|
Post by AzTex on May 19, 2015 17:26:45 GMT -8
In researching PSL it seems they give the license holder the rights to that seat for all events at the venue. That would mean some Charger fan could decide to take over my very desirable club level Aztec season tickets. That takes away a lot of the benefits of maintaining season seats. That does not sound correct to me. Let me see if I understand what you are saying. Are you suggesting that Chargers season ticket holders, presumably all of whom will have paid for PSLs, would be able to attend Aztec home games without paying an extra cent? How many season ticket holders do the Chargers have? I tried to find that figure on the Internet; the most recent item on that came from 2013. at which time the UT stated that the Chargers had 46,000 season ticket holders (down from 62,000 in 2006). Okay, does what you say mean that the Aztecs would be unable to sell season tickets for the 46,000 seats belonging to Charger season ticket holders? That simply cannot be corrrect! AzWm I'm not saying that is the way it's going to be, but it appears that it is one possibility. During my research I found this on the Erie Events Center site LINK: "For an annual $250.00 fee, you can reserve a specific club-level seat that will be made available to you for any public event at the Erie Insurance Arena. Regardless of how fast an event sells out, you are given first right of refusal to purchase a ticket for that show." At this LINK the writer talks about possible costs of various PSL here in San Diego, including what he calls "All Events Rights" PSL. He also talks about partial rights licenses for just Chargers, just Aztecs or all other events. I haven't heard what the Charger's plans are in regard to what their PSL will cover.
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on May 19, 2015 17:50:25 GMT -8
In researching PSL it seems they give the license holder the rights to that seat for all events at the venue. That would mean some Charger fan could decide to take over my very desirable club level Aztec season tickets. That takes away a lot of the benefits of maintaining season seats. That does not sound correct to me. Let me see if I understand what you are saying. Are you suggesting that Chargers season ticket holders, presumably all of whom will have paid for PSLs, would be able to attend Aztec home games without paying an extra cent? How many season ticket holders do the Chargers have? I tried to find that figure on the Internet; the most recent item on that came from 2013. at which time the UT stated that the Chargers had 46,000 season ticket holders (down from 62,000 in 2006). Okay, does what you say mean that the Aztecs would be unable to sell season tickets for the 46,000 seats belonging to Charger season ticket holders? That simply cannot be corrrect! AzWm My guess is it will be right of first refusal on your seat for all designated events (concerts, sports events etc.). So my guess is it COULD be that you would be offered season tickets first to the Aztecs with your seat and if you decline then they would be open to anyone.
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on May 19, 2015 17:53:35 GMT -8
That does not sound correct to me. Let me see if I understand what you are saying. Are you suggesting that Chargers season ticket holders, presumably all of whom will have paid for PSLs, would be able to attend Aztec home games without paying an extra cent? How many season ticket holders do the Chargers have? I tried to find that figure on the Internet; the most recent item on that came from 2013. at which time the UT stated that the Chargers had 46,000 season ticket holders (down from 62,000 in 2006). Okay, does what you say mean that the Aztecs would be unable to sell season tickets for the 46,000 seats belonging to Charger season ticket holders? That simply cannot be corrrect! AzWm My guess is it will be right of first refusal on your seat for all designated events (concerts, sports events etc.). So my guess is it COULD be that you would be offered season tickets first to the Aztecs with your seat and if you decline then they would be open to anyone. While I am not a fan of the PSL, it would be cool if you had first dibs on a U2 concert or bowl game or perhaps dare I say it, a SuperBowl? Again I am not sure what events it affects but it would be interesting if that were the case (of course you still need to come up with the scratch for the event itself).
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on May 19, 2015 19:35:05 GMT -8
I'll ask again, why couldn't SDSU be the ones to purchase the 75 acres of land and build the campus expansion and play in the new stadium with the Chargers? If a deal is agreed upon by the Chargers & City/County and it actually passes a public vote this is precisely what I hope SDSU does. However, we are a long way from any of those things happening. Particularly the stadium deal and a subsequent public vote of acceptance that would approve using hundreds of millions of dollars in public resources to build a Charger stadium.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on May 19, 2015 19:47:44 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on May 19, 2015 19:53:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 19, 2015 20:06:59 GMT -8
I don't see why this really matters. The stadium doesn't hinge on getting that 75 acres sold right away and if that's even part of the final plan.
