|
Post by aztecbolt on Sept 15, 2015 15:40:29 GMT -8
51% is attainable right now, even with the Chargers giving the city the finger.
|
|
|
Post by adammclane on Sept 15, 2015 15:50:57 GMT -8
51% is attainable right now, even with the Chargers giving the city the finger. I've not personally met a city of SD resident who would vote for a tax increase. I'd be much more apt to vote for it if it were a countywide thing, not put on city residents alone.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfury on Sept 15, 2015 16:22:34 GMT -8
How many millions of dollars did the city spend on the Environmental Impact Report for an agreement that the Chargers were never going to accept in the first place.
The NFL is just using Los Angeles to pressure cities into using public money to build new stadiums for their teams so they won't leave.
I hope a team actually does move to Los Angeles (hopefully the Rams), so that the NFL can't wave around the risk of a team moving to LA anymore.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Sept 15, 2015 22:54:13 GMT -8
How many millions of dollars did the city spend on the Environmental Impact Report for an agreement that the Chargers were never going to accept in the first place. The NFL is just using Los Angeles to pressure cities into using public money to build new stadiums for their teams so they won't leave. I hope a team actually does move to Los Angeles (hopefully the Rams), so that the NFL can't wave around the risk of a team moving to LA anymore. You're going to get your wish. All signs are pointing to it being the Rams.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Sept 15, 2015 23:00:48 GMT -8
51% is attainable right now, even with the Chargers giving the city the finger. I've not personally met a city of SD resident who would vote for a tax increase. I'd be much more apt to vote for it if it were a countywide thing, not put on city residents alone. The polls say otherwise. The last one I remember seeing/hearing about had it in the low 40% with 10+% or so undecided despite Spanos and Fabiani basically treating the city and everyone here like garbage. What's going to happen if they come back and get back into the public's good graces? Having said all that, this is still a long way from being settled and many things can change. Poll numbers really mean very little right now.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Sept 15, 2015 23:37:13 GMT -8
How many millions of dollars did the city spend on the Environmental Impact Report for an agreement that the Chargers were never going to accept in the first place. The NFL is just using Los Angeles to pressure cities into using public money to build new stadiums for their teams so they won't leave. I hope a team actually does move to Los Angeles (hopefully the Rams), so that the NFL can't wave around the risk of a team moving to LA anymore. They had to do the environmental impact report if they wanted to have any chance at getting a new stadium. If they didn't do it, then they might as well have given up. They needed to stay relevant and legitimate. Part of the process. An important one at that.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Sept 16, 2015 5:01:55 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by adammclane on Sept 16, 2015 5:19:45 GMT -8
How many millions of dollars did the city spend on the Environmental Impact Report for an agreement that the Chargers were never going to accept in the first place. The NFL is just using Los Angeles to pressure cities into using public money to build new stadiums for their teams so they won't leave. I hope a team actually does move to Los Angeles (hopefully the Rams), so that the NFL can't wave around the risk of a team moving to LA anymore. They had to do the environmental impact report if they wanted to have any chance at getting a new stadium. If they didn't do it, then they might as well have given up. They needed to stay relevant and legitimate. Part of the process. An important one at that. If you read the report they expanded the scope of the EIR to include several scenarios for the properties redevelopment. That way, if the Chargers do leave or develop another property in the city, they won't have to do another report. The bottom line for that track of land is that it will get redeveloped.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Sept 16, 2015 6:50:40 GMT -8
51% is attainable right now, even with the Chargers giving the city the finger. I've not personally met a city of SD resident who would vote for a tax increase. I'd be much more apt to vote for it if it were a countywide thing, not put on city residents alone. The proposals show an increased tax for the County and not just the City. It's just pocket change. Those people you've talked to have no doubt NEVER read the proposals or they don't understand the overall benefits vs. the cost. People want to know what's in it for them. The "me me World" strikes again. They don't seem to get that it's not all about them. It's what's good for the City/County overall and despite what the usual naysayers on here say, keeping the Chargers here (with or without Spanos) is what's best for the community.
