|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 27, 2015 9:21:17 GMT -8
My impression is that no one is afraid of a simple majority vote. But reaching a 2/3 vote is tough under any and all circumstances for any purpose, and for good reasons. Spot on. The Chargers should be afraid of a simple majority vote. Unless of course that was their plan all along; to allow the stadium proposal go to a public vote knowing that it will fail so they can leave San Diego.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 27, 2015 9:24:52 GMT -8
With or without a NFL team LA is still LA, the largest west coast metro, and second largest metro in the country. Also, when the NFL left LA it wasn't yet what it is today. San Diego is a transient feeling city compared to most. The Chargers are the most visible common symbol people of the region can identify. Will losing the chargers turn us in to a Podunk city? No, but it may mean never having a shot at superbowls, olympics, as well as less national recognition for a region living in the shadow of the 2nd largest metro in the country. Meh ... we're the 8th largest city in the country and still growing. If drought conditions do not improve -- whether or not you have an NFL team in your city will be of little value to Oakland, SF, LA and San Diego as water rationing and other such actions will take it's toll on sports & entertainment Should San Diego continue to improve its' water independence with desalination & water reclamation ... we may be the better positioned city in Southern California to survive drought conditions
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Mar 27, 2015 10:00:16 GMT -8
The Chargers should be afraid of a simple majority vote. Unless of course that was their plan all along; to allow the stadium proposal go to a public vote knowing that it will fail so they can leave San Diego. I'm sure the city and the Chargers are grateful that they are not dependent on Aztec Mesa fans for success.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Mar 27, 2015 10:18:12 GMT -8
The Chargers should be afraid of a simple majority vote. Unless of course that was their plan all along; to allow the stadium proposal go to a public vote knowing that it will fail so they can leave San Diego. I'm not so sure. If it would require nothing more than a majority, you just know they're prepared to spend megabucks in advertising to advocate for a yes vote. In contrast, who would spend any money to oppose it? Heck, I can see it now. Charter buses adorned with Go Chargers! banners pulling up to old folks homes to take them to the polls.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Mar 27, 2015 10:42:33 GMT -8
With or without a NFL team LA is still LA, the largest west coast metro, and second largest metro in the country. Also, when the NFL left LA it wasn't yet what it is today. San Diego is a transient feeling city compared to most. The Chargers are the most visible common symbol people of the region can identify. Will losing the chargers turn us in to a Podunk city? No, but it may mean never having a shot at superbowls, olympics, as well as less national recognition for a region living in the shadow of the 2nd largest metro in the country. Meh ... we're the 8th largest city in the country and still growing. If drought conditions do not improve -- whether or not you have an NFL team in your city will be of little value to Oakland, SF, LA and San Diego as water rationing and other such actions will take it's toll on sports & entertainment Should San Diego continue to improve its' water independence with desalination & water reclamation ... we may be the better positioned city in Southern California to survive drought conditions Man, that's a reach. Where do you come up with all this horseshit? Having a NFL team has nothing to do with drought or water rationing. No wonder you couldn't figure out the other subject either....C-I-W. Maybe you'll need to put your Slip and Slide away.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 27, 2015 10:59:39 GMT -8
The Chargers should be afraid of a simple majority vote. Unless of course that was their plan all along; to allow the stadium proposal go to a public vote knowing that it will fail so they can leave San Diego. I'm not so sure. If it would require nothing more than a majority, you just know they're prepared to spend megabucks in advertising to advocate for a yes vote. In contrast, who would spend any money to oppose it? Heck, I can see it now. Charter buses adorned with Go Chargers! banners pulling up to old folks homes to take them to the polls. Sure their would be a campaign; assuming the Chargers want to stay.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 27, 2015 11:05:13 GMT -8
Meh ... we're the 8th largest city in the country and still growing. If drought conditions do not improve -- whether or not you have an NFL team in your city will be of little value to Oakland, SF, LA and San Diego as water rationing and other such actions will take it's toll on sports & entertainment Should San Diego continue to improve its' water independence with desalination & water reclamation ... we may be the better positioned city in Southern California to survive drought conditions Man, that's a reach. Where do you come up with all this horseshit? Having a NFL team has nothing to do with drought or water rationing. No wonder you couldn't figure out the other subject either....C-I-W. Maybe you'll need to put your Slip and Slide away. You obviously have no idea of the water consumption related to certain activities ... and you surely have no idea what comes with water rationing. Which do you think will get an allotment of water: food production or sports entertainment? Which city will better be able to ration it's water supply: the greater Los Angeles area with its' 13M people or San Diego County with its' 3.5M population?