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on May 19, 2015 20:07:54 GMT -8
High n tight
I like your proposal and it's not to far off to the cost of the actual stadium itself.
The overruns are the parking garage and infrastructure concerns.
I think you add the city and county in for 200 mil and the deal is done.
Before people go bananas look at high much the county and city has spent recently on building upgrades. For exams the county just paid a 150 million for a new jail in santee. All of this without a vote.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 19, 2015 20:14:11 GMT -8
Here is an interesting comment from a reader found following the above linked piece. Kenneth Thygerson 11 hours ago
Let me begin by stating I don't believe a stadium to subsidize a football team is the highest and best use of over $600 million of public assets.
However the issue is worthy of discussion because it raises the more substantive issue of alternative uses of these public funds.
If sports is important, shouldn't we consider expanding and improving San Diego's over 50 recreation facilities. Frankly there is more benefit from providing expanded healthy recreation opportunities for our population then there is providing sky boxes and comfortable seating for a fraction of citizens who can afford Charger tickets. Parks and Recreation published a 21-page list of unfunded improvements to existing facilities in 2013, all of which could be financed with a only a small fraction of these funds. The Mayor's 2016 proposed budget for Parks and Rec is $134 mil., a fraction of the Chargers subsidy. The growth in population also suggests adding to the number of recreation facilities.
You get the point. The issue should is not "how to keep the Chargers". Framing the issue that narrowly avoids the larger issue. That issue is how to best use/spend over $600 million in public assets for the common good. How about reducing taxes or fixing potholes?
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on May 19, 2015 20:39:12 GMT -8
I don't see why this really matters. The stadium doesn't hinge on getting that 75 acres sold right away and if that's even part of the final plan. "The task force proposal includes selling 75 acres of land in the Qualcomm Stadium lot for $225 million. It’s a crucial part of meeting the $1.1 billion stadium price tag." However, I may be wrong, since SDSU is a state entity they would not have an issue with the zoning of the land and would be able to do with it what they want if they were to purchase the property. That could include building a stadium (independently or jointly or with an MLS team) or classrooms and housing/retail.
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on May 19, 2015 20:59:03 GMT -8
Here is an interesting comment from a reader found following the above linked piece. Kenneth Thygerson 11 hours ago
Let me begin by stating I don't believe a stadium to subsidize a football team is the highest and best use of over $600 million of public assets.
However the issue is worthy of discussion because it raises the more substantive issue of alternative uses of these public funds.
If sports is important, shouldn't we consider expanding and improving San Diego's over 50 recreation facilities. Frankly there is more benefit from providing expanded healthy recreation opportunities for our population then there is providing sky boxes and comfortable seating for a fraction of citizens who can afford Charger tickets. Parks and Recreation published a 21-page list of unfunded improvements to existing facilities in 2013, all of which could be financed with a only a small fraction of these funds. The Mayor's 2016 proposed budget for Parks and Rec is $134 mil., a fraction of the Chargers subsidy. The growth in population also suggests adding to the number of recreation facilities.
You get the point. The issue should is not "how to keep the Chargers". Framing the issue that narrowly avoids the larger issue. That issue is how to best use/spend over $600 million in public assets for the common good. How about reducing taxes or fixing potholes?
AzWm Great in theory, but unfortunately that $600 million will NEVER go to fix potholes, and the recommendation of reducing taxes demonstrates the level of reality this poster lives in. The money would simply be wasted on political agendas and other critical civic needs like "a new downtown library" or the proposed $200M Ferris Wheel (can't wait for that one). Not saying the $$ SHOULD be used on a stadium (although I am a Charger fan and would like to see the team stay here), just responding to the default pothole argument. BTW, here's my solution for fixing potholes; fire the 5 guys standing around the 1 guy working and use that money to hire 5 more guys who will actually work. Potholes will be fixed 5X faster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 21:11:02 GMT -8
Here is an interesting comment from a reader found following the above linked piece. Kenneth Thygerson 11 hours ago
Let me begin by stating I don't believe a stadium to subsidize a football team is the highest and best use of over $600 million of public assets.
