|
Post by aardvark on Apr 4, 2015 9:04:47 GMT -8
dependence on natural means is largely due to unintended by-products of artificial means creating bigger issues as well as the demands on the energy grid and the huge expense of each plant ... If desal was to provide enough water for 1/3 of California, and each plant produced enough water for 300K homes, how many coastal production plants would be needed? How many additional power plants would be needed to accommodate that many desal plants? How much salt would be produced as a by-product and what would be done with it? Then we can cover the secondary issues of infrastructure for moving the water produced from the plant to the intended aquifers and reservoirs, the property purchases and easements where it would have to traverse private property and more pump stations to move the water using more power from the grid. Is the State prepared to turn off someone's water? In effect, yes ... if a municipality exhausts its' supply of water, where is it going to get more from? Agriculture uses will be the first to experience cuts, and it will be really easy to see a 25% reduction based on their volume and in some cases you can visually see if there are 25% less strawberry fields or alfalfa tracts. At some point the word MANDATORY will sink in as it has, until now, always been voluntary -- when we go beyond ticketing for watering laws and washing cars to monthly metering and hefty fines or arrests for abusers all the way to the final phase ... Water trucks delivering your rations. Sooner or later the price of water per barrel will eclipse that of oil -- won't that be fun This is what I think. Have water as an open market commodity like oil. Transportation Is not a problem. Oil trucks bring oil gas stations water trucks could transports water. Easements exist everywhere freeways are great places to burry water pipes It was done before. In the 60 and 70s the infrastructure was done that built San diego it can be done again. news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040215-746349-california-governor-jerry-brown-issues-water-use-restrictions.htmLet's get water meters on the hundreds of thousands of the Central Valley homes and businesses that still don't have them. Then maybe the state can get serious about water conservation.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Apr 4, 2015 9:07:02 GMT -8
Really? I think the NFL wants one, and more likely two teams in LA within 5 years. I get that YOU don't want the Chargers in LA. No hoobs. I get you want the Chargers gone. The NFL wants the right em team in la first and that is the Rams. Then once the Rams establish their market maybe expand to a second team. This is the plan. What about this confuses you? Nope, I want the Chargers to leave Mission Valley. Where they go from there... I genuinely don't care. And I'm delighted that you seem to know the NFL's plan with direct, first-hand knowledge. That's very impressive.
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Apr 4, 2015 9:35:33 GMT -8
my prediction is state buys the land from the water authority and the Chargers end up dt.
4 owners have said the Rams are going to la being Dallas Giants Rams and the Chargers. This is the Chargers startes the carson bluff to buy time.
Its in the papers
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Apr 4, 2015 9:44:02 GMT -8
my prediction is state buys the land from the water authority and the Chargers end up dt. 4 owners have said the Rams are going to la being Dallas Giants Rams and the Chargers. This is the Chargers startes the carson bluff to buy time. Its in the papers Hmm, I can't see the Chargers waiting for all the time required for downtown to be ready for a stadium. The 7 year window the MTS was talking about is a bunch of BS in my opinion but there are a lot more hurdles to overcome there than Mission Valley. And it's going to cost a lot more money. Downtown would be the sexy location but Mission Valley makes a lot more sense I think.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 4, 2015 10:19:39 GMT -8
my prediction is state buys the land from the water authority and the Chargers end up dt. 4 owners have said the Rams are going to la being Dallas Giants Rams and the Chargers. This is the Chargers startes the carson bluff to buy time. Its in the papers Hmm, I can't see the Chargers waiting for all the time required for downtown to be ready for a stadium. The 7 year window the MTS was talking about is a bunch of BS in my opinion but there are a lot more hurdles to overcome there than Mission Valley. And it's going to cost a lot more money. Downtown would be the sexy location but Mission Valley makes a lot more sense I think. In the end ... if all goes as some have laid out, there would be no material difference between a downtown location surrounded by existing development (with little to no tailgate parking) and a Mission Valley location surrounded by new development (with little to no tailgate parking). The costs to acquire the Water Authority land in Mission Valley is about equal to the cost to relocate the MTS. The difference in construction costs between downtown and Mission Valley can be negated if the Chargers just give up on the roof idea -- or pay extra for one themselves ... the design could be done such that one could be added in the future. If the City and Water Authority agree to sell the Q-site to SDSU, that would give the City an additional $150M to offset the cost of acquiring the remaining private property for a downtown stadium. It's really too bad the Chargers played their hand the way they did ...
