|
|
Post by matteosandiego on May 10, 2017 15:25:02 GMT -8
For those of you that are plugged into social media...
i just came across for the first tim, an AD on my Instagram account from a group called
Public Land, Public Vote.
On the AD it was a football photo of our AZTECS lined up against a team.
The commentary spoke of how SDSU left 1090 because they were viewed as PRO FS and not favorable to SDSU. There also was a quote from Kirk Kenney in the SDUT.
I only post this to say that unfortunately it doesn't appear that a compromise between this FS group and SDSU is going to happen.
Mayor Faulconer i'm afraid is failing to bridge the gap and bring the FS investor group's greed down a few pegs to make room for SDSU to invest in the land
and be a true partner in the Q site.
I'm all for fighting for SDSU to have the opportunity to invest in the Q site.
Its just sad that after the Chargers disappointment, this summer will now be a war between Sports lovers in San Diego.
But...it's on.
|
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 10, 2017 15:44:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by MrPerfect on May 10, 2017 16:24:40 GMT -8
We all need to vote NO on the Soccer City initiative. Let's all unite against the FS Investors / Soccer City initiative.
|
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on May 10, 2017 19:46:20 GMT -8
I think we are missing the boat here. Why not leverage state law to have the City sell some or all of the land to SDSU first before making it available to private enterprise?
|
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on May 10, 2017 20:38:55 GMT -8
We all need to vote NO on the Soccer City initiative. Let's all unite against the FS Investors / Soccer City initiative.
OK, I take a break and it's the same ole' crap. So the initiative fails, then what? SDSU doesn't have the resources to be a part of any real equation regarding MV, and frankly, I'm not certain they're
interested in investing a significant amount of money towards any significant interest in MV.
Following the incredible efforts made to secure three quarters of a billion dollars in donations over the course of a decade, I knew something as ambitious as "SDSU West" wasn't going to come cheap. But what had me both humored and annoyed at the prospect was the inability of ANYONE to tell me HOW it was going to be PAID for.
Commercial development is a solid investment. I've seen incredible growth in Salt Lake City over the last seventeen years because of it. So I see nothing but good things ahead for San Diego. I would have supported the prospect of an "SDSU West", (perhaps from the beginning), if someone had been able to tell me how in the hell it was going to be paid for.
|
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on May 10, 2017 20:45:55 GMT -8
Thanks for the link. Took the survey. |
|
|
|
Post by mactec on May 11, 2017 7:48:11 GMT -8
We all need to vote NO on the Soccer City initiative. Let's all unite against the FS Investors / Soccer City initiative.
OK, I take a break and it's the same ole' crap. So the initiative fails, then what? SDSU doesn't have the resources to be a part of any real equation regarding MV, and frankly, I'm not certain they're
interested in investing a significant amount of money towards any significant interest in MV.
Following the incredible efforts made to secure three quarters of a billion dollars in donations over the course of a decade, I knew something as ambitious as "SDSU West" wasn't going to come cheap. But what had me both humored and annoyed at the prospect was the inability of ANYONE to tell me HOW it was going to be PAID for.
Commercial development is a solid investment. I've seen incredible growth in Salt Lake City over the last seventeen years because of it. So I see nothing but good things ahead for San Diego. I would have supported the prospect of an "SDSU West", (perhaps from the beginning), if someone had been able to tell me how in the hell it was going to be paid for.
Agreed. SDSU is only willing/able to contribute $100 million to the stadium project. The land that the Q sits on is worth $120 million itself. SDSU needs a partner. Unfortunately, SDSU and SoccerCity haven't been able to compromise on the stadium size yet. But some of us need to realize it's not "SoccerCity vs SDSU West" It's "SDSU teaming up with SoccerCity or SDSU teaming up with another venture capital firm." And I haven't seen any reason to believe that any other partner would give us a better deal. |
|
|
|
Post by matteosandiego on May 11, 2017 8:16:58 GMT -8
OK, I take a break and it's the same ole' crap. So the initiative fails, then what? SDSU doesn't have the resources to be a part of any real equation regarding MV, and frankly, I'm not certain they're
interested in investing a significant amount of money towards any significant interest in MV.
Following the incredible efforts made to secure three quarters of a billion dollars in donations over the course of a decade, I knew something as ambitious as "SDSU West" wasn't going to come cheap. But what had me both humored and annoyed at the prospect was the inability of ANYONE to tell me HOW it was going to be PAID for.
