|
|
Post by bolt1963 on May 15, 2017 17:45:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on May 15, 2017 18:11:30 GMT -8
Folks, many on this board are giving FSI way too much credit... Do you really believe that they are that much smarter than all of the other local or nation investors/developers? Do you really think they are the only ones who thought of using an initiative to bypass the local government and go directly to the community? There is no way. It has been tried in SD County and failed and because of that no other group has decided to try it other than FSI. It is not going to work this time either. From what I am hearing there is a good chance (75%) that there will not be a special election in the fall and even if there is it will fail and even if by a miracle it passes there will be multiple lawsuits filed almost immediately after the approval. That seems quite optimistic. The mayor has already called a special election for the convention center. Why would there not be an election for FSI to jump onto? Their polling is quite strong. That is recognized internally at SDSU. There becomes a point where opinion becomes fact because enough people buy into it. We are rapidly approaching the point where SoccerCity will be fait compli. The believe otherwise is just grasping at straws. Would love to see some solid evidence pointing to a different conclusion. True the Mayor has called for the special election but the city council still has to approve it. Considering the city is already $80 million in the hole they may not be too keen on spending $2.5 million for a special election for a Convention Center expansion that is doomed to fail and a soccer proposal that will also face stiff opposition. We will see. |
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on May 15, 2017 18:17:02 GMT -8
JEEZ-US. You cannot make up this boobery. What a clown act. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on May 16, 2017 7:47:55 GMT -8
As I understand it, SDSU has no short term goals for developing much of the site and the FS proposal does take care of some of their immediate needs. They have some long term goals for expansion. They do need a stadium by 2020 if they want to keep the football program and they don't have the money to procure land and build that on their own. As you say, they need a partner and that partner is going to want to develop the site now, not beginning 20 or 30 years from now. The city would like to eliminate their costs associated with maintaining the Q and they would also like to see tax revenue from developing the site so they are not going to want to wait decades either. They also want to see a park along the river which increases the cost of the development while restricting income to the developer. The needs of the university for a football stadium built exactly they way they want is not going to be the priority of any developer. If the university wants control of the property they should have had a plan out months ago but, of course, a plan is no good without the money to at least convince someone you can and will implement it. SDSU has a lot of land they already own for university expansion. They own much of the land around Alvarado Hospital (and they have some long term plans for redevelopment there advancement.sdsu.edu/masterplan/2007/images/Alvarado%20Campus%20lowres.jpg), they have numerous parking lots (not the highest and best use of the property) that they can build on, and they have areas on the campus that can be redeveloped. If Hardy Elementary is ever shuttered they should pursue that land vigorously though they would never get approval for a stadium to be built there. Personally, I prefer keeping as much of the academic and "on campus" living areas on the campus itself as possible. If the CSU charter ever changes to allow CSU schools to have law or med schools then that campus can be separate from the main campus with little impact on the students You seem to not believe any of SDSU's stances on the MV site. The only immediate need the FS plan takes care of is a place to play football. But none of that deal is partnership material. No cost effective expansion, and not the revenue structures SDSU claims are not on a partnership level either. As for developing the land, you are taking one sound bite you heard from one person about taking 20-30 years to develop the land and are running with it like many soccer honks around town. They did say they would immediately begin to develop the land, but it would no doubt take many years to get to completion. And as for campus expansion it all just depends on what direction their vision aims for. But just as Scott Lewis from Voice of SD noted, the soccer city proposal is not the only plan that will generate a tax base. ANYTHING that is developed there on the site will generate a positive tax base compared to what is currently there. Maybe its true like others have noted, that i see things with only my red & black goggles on but I'm really curious since you dont seem to believe the University on ANY of their stances, What do you think is the motivation for SDSU not supporting the FS deal? If its such a great deal for them, why do you think they are so opposed to it? These investors ARE SDSU donors after all right? Why would SDSU take such an opposing stance against them, if the deal is such a good one? It is hard to believe in what doesn't exist. If SDSU has actually proposed a plan with a level of detail (and the means to pull it off) please point me to it. And, actually, the FS proposal does include some student residential and faculty office space. SDSU is not going to be a full partner in any development of the property as it stands right now, they aren't bringing much money in with them. I don't care if that partner is FS, Moores, Manchester or the next proposed savior, all are going to want to make the development work for them. By the way, I am not a soccer honk. I'd probably tune in a little for a local team (being a native San Diegan). I really find it discouraging that anyone who professes an opinion that may differ from the mean they are immediately labeled a "honk" for the "enemy" by others on this board. Again, what actual plan has SDSU come up with for the property? I repeat myself here because you do. Right now I just see the university opposing plans for the site, both now and in the past. Perhaps their plan is to fight any redevelopment of the site so as to leave it vacant for the day, which may or may not ever come, when they have all the pieces in place to take over and have the money to develop it. That's pretty much a crappy plan if that is the case. Perhaps they are just posturing in order to get more out of FS for themselves. That would be a better plan. At least the FS plan has some detail to it and does have the possibility of getting a new stadium built before 2020. If their vote fails you will be well into 2019 before you can get anything onto the ballot. |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on May 16, 2017 8:59:26 GMT -8