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Apr 4, 2015 10:26:31 GMT -8
Let's get water meters on the hundreds of thousands of the Central Valley homes and businesses that still don't have them. Then maybe the state can get serious about water conservation. A good friend of mine lives in hotter than hell in the summer Roseville and they don't have a water meter. Just amazing, although folks up there say we in SoCal steal their water. In the meantime, another week has passed and we're all still having the same arguments we've had ever since the Spanoi announced their deal with the Raiders. Tick, tick, tick.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Apr 4, 2015 10:28:06 GMT -8
Hmm, I can't see the Chargers waiting for all the time required for downtown to be ready for a stadium. The 7 year window the MTS was talking about is a bunch of BS in my opinion but there are a lot more hurdles to overcome there than Mission Valley. And it's going to cost a lot more money. Downtown would be the sexy location but Mission Valley makes a lot more sense I think. In the end ... if all goes as some have laid out, there would be no material difference between a downtown location surrounded by existing development (with little to no tailgate parking) and a Mission Valley location surrounded by new development (with little to no tailgate parking). The costs to acquire the Water Authority land in Mission Valley is about equal to the cost to relocate the MTS. The difference in construction costs between downtown and Mission Valley can be negated if the Chargers just give up on the roof idea -- or pay extra for one themselves ... the design could be done such that one could be added in the future. If the City and Water Authority agree to sell the Q-site to SDSU, that would give the City an additional $150M to offset the cost of acquiring the remaining private property for a downtown stadium. It's really too bad the Chargers played their hand the way they did ... Exactly. They could have a really nice downtown stadium... and probably be halfway done with construction by now. Would have been good for the city, good for the Chargers... and of course good for SDSU.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Apr 4, 2015 11:00:30 GMT -8
Hmm, I can't see the Chargers waiting for all the time required for downtown to be ready for a stadium. The 7 year window the MTS was talking about is a bunch of BS in my opinion but there are a lot more hurdles to overcome there than Mission Valley. And it's going to cost a lot more money. Downtown would be the sexy location but Mission Valley makes a lot more sense I think. In the end ... if all goes as some have laid out, there would be no material difference between a downtown location surrounded by existing development (with little to no tailgate parking) and a Mission Valley location surrounded by new development (with little to no tailgate parking). The costs to acquire the Water Authority land in Mission Valley is about equal to the cost to relocate the MTS. The difference in construction costs between downtown and Mission Valley can be negated if the Chargers just give up on the roof idea -- or pay extra for one themselves ... the design could be done such that one could be added in the future. If the City and Water Authority agree to sell the Q-site to SDSU, that would give the City an additional $150M to offset the cost of acquiring the remaining private property for a downtown stadium. It's really too bad the Chargers played their hand the way they did ... Still, IMO, Mission Valley is the best place for a new stadium. Downtown is the best place for a new sports arena.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Apr 4, 2015 11:02:14 GMT -8
In the end ... if all goes as some have laid out, there would be no material difference between a downtown location surrounded by existing development (with little to no tailgate parking) and a Mission Valley location surrounded by new development (with little to no tailgate parking). The costs to acquire the Water Authority land in Mission Valley is about equal to the cost to relocate the MTS. The difference in construction costs between downtown and Mission Valley can be negated if the Chargers just give up on the roof idea -- or pay extra for one themselves ... the design could be done such that one could be added in the future. If the City and Water Authority agree to sell the Q-site to SDSU, that would give the City an additional $150M to offset the cost of acquiring the remaining private property for a downtown stadium. It's really too bad the Chargers played their hand the way they did ... Exactly. They could have a really nice downtown stadium... and probably be halfway done with construction by now. Would have been good for the city, good for the Chargers... and of course good for SDSU. And the Chargers could have PURCHASED land at the Qualcomm site for their proposed stadium and development over 10 years ago, and their stadium would be about 8 years old now.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 4, 2015 11:24:44 GMT -8
Exactly. They could have a really nice downtown stadium... and probably be halfway done with construction by now. Would have been good for the city, good for the Chargers... and of course good for SDSU. And the Chargers could have PURCHASED land at the Qualcomm site for their proposed stadium and development over 10 years ago, and their stadium would be about 8 years old now. Shoot, the Chargers could have put their money where their mouth is back in 2009 and begin purchasing the property needed downtown per their own plan (& when prices were at their lowest) ... the MTS could have been relocated by now, making the amount of money required for a downtown stadium that much lower. Even if a stadium were not approved downtown, the Chargers would have valuable land to sell (or develop themselves) -- increasing the amount of money they would have today to put toward a new stadium.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 4, 2015 12:01:18 GMT -8