Commercial development is a solid investment. I've seen incredible growth in Salt Lake City over the last seventeen years because of it. So I see nothing but good things ahead for San Diego. I would have supported the prospect of an "SDSU West", (perhaps from the beginning), if someone had been able to tell me how in the hell it was going to be paid for.
Agreed. SDSU is only willing/able to contribute $100 million to the stadium project. The land that the Q sits on is worth $120 million itself. SDSU needs a partner. Unfortunately, SDSU and SoccerCity haven't been able to compromise on the stadium size yet. But some of us need to realize it's not "SoccerCity vs SDSU West" It's "SDSU teaming up with SoccerCity or SDSU teaming up with another venture capital firm." And I haven't seen any reason to believe that any other partner would give us a better deal.1. How do you know that SDSU is only willing/able to contribute $100 million to a stadium? The FS proposed stadium will cost $200 million and they want SDSU to contribute half of that. But that doesnt mean that SDSU is not willing or able to do more if the stadium were to be larger and or football specific. You have to remember whatever is in the FS proposal is only what FS has written and is trying to dictate. It has nothing to do with what SDSU is willing or able to do. 2. Name me ONE thing that the FS group in their initiative has conceded to meet any of SDSU's needs? SDSU has been clear about what they need/envision they can do with the Q site land. The most basic need SDSU has for the Q site is a football stadium, but FS isnt even willing to compromise on a size for SDSU's growth needs or that SDSU would get equal revenues from the stadium. Thats not called a partner. Thats called being a tenant. And no donors should be landlords to the University. 3. Again, you havent seen another partner with a better proposal because the land is not officially up for sale. Yes, the FS initiative is perfectly packaged for their agenda, but not every developer/capital firm wants or was under the impression that the public land wouldnt go thru a normal for sale process. Credit to FS for being cunning but its just one deal. Not the end of the world if we shoot it down. No wonder why all the other developers in MV are up in arms against this initiative. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 11, 2017 8:36:05 GMT -8
Thanks for the link. Took the survey. I took the survey as well but had to use zip from another house I own since I now live in Temecula. Some interesting questions. I am puzzled to think that this Soccer City idea has any chance. |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on May 11, 2017 8:44:15 GMT -8
OK, I take a break and it's the same ole' crap. So the initiative fails, then what? SDSU doesn't have the resources to be a part of any real equation regarding MV, and frankly, I'm not certain they're
interested in investing a significant amount of money towards any significant interest in MV.
Following the incredible efforts made to secure three quarters of a billion dollars in donations over the course of a decade, I knew something as ambitious as "SDSU West" wasn't going to come cheap. But what had me both humored and annoyed at the prospect was the inability of ANYONE to tell me HOW it was going to be PAID for.
Commercial development is a solid investment. I've seen incredible growth in Salt Lake City over the last seventeen years because of it. So I see nothing but good things ahead for San Diego. I would have supported the prospect of an "SDSU West", (perhaps from the beginning), if someone had been able to tell me how in the hell it was going to be paid for.