However the issue is worthy of discussion because it raises the more substantive issue of alternative uses of these public funds.
If sports is important, shouldn't we consider expanding and improving San Diego's over 50 recreation facilities. Frankly there is more benefit from providing expanded healthy recreation opportunities for our population then there is providing sky boxes and comfortable seating for a fraction of citizens who can afford Charger tickets. Parks and Recreation published a 21-page list of unfunded improvements to existing facilities in 2013, all of which could be financed with a only a small fraction of these funds. The Mayor's 2016 proposed budget for Parks and Rec is $134 mil., a fraction of the Chargers subsidy. The growth in population also suggests adding to the number of recreation facilities.
You get the point. The issue should is not "how to keep the Chargers". Framing the issue that narrowly avoids the larger issue. That issue is how to best use/spend over $600 million in public assets for the common good. How about reducing taxes or fixing potholes?
AzWm Great in theory, but unfortunately that $600 million will NEVER go to fix potholes, and the recommendation of reducing taxes demonstrates the level of reality this poster lives in. The money would simply be wasted on political agendas and other critical civic needs like "a new downtown library" or the proposed $200M Ferris Wheel (can't wait for that one). Not saying the $$ SHOULD be used on a stadium (although I am a Charger fan and would like to see the team stay here), just responding to the default pothole argument. BTW, here's my solution for fixing potholes; fire the 5 guys standing around the 1 guy working and use that money to hire 5 more guys who will actually work. Potholes will be fixed 5X faster. I may be wrong but I think it would be 6Xs... EDIT: Opps... I see, you said to fire the one guy who was working... but what if he fills pot holes really fast?
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on May 19, 2015 21:12:28 GMT -8
Great in theory, but unfortunately that $600 million will NEVER go to fix potholes, and the recommendation of reducing taxes demonstrates the level of reality this poster lives in. The money would simply be wasted on political agendas and other critical civic needs like "a new downtown library" or the proposed $200M Ferris Wheel (can't wait for that one). Not saying the $$ SHOULD be used on a stadium (although I am a Charger fan and would like to see the team stay here), just responding to the default pothole argument. BTW, here's my solution for fixing potholes; fire the 5 guys standing around the 1 guy working and use that money to hire 5 more guys who will actually work. Potholes will be fixed 5X faster. I may be wrong but I think it would be 6Xs... Haha, you could be right, it's late.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 21:13:46 GMT -8
I may be wrong but I think it would be 6Xs... Haha, you could be right, it's late. See my edit above... I didn't read exactly what you wrote... so there's that =)
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on May 19, 2015 21:16:00 GMT -8
Haha, you could be right, it's late. See my edit above... I didn't read exactly what you wrote... so there's that =) Hey, if the one guys works really fast, then we have just saved big $$ by firing the 5 guys doing nothing, win-win.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 19, 2015 22:03:41 GMT -8
The new stadium will be built on another spot on the property. some of the early watercolors show the location in the Northwest corner of the property. The renderings from yesterday showed a location in the northeast corner, across Friars from the tank farm. I have been wondering about aztec92's question myself. It appears to me that attending games during construction may not be an enjoyable experience. I think we'll be taking the trolley from a nearby trolley stop/parking lot. (We already do that for hoops.)
It is very disappointing to think that a new "Chargers" stadium is considered more important than an expansion of SDSU. And, by the way, when have the execs at the university ever said that a hypothetical West Campus would be anything other than a boon to the school? If the Chargers get they new playpen, it will mean that a marvelous chance to enhance our alma mater will be gone forever. I am not an Occupy Wall Street nutcase, but that does not mean that I like how those with huge resources sometimes strong arm government to get their way. On the other hand, those in government are all too eager to oblige the ultra-rich.
To quote myself; "It's an imperfect world we live in."