|
|
|
Post by zollner on Sept 16, 2015 8:10:54 GMT -8
I've not personally met a city of SD resident who would vote for a tax increase. I'd be much more apt to vote for it if it were a countywide thing, not put on city residents alone. The proposals show an increased tax for the County and not just the City. It's just pocket change. Those people you've talked to have no doubt NEVER read the proposals or they don't understand the overall benefits vs. the cost. People want to know what's in it for them. The "me me World" strikes again. They don't seem to get that it's not all about them. It's what's good for the City/County overall and despite what the usual naysayers on here say, keeping the Chargers here (with or without Spanos) is what's best for the community. Please post what benefits there are for the community for building a billion dollar stadium with taxpayer money and to be paid for over a thirty year span. Everything that I have read says that these type of deals are money losers for the community. If they were money makers where are the big capital investors? Raising some ones property tax maybe pocket change to you, to others it may be a big deal. The NFL is in the extortion business. Build a new sandbox for a billionaire owner or we will move the team to another city and tax their people.
|
|
|
Post by adammclane on Sept 16, 2015 8:30:14 GMT -8
Yet another piece reminding us what we all know... publicly funding a stadium is a bad idea. www.npr.org/2015/09/16/440651378/deford-spending-public-money-on-sports-stadiums-is-bad-businessab All I need to know is there. If you ask me to vote for a tax increase of any kind in order to fund a stadium, my answer is no. Like I already said... among my neighbors and friends... many of whom are Chargers/Aztec fans themselves... they'll vote no, as well. Just another billionaire looking for a tax break. Next story, please.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Sept 16, 2015 8:32:39 GMT -8
I've not personally met a city of SD resident who would vote for a tax increase. I'd be much more apt to vote for it if it were a countywide thing, not put on city residents alone. The proposals show an increased tax for the County and not just the City. It's just pocket change. Those people you've talked to have no doubt NEVER read the proposals or they don't understand the overall benefits vs. the cost. People want to know what's in it for them. The "me me World" strikes again. They don't seem to get that it's not all about them. It's what's good for the City/County overall and despite what the usual naysayers on here say, keeping the Chargers here (with or without Spanos) is what's best for the community.That is your opinion and certainly one that is not supported by fact. As has been discussed at length on this board and supported by facts is that the Chargers bring very little economic impact to the San Diego community. I will concede that they do bring the potential of civic pride. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars to appease the NFL/Chargers to remain in San Diego is folly. The land at Mission Valley could better be developed for the greater good of San Diego in many other ways. If that includes a community park, SDSU expansion, private tax-generating development or a combination of the three is yet to be determined. That being said if the citizens of San Diego vote to use public resources to keep the Chargers/NFL in San Diego then so be it. However, I don't believe the majority of the citizens of San Diego are foolish enough to vote for such a proposal.
|
|
|
Post by adammclane on Sept 16, 2015 15:57:24 GMT -8
The proposals show an increased tax for the County and not just the City. It's just pocket change. Those people you've talked to have no doubt NEVER read the proposals or they don't understand the overall benefits vs. the cost. People want to know what's in it for them. The "me me World" strikes again. They don't seem to get that it's not all about them. It's what's good for the City/County overall and despite what the usual naysayers on here say, keeping the Chargers here (with or without Spanos) is what's best for the community.That is your opinion and certainly one that is not supported by fact. As has been discussed at length on this board and supported by facts is that the Chargers bring very little economic impact to the San Diego community. I will concede that they do bring the potential of civic pride. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars to appease the NFL/Chargers to remain in San Diego is folly. The land at Mission Valley could better be developed for the greater good of San Diego in many other ways. If that includes a community park, SDSU expansion, private tax-generating development or a combination of the three is yet to be determined. That being said if the citizens of San Diego vote to use public resources to keep the Chargers/NFL in San Diego then so be it. However, I don't believe the majority of the citizens of San Diego are foolish enough to vote for such a proposal. Which is why they have spent years avoiding sending it to voters.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Sept 16, 2015 23:12:56 GMT -8
They had to do the environmental impact report if they wanted to have any chance at getting a new stadium. If they didn't do it, then they might as well have given up. They needed to stay relevant and legitimate. Part of the process. An important one at that. If you read the report they expanded the scope of the EIR to include several scenarios for the properties redevelopment. That way, if the Chargers do leave or develop another property in the city, they won't have to do another report. The bottom line for that track of land is that it will get redeveloped. Ok, but do you agree that they needed to do the report to keep in the ball game for a new stadium?