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Mar 27, 2015 11:19:46 GMT -8
The Chargers should be afraid of a simple majority vote. Unless of course that was their plan all along; to allow the stadium proposal go to a public vote knowing that it will fail so they can leave San Diego. I'm not so sure. If it would require nothing more than a majority, you just know they're prepared to spend megabucks in advertising to advocate for a yes vote. In contrast, who would spend any money to oppose it? Heck, I can see it now. Charter buses adorned with Go Chargers! banners pulling up to old folks homes to take them to the polls. Fabiani advised the Task Force not to suggest a method of financing that doesn't include the 2/3rds requirment.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Mar 27, 2015 11:24:33 GMT -8
I'm not so sure. If it would require nothing more than a majority, you just know they're prepared to spend megabucks in advertising to advocate for a yes vote. In contrast, who would spend any money to oppose it? Heck, I can see it now. Charter buses adorned with Go Chargers! banners pulling up to old folks homes to take them to the polls. Fabiani advised the Task Force not to suggest a method of financing that doesn't include the 2/3rds requirment. Many on here have theorized that the Chargers do NOT want a vote to pass. They may be right.
|
|
|
Post by Spud on Mar 27, 2015 13:38:13 GMT -8
With or without a NFL team LA is still LA, the largest west coast metro, and second largest metro in the country. Also, when the NFL left LA it wasn't yet what it is today. San Diego is a transient feeling city compared to most. The Chargers are the most visible common symbol people of the region can identify. Will losing the chargers turn us in to a Podunk city? No, but it may mean never having a shot at superbowls, olympics, as well as less national recognition for a region living in the shadow of the 2nd largest metro in the country. Do we really care if we're living in the shadow of LA? Honestly, does anybody want to be LA? If so, you probably live in the wrong place. I'd venture most people live in SD because it's less intense than LA. Shoot, people bitch and moan all day long about traffic in SD, and we somehow want to be compared to LA? BTW, we could never compete for the Olympics even with a new stadium (and yes, I know we could be part of a LA push..buts it wouldn't really be the Olympics then would it?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2015 14:02:38 GMT -8
With or without a NFL team LA is still LA, the largest west coast metro, and second largest metro in the country. Also, when the NFL left LA it wasn't yet what it is today. San Diego is a transient feeling city compared to most. The Chargers are the most visible common symbol people of the region can identify. Will losing the chargers turn us in to a Podunk city? No, but it may mean never having a shot at superbowls, olympics, as well as less national recognition for a region living in the shadow of the 2nd largest metro in the country. Do we really care if we're living in the shadow of LA? Honestly, does anybody want to be LA? If so, you probably live in the wrong place. I'd venture most people live in SD because it's less intense than LA. Shoot, people bitch and moan all day long about traffic in SD, and we somehow want to be compared to LA? BTW, we could never compete for the Olympics even with a new stadium (and yes, I know we could be part of a LA push..buts it wouldn't really be the Olympics then would it?) I'm not talking about more traffic or being LA. I'm talking about fewer business opportunities and less recognition for SD overall. We do have a lot going for us thankfully, so we would survive their departure...but would we be better off? I think not. NFL has access to the largest audiences in the country and there is an obvious value to that.