Agreed. SDSU is only willing/able to contribute $100 million to the stadium project. The land that the Q sits on is worth $120 million itself. SDSU needs a partner. Unfortunately, SDSU and SoccerCity haven't been able to compromise on the stadium size yet. But some of us need to realize it's not "SoccerCity vs SDSU West" It's "SDSU teaming up with SoccerCity or SDSU teaming up with another venture capital firm." And I haven't seen any reason to believe that any other partner would give us a better deal. That statement is absolutely not true. They are willing to split the costs with MLS, which comes to $100MM, but if they had to build the stadium on their own they could fund up to around $160MM to build a 32-35k seat stadium. SDSU is also willing to spend additional monies to buy some of the land/buildings for expansion, which is unrelated to the athletic department & a different budget. I do agree 100% with your last 2 statements. It's SDSU/FSI or it's SDSU/Other Partner(s), and thus far no other options have been presented but there's plenty of time. If Falkener & crew aren't able to find a happy medium I wouldn't be surprised to see alternative options by July. Time will tell which is best for the city/SDSU. I just hope it's not paralysis by over-analysis and/or why do today what you can put off until tomorrow, which is standard SOP for SD. Further delays in the development doesn't help anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on May 11, 2017 8:53:24 GMT -8
On the AD it was a football photo of our AZTECS lined up against a team. The commentary spoke of how SDSU left 1090 because they were viewed as PRO FS and not favorable to SDSU. There also was a quote from Kirk Kenney in the SDUT. Directly from those in the room, that is flat out FALSE. 1090's stance on Soccer City had NOTHING to do with the change to iHeart. It was solely a business deal and presented more marketing opportunities across more platforms. |
|
|
|
Post by matteosandiego on May 11, 2017 9:01:28 GMT -8
On the AD it was a football photo of our AZTECS lined up against a team. The commentary spoke of how SDSU left 1090 because they were viewed as PRO FS and not favorable to SDSU. There also was a quote from Kirk Kenney in the SDUT. Directly from those in the room, that is flat out FALSE. 1090's stance on Soccer City had NOTHING to do with the change to iHeart. It was solely a business deal and presented more marketing opportunities across more platforms. I believe 1090's treatment the past few months since FS has released their initiative has been pretty poor, but i agree with you, SDSU's decision was all business and not personal. I think that text was put there to feed into the narrative that FS is trying to buy out support. The group that created this Public Land Public Vote movement are no doubt rival developers against the soccer city group. Which just shows that this soccer plan is going to get attacked on so many fronts. |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on May 11, 2017 9:21:18 GMT -8
Directly from those in the room, that is flat out FALSE. 1090's stance on Soccer City had NOTHING to do with the change to iHeart. It was solely a business deal and presented more marketing opportunities across more platforms. I believe 1090's treatment the past few months since FS has released their initiative has been pretty poor, but i agree with you, SDSU's decision was all business and not personal. I think that text was put there to feed into the narrative that FS is trying to buy out support. The group that created this Public Land Public Vote movement are no doubt rival developers against the soccer city group. Which just shows that this soccer plan is going to get attacked on so many fronts. Unfortunately, every plan that will EVER be put on the table will be attacked on many fronts. It's SD, and that's the way city governments & opposition groups work here and in every big city. Unfortunately, at the end of the day things just get delayed & nothing gets done. Paralysis by over-analysis. A "we can always do better" mentality, year after year after year. Heck, I think Spanos' plan he presented 10-12 years ago (or whenever it was) looks pretty good right now in hindsight, but at the time it was "we can do better". We never did. We'll see if SD can come up with a better plan moving forward. Not all that confident right now. I'd bet that at the end of the day we'll lose the MLS, the Q will suck up an extra year or two of losses that didn't need to happen, and we'll be struggling to figure out what options we have in 2 years. Hope I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 11, 2017 9:25:33 GMT -8
I believe 1090's treatment the past few months since FS has released their initiative has been pretty poor, but i agree with you, SDSU's decision was all business and not personal. I think that text was put there to feed into the narrative that FS is trying to buy out support. The group that created this Public Land Public Vote movement are no doubt rival developers against the soccer city group. Which just shows that this soccer plan is going to get attacked on so many fronts. Unfortunately, every plan that will EVER be put on the table will be attacked on many fronts. It's SD, and that's the way city governments & opposition groups work here and in every big city. Unfortunately, at the end of the day things just get delayed & nothing gets done. Paralysis by over-analysis. A "we can always do better" mentality, year after year after year. Heck, I think Spanos' plan he presented 10-12 years ago (or whenever it was) looks pretty good right now in hindsight, but at the time it was "we can do better". We never did. We'll see if SD can come up with a better plan moving forward. Not all that confident right now. I'd bet that at the end of the day we'll lose the MLS, the Q will suck up an extra year or two of losses that didn't need to happen, and we'll be struggling to figure out what options we have in 2 years. Hope I'm wrong. maybe in most big cities but apparently not Atlanta and their burbs where 2 brand spanking new stadium open this year and Vegas with a new Arena open and a brand new NFL stadium on the way. San Diego and San Diegans stub their toes more often than most and nothing gets done here. It's sad IMO. Too many people stuck in the 60s not wanting anything new and shiny. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 11, 2017 9:51:48 GMT -8