|
|
|
Post by ab on Sept 17, 2015 8:21:54 GMT -8
The proposals show an increased tax for the County and not just the City. It's just pocket change. Those people you've talked to have no doubt NEVER read the proposals or they don't understand the overall benefits vs. the cost. People want to know what's in it for them. The "me me World" strikes again. They don't seem to get that it's not all about them. It's what's good for the City/County overall and despite what the usual naysayers on here say, keeping the Chargers here (with or without Spanos) is what's best for the community. Please post what benefits there are for the community for building a billion dollar stadium with taxpayer money and to be paid for over a thirty year span. Everything that I have read says that these type of deals are money losers for the community. If they were money makers where are the big capital investors? Raising some ones property tax maybe pocket change to you, to others it may be a big deal. The NFL is in the extortion business. Build a new sandbox for a billionaire owner or we will move the team to another city and tax their people. What hole have you had your head in? I've posted this information multiple times in various threads on the subject. Suggest you do YOUR homework and go back and reread or read those threads that are still around. The part you and the economists don't get is while they say the stadium isn't a money maker what do they mean? Day to day operations or economic impact? While a stadium doesn't necessarily make money on a day to day operations, neither does the convention center make much money. Does the library make money? Do freeways make money? Do bridges make money? (not taking about economic impact) Tell me how $3/year per person really hurts you or for that matter most people?
|
|
|
Post by ab on Sept 17, 2015 8:26:37 GMT -8
The proposals show an increased tax for the County and not just the City. It's just pocket change. Those people you've talked to have no doubt NEVER read the proposals or they don't understand the overall benefits vs. the cost. People want to know what's in it for them. The "me me World" strikes again. They don't seem to get that it's not all about them. It's what's good for the City/County overall and despite what the usual naysayers on here say, keeping the Chargers here (with or without Spanos) is what's best for the community.That is your opinion and certainly one that is not supported by fact. As has been discussed at length on this board and supported by facts is that the Chargers bring very little economic impact to the San Diego community. I will concede that they do bring the potential of civic pride. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars to appease the NFL/Chargers to remain in San Diego is folly. The land at Mission Valley could better be developed for the greater good of San Diego in many other ways. If that includes a community park, SDSU expansion, private tax-generating development or a combination of the three is yet to be determined. That being said if the citizens of San Diego vote to use public resources to keep the Chargers/NFL in San Diego then so be it. However, I don't believe the majority of the citizens of San Diego are foolish enough to vote for such a proposal. What FACTS can you provide or for that matter anybody provide that tells anybody about what the economic impact of the Chargers is? It's all a guestimate as they have NO WAY to KNOW what facts are. Your posts are all slanted against the Chargers/new stadium because YOU want the Aztecs to have their own sandbox in MValley. That's the only FACT that you've got. If you weren't so biased then maybe you could see the light but it's obvious you'd rather have San Diego to take a step backwards towards Green Acres.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Sept 17, 2015 9:14:19 GMT -8
Here ya go Alum 2003 Economic Impact of University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, AZ FUNDING & ECONOMIC IMPACT The overall cost of the stadium was approximately $455 million. The Arizona Sports & Tourism Authority provided $300.4 million to the overall construction of University of Phoenix Stadium. The Construction phase added 3,500 jobs and $400 million in economic benefits to area. The NFL Arizona Cardinals contribute approximately $150 million to the economy each year. The Tostitos Fiesta Bowl contributes approximately $140 million each year in economic impact. On game days there will be over 2,500 employees on site, ranging from event, team, facility, catering and concessions, security, and housekeeping operations and services. The 2011 BCS National Championship Game contributed 188 million to the local economy. www.universityofphoenixstadium.com/stadium/statistics____________________ Economic Impact of AT&T/Cowboys Stadium in Arlington Just google that one for all sorts of interesting info. No doubt you can do the same for all the newer stadiums in their locales.