|
|
|
Post by bearfoot on Mar 27, 2015 15:16:42 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? I believe land use issues take 50% +1 I also think an advisory prop that simply asks the voters if they are willing to go along with the proposal, like at Petco are also 50%+1 So there's that.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 27, 2015 15:35:20 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? I believe land use issues take 50% +1 I also think an advisory prop that simply asks the voters if they are willing to go along with the proposal, like at Petco are also 50%+1 So there's that. Majority (50% +1), 60% or 66% for approval of public lands for private development, depending on the official designation of the land itselfIf private development of the Q site is the method selected to pay for a new stadium, the people will have to vote to approve the transfer of land from the public trust to private citizens **if the land has a recreational designation (like that of a park, or public venue), the vote required for approval would be higher than a simple majority, and could be as high as 2/3.
|
|
|
Post by smoothcat on Mar 27, 2015 15:48:03 GMT -8
Sounds like the extortion will soon be over. If they stay, hopefully they don't start whining, pissing and moaning for at least a decade?
Winning something and not firing 14-2 coaches for guys like Norval Turner would be nice also.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 29, 2015 9:50:14 GMT -8
m.utsandiego.com/news/2015/mar/28/finally-supes-stadium-team/"The question is whether the city and the county will be able to work together when the game gets rough. In terms of ego, supervisors are the equal of big-city mayors and council members. Inevitably, there will be disagreements over how much to give the Chargers, what the county as a whole can stomach at the ballot box, if it comes to that. I continue to believe that the only politically palatable solution is a modest one — a phased renovation of Qualcomm (and development of a section of the parking lot) that would cost far, far less than a new stadium. Yes, the Chargers will hate it. They’ll trash talk the Q, call it a “dump.” (Respected local architects strongly disagree.) Dean Spanos might very well cry to the NFL and gain permission to pack up. But we as a region will have done what we could. If the Chargers leave, positive Q options involving San Diego State could be put in play. It could be a lose-win. For now, it’s promising that all the supervisors, and not just Ron Roberts, San Diego’s home supervisor, will be the practical grown-ups in the huddle, a role they should have been playing all along. North, East and South Counties are counting on their good sense."
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 29, 2015 10:59:07 GMT -8
m.utsandiego.com/news/2015/mar/28/finally-supes-stadium-team/"The question is whether the city and the county will be able to work together when the game gets rough. In terms of ego, supervisors are the equal of big-city mayors and council members. Inevitably, there will be disagreements over how much to give the Chargers, what the county as a whole can stomach at the ballot box, if it comes to that. I continue to believe that the only politically palatable solution is a modest one — a phased renovation of Qualcomm (and development of a section of the parking lot) that would cost far, far less than a new stadium. Yes, the Chargers will hate it. They’ll trash talk the Q, call it a “dump.” (Respected local architects strongly disagree.) Dean Spanos might very well cry to the NFL and gain permission to pack up. But we as a region will have done what we could. If the Chargers leave, positive Q options involving San Diego State could be put in play. It could be a lose-win. For now, it’s promising that all the supervisors, and not just Ron Roberts, San Diego’s home supervisor, will be the practical grown-ups in the huddle, a role they should have been playing all along. North, East and South Counties are counting on their good sense." I've had this position since 2009 ... A phased renovation of the Q (similar to what the Chiefs did with Arrowhead Stadium) would be the only workable solution. A couple of hotels with restaurants, retail and parking garages in the northwest corner of the parking lot (on city property) is the only type of development that would have made sense. This solution has been unacceptable to the Chargers, even though they would have gotten everything they're asking for in terms of club seats, luxury boxes, expanded concourses etc., they just wouldn't get to say "brand-new stadium". From the beginning a new stadium was more about the Spanoi making money, and less about competitive balance in the NFL (where currently, teams outside the top 10 have about a 3% chance of winning the Superbowl).