AzWm
I think all it would mean is that the Qualcomm stadium parking lot would be reduced by at least a few thousand spaces--which would make parking a real pain for Charger games and the Sky Show. Being as the massive parking lot would go away and be replaced with a 12,000 space parking structure on site, well, we should just get accustomed to less available parking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 5:31:23 GMT -8
It's a business decision. Do potential buyers purchase now, assessing the entitlement risk to be low or wait and have to compete for it with more buyers? Also; since this is San Diego and that is one of the few remaining development sized properties left in the urban core, the property value will naturally increase over time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 5:37:16 GMT -8
I don't see why this really matters. The stadium doesn't hinge on getting that 75 acres sold right away and if that's even part of the final plan. "The task force proposal includes selling 75 acres of land in the Qualcomm Stadium lot for $225 million. It’s a crucial part of meeting the $1.1 billion stadium price tag." However, I may be wrong, since SDSU is a state entity they would not have an issue with the zoning of the land and would be able to do with it what they want if they were to purchase the property. That could include building a stadium (independently or jointly or with an MLS team) or classrooms and housing/retail. State property doesn't generate property and sales taxes. Campus expansion is not a good idea. Along with the negative impact on college rankings, this IS the 21st century and there IS something called the Internet, which is becoming more and more useful by the day. The future belongs to the virtual classroom.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on May 20, 2015 6:11:08 GMT -8
"The task force proposal includes selling 75 acres of land in the Qualcomm Stadium lot for $225 million. It’s a crucial part of meeting the $1.1 billion stadium price tag." However, I may be wrong, since SDSU is a state entity they would not have an issue with the zoning of the land and would be able to do with it what they want if they were to purchase the property. That could include building a stadium (independently or jointly or with an MLS team) or classrooms and housing/retail. State property doesn't generate property and sales taxes. Campus expansion is not a good idea. Along with the negative impact on college rankings, this IS the 21st century and there IS something called the Internet, which is becoming more and more useful by the day. The future belongs to the virtual classroom. Why do you assume an expanded campus means more students? It would be much better used for some additional housing & classroom space for current students but more importantly... space to develop facilities to support academic institutes for grant-generating research in the growing areas of life/physical sciences & engineering. The virtual classroom might be good for pumping out larger volumes of undergrad degrees (I am unsure if this is a good thing or not, but the value of "a degree" is becoming a public policy conversation piece again and is a much longer, separate discussion), but in a great many fields you can't run an entire program on the Internet. Hands on research, experimentation, labs, etc. are CRITICAL to the types of scientific (and artistic) areas of study that need to be supported. To say that campus expansion is "not a good idea" is absolutely ridiculous. I'm not sure undergraduate enrollment would increase much at all, except perhaps in targeted programs (aforementioned). I would, however, expect an increase in graduate enrollment and research-supported faculty positions. And if you still think that would have negative impact on SDSU's rankings... then I just can't help you.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on May 20, 2015 7:11:51 GMT -8
"The task force proposal includes selling 75 acres of land in the Qualcomm Stadium lot for $225 million. It’s a crucial part of meeting the $1.1 billion stadium price tag." However, I may be wrong, since SDSU is a state entity they would not have an issue with the zoning of the land and would be able to do with it what they want if they were to purchase the property. That could include building a stadium (independently or jointly or with an MLS team) or classrooms and housing/retail. State property doesn't generate property and sales taxes. Campus expansion is not a good idea. Along with the negative impact on college rankings, this IS the 21st century and there IS something called the Internet, which is becoming more and more useful by the day. The future belongs to the virtual classroom. SDSU's economic and social impact is tremendous to our region. A campus expansion would only enhance that impact. www.calstate.edu/impact/campus/sandiego.htmlSan Diego State’s annual impact on the San Diego region and the State of California is enormous: •Annual spending related to San Diego State ($893 million) generates a total impact of $896 million on the regional economy, and more than $1.2 billion on the statewide economy. • This impact sustains more than 9,000 jobs in the region and statewide more than 11,400 jobs. • Per year, the impact generates more than $62 million in local and nearly $86.7 million in statewide tax revenue. • Even greater—nearly $4.2 billion of the earnings by alumni from San Diego State are attributable to their CSU degrees, which creates an additional $6.5 billion of industry activity throughout the state. In addition, sixty percent of SDSU graduates stay in San Diego to become part of our skilled workforce.
|
|