|
|
|
Post by zollner on Sept 17, 2015 13:45:07 GMT -8
Please post what benefits there are for the community for building a billion dollar stadium with taxpayer money and to be paid for over a thirty year span. Everything that I have read says that these type of deals are money losers for the community. If they were money makers where are the big capital investors? Raising some ones property tax maybe pocket change to you, to others it may be a big deal. The NFL is in the extortion business. Build a new sandbox for a billionaire owner or we will move the team to another city and tax their people. What hole have you had your head in? I've posted this information multiple times in various threads on the subject. Suggest you do YOUR homework and go back and reread or read those threads that are still around. The part you and the economists don't get is while they say the stadium isn't a money maker what do they mean? Day to day operations or economic impact? While a stadium doesn't necessarily make money on a day to day operations, neither does the convention center make much money. Does the library make money? Do freeways make money? Do bridges make money? (not taking about economic impact) Tell me how $3/year per person really hurts you or for that matter most people? Besides your ass what hole is your head in? There is no economic benefit to building a billion dollar stadium for the people who will be paying for it, the tax payer. The only people who will benefit will be owners of the Chargers. A stadium is not a necessity, our tax money can be put to better use like retrofitting bridges,freeways and road repair. Those things I listed are used by all the tax payers including the library. What % of the San Diego populace go to Charger games or can even afford it? Less then 1%. There is no economic impact other than a few construction jobs until it is built and from then on some minimum wage part time jobs, like once a week for 8 weeks. The tax payers will be on the hook for 30 years, probably more just like Petco. And there must really be something wrong with you if you believe what politicians say. A $3.00 increase on our property tax, really!!!!!!!!!!! I have land in Az. that you can have for cheep, in fact you can own it for $3.00.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Sept 17, 2015 13:47:46 GMT -8
That is your opinion and certainly one that is not supported by fact. As has been discussed at length on this board and supported by facts is that the Chargers bring very little economic impact to the San Diego community. I will concede that they do bring the potential of civic pride. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars to appease the NFL/Chargers to remain in San Diego is folly. The land at Mission Valley could better be developed for the greater good of San Diego in many other ways. If that includes a community park, SDSU expansion, private tax-generating development or a combination of the three is yet to be determined. That being said if the citizens of San Diego vote to use public resources to keep the Chargers/NFL in San Diego then so be it. However, I don't believe the majority of the citizens of San Diego are foolish enough to vote for such a proposal. What FACTS can you provide or for that matter anybody provide that tells anybody about what the economic impact of the Chargers is? It's all a guestimate as they have NO WAY to KNOW what facts are. Your posts are all slanted against the Chargers/new stadium because YOU want the Aztecs to have their own sandbox in MValley. That's the only FACT that you've got. If you weren't so biased then maybe you could see the light but it's obvious you'd rather have San Diego to take a step backwards towards Green Acres. Lol... Google is your friend. Estimating the Impact of the San Diego Chargers to the Local Economywww.sandiego.gov/chargersissues/pdf/baimcomments.pdfwww.sandiego.gov/chargersissues/pdf/baimexsum.pdf"CONCLUSION: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE CHARGERS PROVIDE AN ECONOMIC STIMULUS TO THE COMMUNITY."
And that is from the city. Don't forget the Chargers get the Q rent free as well. And then there is the infamous "ticket guarantee." www.kusi.com/story/28163996/economic-impact-of-losing-the-chargers"The City and region would lose economically, if the team decides to pack up and leave; however, after much research on the local economy, numerous organizations could not give a concrete number on how San Diego benefits from the team." "Among fans, the value of having a football team in San Diego comes in sharing a huge sense of hometown pride. " "Convention Center visitors pumped $1 billion into the economy last year, and added $20 million dollars in tax revenue. " "The study found that the sports facilities had an extremely small effect on economic activity and jobs. While NFL teams do create jobs, many of them are part-time during the ten games at home." Economist: Chargers Leaving San Diego Would Have Minimal Impact On Economywww.kpbs.org/news/2015/mar/03/economic-impact-chargers-leaving-san-diego-would-b/Any other brain busters? You might want to take your "Charger Blinders" off. Economically the Chargers are insignificant; as I stated the primary benefit is for fans and the potential of civic pride. And yes I absolutely want SDSU to expand its campus to Mission Valley. That is a much better investment for the community than subsidizing the Chargers/NFL.
|
|
|
Post by adammclane on Sept 17, 2015 14:01:29 GMT -8
@sdsu-Alum2003 Facts don't really mean something to a person with a firmly grounded opinion.
|
|