|
|
|
Post by ab on Mar 29, 2015 12:53:47 GMT -8
Man, that's a reach. Where do you come up with all this horseshit? Having a NFL team has nothing to do with drought or water rationing. No wonder you couldn't figure out the other subject either....C-I-W. Maybe you'll need to put your Slip and Slide away. You obviously have no idea of the water consumption related to certain activities ... and you surely have no idea what comes with water rationing. Which do you think will get an allotment of water: food production or sports entertainment? Which city will better be able to ration it's water supply: the greater Los Angeles area with its' 13M people or San Diego County with its' 3.5M population? What does water rationing have to do with building a new stadium? Ever heard of artificial turf? Food production? Where did that one come from? You keep posting a bunch of horseshit. I know, if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull$#!+. What a tool.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 29, 2015 12:58:06 GMT -8
You obviously have no idea of the water consumption related to certain activities ... and you surely have no idea what comes with water rationing. Which do you think will get an allotment of water: food production or sports entertainment? Which city will better be able to ration it's water supply: the greater Los Angeles area with its' 13M people or San Diego County with its' 3.5M population? What does water rationing have to do with building a new stadium? Ever heard of artificial turf? Food production? Where did that one come from? You keep posting a bunch of horseshit. I know, if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull$#!+. What a tool. you constantly display a lack of any knowledge ... you actually think a majority of the water used in a stadium is about keeping the grass green? You really need to think 2x (or more) before posting.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Mar 29, 2015 12:59:47 GMT -8
m.utsandiego.com/news/2015/mar/28/finally-supes-stadium-team/"The question is whether the city and the county will be able to work together when the game gets rough. In terms of ego, supervisors are the equal of big-city mayors and council members. Inevitably, there will be disagreements over how much to give the Chargers, what the county as a whole can stomach at the ballot box, if it comes to that. I continue to believe that the only politically palatable solution is a modest one — a phased renovation of Qualcomm (and development of a section of the parking lot) that would cost far, far less than a new stadium. Yes, the Chargers will hate it. They’ll trash talk the Q, call it a “dump.” (Respected local architects strongly disagree.) Dean Spanos might very well cry to the NFL and gain permission to pack up. But we as a region will have done what we could. If the Chargers leave, positive Q options involving San Diego State could be put in play. It could be a lose-win. For now, it’s promising that all the supervisors, and not just Ron Roberts, San Diego’s home supervisor, will be the practical grown-ups in the huddle, a role they should have been playing all along. North, East and South Counties are counting on their good sense." I've had this position since 2009 ... A phased renovation of the Q (similar to what the Chiefs did with Arrowhead Stadium) would be the only workable solution. A couple of hotels with restaurants, retail and parking garages in the northwest corner of the parking lot (on city property) is the only type of development that would have made sense. This solution has been unacceptable to the Chargers, even though they would have gotten everything they're asking for in terms of club seats, luxury boxes, expanded concourses etc., they just wouldn't get to say "brand-new stadium". From the beginning a new stadium was more about the Spanoi making money, and less about competitive balance in the NFL (where currently, teams outside the top 10 have about a 3% chance of winning the Superbowl). A renovation of Arrowhead made lots of sense--it was already a football stadium. A Qualcomm remodel would be much more substantial, if whoever does the remodel wants to turn the Q into a stadium that is great for football. Many of the seats are just too far away from the field. I guess it's just safe to say I disagree with you. Incidentally, the NW corner of the lot is where I think a new stadium should go, and although I have no skills in design whatsoever, I think a new stadium wouldn't have as large a footprint as the current stadium does so I think it would fit in that NW corner as it would be designed mainly for football.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Mar 29, 2015 13:09:17 GMT -8
What does water rationing have to do with building a new stadium? Ever heard of artificial turf? Food production? Where did that one come from? You keep posting a bunch of horseshit. I know, if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull$#!+. What a tool. you constantly display a lack of any knowledge ... you actually think a majority of the water used in a stadium is about keeping the grass green? You really need to think 2x (or more) before posting. Instead of attacking me with not understanding your bull$#!+ why don't you map it out and prove your ignorance for everybody? Oh, I see you're worried about flushing the pots. RECYCLE water! Not my problem.
|
|