In the end ... if all goes as some have laid out, there would be no material difference between a downtown location surrounded by existing development (with little to no tailgate parking) and a Mission Valley location surrounded by new development (with little to no tailgate parking). The costs to acquire the Water Authority land in Mission Valley is about equal to the cost to relocate the MTS. The difference in construction costs between downtown and Mission Valley can be negated if the Chargers just give up on the roof idea -- or pay extra for one themselves ... the design could be done such that one could be added in the future. If the City and Water Authority agree to sell the Q-site to SDSU, that would give the City an additional $150M to offset the cost of acquiring the remaining private property for a downtown stadium. It's really too bad the Chargers played their hand the way they did ... Still, IMO, Mission Valley is the best place for a new stadium. Downtown is the best place for a new sports arena. In my ideal world -- The Miramar Landfill is closed and moved east San Diego International Airport moves to the landfill site -- constructing a runway parallel to the MCAS runway and build the terminal over the landfill A Sports and Entertainment Complex is opened at what used to be Lindbergh Field anchored by an NBA/NHL Arena and an NFL Football Stadium that is Olympic Ready Sports Arena is traded to the Water Authority for their half of the Mission Valley Site Mission Valley is sold to SDSU for a West Campus Expansion, as part of the development they build a 50K seat FBS/MLS stadium
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Apr 4, 2015 15:41:18 GMT -8
Still, IMO, Mission Valley is the best place for a new stadium. Downtown is the best place for a new sports arena. In my ideal world -- The Miramar Landfill is closed and moved east San Diego International Airport moves to the landfill site -- constructing a runway parallel to the MCAS runway and build the terminal over the landfill A Sports and Entertainment Complex is opened at what used to be Lindbergh Field anchored by an NBA/NHL Arena and an NFL Football Stadium that is Olympic Ready Sports Arena is traded to the Water Authority for their half of the Mission Valley Site Mission Valley is sold to SDSU for a West Campus Expansion, as part of the development they build a 50K seat FBS/MLS stadium I'm not too sure about an airport over a landfill--the 52 is built on part of the older part of that same dump, and that land is sinking all the time.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 4, 2015 16:37:29 GMT -8
In my ideal world -- The Miramar Landfill is closed and moved east San Diego International Airport moves to the landfill site -- constructing a runway parallel to the MCAS runway and build the terminal over the landfill A Sports and Entertainment Complex is opened at what used to be Lindbergh Field anchored by an NBA/NHL Arena and an NFL Football Stadium that is Olympic Ready Sports Arena is traded to the Water Authority for their half of the Mission Valley Site Mission Valley is sold to SDSU for a West Campus Expansion, as part of the development they build a 50K seat FBS/MLS stadium I'm not too sure about an airport over a landfill--the 52 is built on part of the older part of that same dump, and that land is sinking all the time. Lessons learned from Kansai International Airport would most certainly be called for ... "In 1991, the terminal construction commenced. To compensate for the sinking of the island, adjustable columns were designed to support the terminal building. These are extended by inserting thick metal plates at their bases. Government officials proposed reducing the length of the terminal to cut costs, but architect Renzo Piano insisted on keeping the terminal at its full planned length. The airport opened in 1994. On 17 January 1995, Japan was struck by the Kobe earthquake, whose epicenter was about 20 km (12 mi) away from KIX and killed 6,434 people on Japan's main island of Honshū. Due to its earthquake engineering, the airport emerged unscathed, mostly due to the use of sliding joints. Even the glass in the windows remained intact. In 1998, the airport survived a typhoon with wind speeds of up to 200 km/h (120 mph)."
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Apr 4, 2015 17:07:35 GMT -8
I'm not too sure about an airport over a landfill--the 52 is built on part of the older part of that same dump, and that land is sinking all the time. Lessons learned from Kansai International Airport would most certainly be called for ... "In 1991, the terminal construction commenced. To compensate for the sinking of the island, adjustable columns were designed to support the terminal building. These are extended by inserting thick metal plates at their bases. Government officials proposed reducing the length of the terminal to cut costs, but architect Renzo Piano insisted on keeping the terminal at its full planned length. The airport opened in 1994. On 17 January 1995, Japan was struck by the Kobe earthquake, whose epicenter was about 20 km (12 mi) away from KIX and killed 6,434 people on Japan's main island of Honshū. Due to its earthquake engineering, the airport emerged unscathed, mostly due to the use of sliding joints. Even the glass in the windows remained intact. In 1998, the airport survived a typhoon with wind speeds of up to 200 km/h (120 mph)." "As of 2008, the cost of the airport is $20 billion." That's quite a large chunk of change to relocate a destination airport as opposed to a hub airport (if something like that were to be done here).