For those of you that are plugged into social media... i just came across for the first tim, an AD on my Instagram account from a group called Public Land, Public Vote. On the AD it was a football photo of our AZTECS lined up against a team. The commentary spoke of how SDSU left 1090 because they were viewed as PRO FS and not favorable to SDSU. There also was a quote from Kirk Kenney in the SDUT. I only post this to say that unfortunately it doesn't appear that a compromise between this FS group and SDSU is going to happen. Mayor Faulconer i'm afraid is failing to bridge the gap and bring the FS investor group's greed down a few pegs to make room for SDSU to invest in the land and be a true partner in the Q site. I'm all for fighting for SDSU to have the opportunity to invest in the Q site. Its just sad that after the Chargers disappointment, this summer will now be a war between Sports lovers in San Diego. But...it's on. The reason they are called Public Land, Public Vote, is originally, in spite of the FSI drivel, they had no intention of putting this on the ballot. |
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on May 11, 2017 11:45:03 GMT -8
Unfortunately, every plan that will EVER be put on the table will be attacked on many fronts. It's SD, and that's the way city governments & opposition groups work here and in every big city. Unfortunately, at the end of the day things just get delayed & nothing gets done. Paralysis by over-analysis. A "we can always do better" mentality, year after year after year. Heck, I think Spanos' plan he presented 10-12 years ago (or whenever it was) looks pretty good right now in hindsight, but at the time it was "we can do better". We never did. We'll see if SD can come up with a better plan moving forward. Not all that confident right now. I'd bet that at the end of the day we'll lose the MLS, the Q will suck up an extra year or two of losses that didn't need to happen, and we'll be struggling to figure out what options we have in 2 years. Hope I'm wrong. maybe in most big cities but apparently not Atlanta and their burbs where 2 brand spanking new stadium open this year and Vegas with a new Arena open and a brand new NFL stadium on the way. San Diego and San Diegans stub their toes more often than most and nothing gets done here. It's sad IMO. Too many people stuck in the 60s not wanting anything new and shiny. Not strongly disagreeing, but doesn't this also point to the importance of strong and effective leadership from the team owner(s), esp. in the case of Atlanta and even the Raiders to a slightly lesser extent? Heck, Padres vs Chargers is also a good comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by pbnative on May 11, 2017 12:17:13 GMT -8
They could turn the land into a giant water park for all I care, as long as proper procedure is followed and the land is used for the best option with the most benefit financially and quality of life. To me, basically handing over some of the most valuable land left in CA for a "possible" $4 million a year return is not a good investment. I do not believe that what is basically a 3 million sqft outdoor mall with luxury condos is a good investment. We already have several outdoor malls that are struggling, and adding another massive mall will be detrimental to the rest of MV. The only reason to build almost 5,000 high priced condos is so the developer can cash in quickly while the citizens and surrounding area suffer the long-term consequences.
|
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 11, 2017 12:25:18 GMT -8
I believe 1090's treatment the past few months since FS has released their initiative has been pretty poor, but i agree with you, SDSU's decision was all business and not personal. I think that text was put there to feed into the narrative that FS is trying to buy out support. The group that created this Public Land Public Vote movement are no doubt rival developers against the soccer city group. Which just shows that this soccer plan is going to get attacked on so many fronts. Unfortunately, every plan that will EVER be put on the table will be attacked on many fronts. It's SD, and that's the way city governments & opposition groups work here and in every big city. Unfortunately, at the end of the day things just get delayed & nothing gets done. Paralysis by over-analysis. A "we can always do better" mentality, year after year after year. Heck, I think Spanos' plan he presented 10-12 years ago (or whenever it was) looks pretty good right now in hindsight, but at the time it was "we can do better". We never did. We'll see if SD can come up with a better plan moving forward. Not all that confident right now. I'd bet that at the end of the day we'll lose the MLS, the Q will suck up an extra year or two of losses that didn't need to happen, and we'll be struggling to figure out what options we have in 2 years. Hope I'm wrong. The Spanos plan? All he had to do was buy the land, but he felt the city should just give him the land. |
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on May 11, 2017 12:34:02 GMT -8
Thanks for the link. Took the survey. I took the survey as well but had to use zip from another house I own since I now live in Temecula. Some interesting questions. I am puzzled to think that this Soccer City idea has any chance. It has a very, very good chance to pass. And it only needs 50%+1 |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 11, 2017 12:39:09 GMT -8
I took the survey as well but had to use zip from another house I own since I now live in Temecula. Some interesting questions. I am puzzled to think that this Soccer City idea has any chance. It has a very, very good chance to pass. And it only needs 50%+1 I think as time goes by, that chance of passing will become less and less. |
|
