (stay or go). They committed early to staying in SD for the 2015 season. There is an exit fee that decreases on a sliding scale through I believe 2020, but whatever that exit fee is, it doesn't come anywhere near the amount needed to pay off the bonds from the last stadium expansion. And the other people that posted before me just type faster, I guess. faster, yes ... but as you demonstrate here when given more time, a more complete answer is better!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 12:52:48 GMT -8
I haven't followed the issue in the same detail as many of you have. Is it correct to say that the Chargers can basically leave whenever they want to? How long before they actually relocate must they give notice to the city? Are the Chargers still liable for an exit fee? In any event, I am somewhat surprised that they are still in San Diego, given that business considerations must have indicated the advisability of moving the franchise for some years by now. AzWm It's not the exit fee, it's the entrance fee. A team moving into LA is going to owe around a billion to the league among other expenses. Yeah, because the NFL would totally allow a team to move to LA so they could bankrupt them. You are in denial about how close we are to losing the chargers. I have no idea what your stake is in having them stay, but your comments on this topic never seem balanced. just sayin
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Mar 26, 2015 13:00:47 GMT -8
It's not the exit fee, it's the entrance fee. A team moving into LA is going to owe around a billion to the league among other expenses. Yeah, because the NFL would totally allow a team to move to LA so they could bankrupt them. You are in denial about how close we are to losing the chargers. I have no idea what your stake is in having them stay, but your comments on this topic never seem balanced. just sayin Well, there has not been an official amount for the relocation fee released but speculation is that it could be up to a billion dollars. From what I understand though it's based on different factors and does not hae to be paid all upfront. It's still a major deterrent to relocation however.
|
|