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 4, 2015 17:39:48 GMT -8
Still, IMO, Mission Valley is the best place for a new stadium. Downtown is the best place for a new sports arena. In my ideal world -- The Miramar Landfill is closed and moved east San Diego International Airport moves to the landfill site -- constructing a runway parallel to the MCAS runway and build the terminal over the landfill A Sports and Entertainment Complex is opened at what used to be Lindbergh Field anchored by an NBA/NHL Arena and an NFL Football Stadium that is Olympic Ready Sports Arena is traded to the Water Authority for their half of the Mission Valley Site Mission Valley is sold to SDSU for a West Campus Expansion, as part of the development they build a 50K seat FBS/MLS stadium Mr. HNT, I agree, but that wish list would require leadership which this city has not seen for many decades.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 4, 2015 18:59:05 GMT -8
Lessons learned from Kansai International Airport would most certainly be called for ... "In 1991, the terminal construction commenced. To compensate for the sinking of the island, adjustable columns were designed to support the terminal building. These are extended by inserting thick metal plates at their bases. Government officials proposed reducing the length of the terminal to cut costs, but architect Renzo Piano insisted on keeping the terminal at its full planned length. The airport opened in 1994. On 17 January 1995, Japan was struck by the Kobe earthquake, whose epicenter was about 20 km (12 mi) away from KIX and killed 6,434 people on Japan's main island of Honshū. Due to its earthquake engineering, the airport emerged unscathed, mostly due to the use of sliding joints. Even the glass in the windows remained intact. In 1998, the airport survived a typhoon with wind speeds of up to 200 km/h (120 mph)." "As of 2008, the cost of the airport is $20 billion." That's quite a large chunk of change to relocate a destination airport as opposed to a hub airport (if something like that were to be done here). It wouldn't be cheap ... but really, what is anymore? San Diego needs an airport with a longer runway to accommodate international flights and cargo -- there aren't any places in San Diego where that can be done at any cost besides Brown Field (which is not centrally located). San Diego can choose to grow wisely and plan ahead or do like we've been doing and pay double to fix things or extend the life of things that are way past their intended life. Let me list a few examples: Lindbergh Field Point Loma Water Treatment Facility Qualcomm Stadium Sports Arena Kansai was constructed back in 1991 because Osaka was losing trade to Tokyo and there was no room to expand their existing airport. Some of the costs identified in those $20B were the construction of 2 offshore runways -- while the land parallel to the MCAS runway is stable, the only issue is the settling land beneath what would be the terminal. I would hazard to guess that engineering and technology have increased since Kansai did what could not be done ... and it is of note that Kansai plans to build another terminal to handle the increase in traffic as they compete with Incheon and Hong Kong to be the "Gateway to Asia". In a similar respect, Shouldn't San Diego take its' rightful place as the 8th largest city in the USA and compete with Los Angeles and San Francisco to be the "Gateway to America"? We are going to keep growing, for once ... shouldn't we plan ahead?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 4, 2015 19:04:38 GMT -8
In my ideal world -- The Miramar Landfill is closed and moved east San Diego International Airport moves to the landfill site -- constructing a runway parallel to the MCAS runway and build the terminal over the landfill A Sports and Entertainment Complex is opened at what used to be Lindbergh Field anchored by an NBA/NHL Arena and an NFL Football Stadium that is Olympic Ready Sports Arena is traded to the Water Authority for their half of the Mission Valley Site Mission Valley is sold to SDSU for a West Campus Expansion, as part of the development they build a 50K seat FBS/MLS stadium Mr. HNT, I agree, but that wish list would require leadership which this city has not seen for many decades. Alas, most politicians live in fear of disappointing their constituents -- the lobbyists and those making money just the way things are.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Apr 4, 2015 19:22:23 GMT -8
"As of 2008, the cost of the airport is $20 billion." That's quite a large chunk of change to relocate a destination airport as opposed to a hub airport (if something like that were to be done here). It wouldn't be cheap ... but really, what is anymore? San Diego needs an airport with a longer runway to accommodate international flights and cargo -- there aren't any places in San Diego where that can be done at any cost besides Brown Field (which is not centrally located). San Diego can choose to grow wisely and plan ahead or do like we've been doing and pay double to fix things or extend the life of things that are way past their intended life. Let me list a few examples: Lindbergh Field Point Loma Water Treatment Facility Qualcomm Stadium Sports Arena Kansai was constructed back in 1991 because Osaka was losing trade to Tokyo and there was no room to expand their existing airport. Some of the costs identified in those $20B were the construction of 2 offshore runways -- while the land parallel to the MCAS runway is stable, the only issue is the settling land beneath what would be the terminal. I would hazard to guess that engineering and technology have increased since Kansai did what could not be done ... and it is of note that Kansai plans to build another terminal to handle the increase in traffic as they compete with Incheon and Hong Kong to be the "Gateway to Asia". In a similar respect, Shouldn't San Diego take its' rightful place as the 8th largest city in the USA and compete with Los Angeles and San Francisco to be the "Gateway to America"? We are going to keep growing, for once ... shouldn't we plan ahead? Another question is would the airlines be interested?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 4, 2015 19:52:46 GMT -8
It wouldn't be cheap ... but really, what is anymore? San Diego needs an airport with a longer runway to accommodate international flights and cargo -- there aren't any places in San Diego where that can be done at any cost besides Brown Field (which is not centrally located). San Diego can choose to grow wisely and plan ahead or do like we've been doing and pay double to fix things or extend the life of things that are way past their intended life. Let me list a few examples: Lindbergh Field Point Loma Water Treatment Facility Qualcomm Stadium Sports Arena Kansai was constructed back in 1991 because Osaka was losing trade to Tokyo and there was no room to expand their existing airport. Some of the costs identified in those $20B were the construction of 2 offshore runways -- while the land parallel to the MCAS runway is stable, the only issue is the settling land beneath what would be the terminal. I would hazard to guess that engineering and technology have increased since Kansai did what could not be done ... and it is of note that Kansai plans to build another terminal to handle the increase in traffic as they compete with Incheon and Hong Kong to be the "Gateway to Asia". In a similar respect, Shouldn't San Diego take its' rightful place as the 8th largest city in the USA and compete with Los Angeles and San Francisco to be the "Gateway to America"? We are going to keep growing, for once ... shouldn't we plan ahead? Another question is would the airlines be interested? I can tell you that while I was with the Port of San Diego and before the creation of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority there was major interest and some might even say pressure to increase both the volume and the types of aircraft that could land in San Diego. I imagine that is still the case. Prior to losing control of the airport to the newly created SDCRAA -- the Port of San Diego had negotiated a land swap for a portion of MCRD in exchange for a portion of the recently closed NTC so that a 2nd runway could be built next to the current one. That deal was scuttled when the SDCRAA as their first act tried to force the closure of MCAS Miramar. The Marines were not to happy with that play and they nixed the deal that had been set up by the Port of San Diego then beat the effort to close Miramar. This is why even if San Diego were to build an airport on the other side of Miramar, they'd have to build a runway too -- because the Marines won't share theirs with the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 4, 2015 20:22:08 GMT -8
It wouldn't be cheap ... but really, what is anymore? San Diego needs an airport with a longer runway to accommodate international flights and cargo -- there aren't any places in San Diego where that can be done at any cost besides Brown Field (which is not centrally located). San Diego can choose to grow wisely and plan ahead or do like we've been doing and pay double to fix things or extend the life of things that are way past their intended life. Let me list a few examples: Lindbergh Field Point Loma Water Treatment Facility Qualcomm Stadium Sports Arena Kansai was constructed back in 1991 because Osaka was losing trade to Tokyo and there was no room to expand their existing airport. Some of the costs identified in those $20B were the construction of 2 offshore runways -- while the land parallel to the MCAS runway is stable, the only issue is the settling land beneath what would be the terminal. I would hazard to guess that engineering and technology have increased since Kansai did what could not be done ... and it is of note that Kansai plans to build another terminal to handle the increase in traffic as they compete with Incheon and Hong Kong to be the "Gateway to Asia". In a similar respect, Shouldn't San Diego take its' rightful place as the 8th largest city in the USA and compete with Los Angeles and San Francisco to be the "Gateway to America"? We are going to keep growing, for once ... shouldn't we plan ahead? Another question is would the airlines be interested? Another consideration: One of the reasons that San Diego has such a dearth of major companies headquartered here, is the airport and it's attendant lack of flights to major world cities without connecting through SF, LA, Denver, Chicago, or Dallas. The presidents and CEO's want ease of access for themselves and their high level staff. That paucity of major companies is a significant reason for our lack of corporate funding for: A new stadium (boxes), opera, orchestra, etc. and countless other city projects, which other cities, smaller than ours, have.
|
|