You seem to not believe any of SDSU's stances on the MV site. The only immediate need the FS plan takes care of is a place to play football. But none of that deal is partnership material. No cost effective expansion, and not the revenue structures SDSU claims are not on a partnership level either. As for developing the land, you are taking one sound bite you heard from one person about taking 20-30 years to develop the land and are running with it like many soccer honks around town. They did say they would immediately begin to develop the land, but it would no doubt take many years to get to completion. And as for campus expansion it all just depends on what direction their vision aims for. But just as Scott Lewis from Voice of SD noted, the soccer city proposal is not the only plan that will generate a tax base. ANYTHING that is developed there on the site will generate a positive tax base compared to what is currently there. Maybe its true like others have noted, that i see things with only my red & black goggles on but I'm really curious since you dont seem to believe the University on ANY of their stances, What do you think is the motivation for SDSU not supporting the FS deal? If its such a great deal for them, why do you think they are so opposed to it? These investors ARE SDSU donors after all right? Why would SDSU take such an opposing stance against them, if the deal is such a good one? It is hard to believe in what doesn't exist. If SDSU has actually proposed a plan with a level of detail (and the means to pull it off) please point me to it. And, actually, the FS proposal does include some student residential and faculty office space. SDSU is not going to be a full partner in any development of the property as it stands right now, they aren't bringing much money in with them. I don't care if that partner is FS, Moores, Manchester or the next proposed savior, all are going to want to make the development work for them. By the way, I am not a soccer honk. I'd probably tune in a little for a local team (being a native San Diegan). I really find it discouraging that anyone who professes an opinion that may differ from the mean they are immediately labeled a "honk" for the "enemy" by others on this board. Again, what actual plan has SDSU come up with for the property? I repeat myself here because you do. Right now I just see the university opposing plans for the site, both now and in the past. Perhaps their plan is to fight any redevelopment of the site so as to leave it vacant for the day, which may or may not ever come, when they have all the pieces in place to take over and have the money to develop it. That's pretty much a crappy plan if that is the case. Perhaps they are just posturing in order to get more out of FS for themselves. That would be a better plan. At least the FS plan has some detail to it and does have the possibility of getting a new stadium built before 2020. If their vote fails you will be well into 2019 before you can get anything onto the ballot. You make a few good points and things that all SDSU fans should be aware of and worried about. You are correct, there is no alternate plan other than Manchester's high level stuff. There are a couple of points I would make that are at least a little different than what you have said. 1. The FSI Initiative is not going to pass, I would love for someone to point to an initiative that passed in San Diego County that had significant opposition like this one will have. Then take that narrow group of initiatives, maybe zero already, and then thin them out to show those that passed and then didn't have lawsuits filed against it that took months or years to finish... I thought it was prudent before the Chargers left that SDSU not take a position on DT or MV or LA until it had played out. I think the right position here is to work with FSI as much as you can while until June when the council will decide if there is a special election. If there is a special election then you can choose to get a little cozier with FSI if you want (I wouldn't, but that is my opinion based on what I think will play out and that the initiative will not pass). If there is no special election then it is a mute point and the city will have to move to the open bidding process. 2. There are other threads on this topic, with links to CSU approved capital plans and allocations for SDSU as part of the CSU Master Plan, but in short the CSU System know that there is a need for more than 30,000 incremental students in the San Diego County area that should be worked into SDSU and San Marcos. To say there is no money for expansion, etc. is not fair. None of that covers the costs of a new stadium so it is fair to wonder if SDSU has a plan for raising funds or if SDSU has funds already "guaranteed" to them for a new stadium. |
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on May 16, 2017 10:31:15 GMT -8
1. The FSI Initiative is not going to pass Initiative only needs a simple majority. 50% + 1 vote. That's a much different threshold than raising taxes and needing a super majority. |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on May 16, 2017 10:55:23 GMT -8
1. The FSI Initiative is not going to pass Initiative only needs a simple majority. 50% + 1 vote. That's a much different threshold than raising taxes and needing a super majority. you are correct, and there have been many other initiatives that did not require 67%, that only required 50%+1... I stand by my statement, I don't think there any initiatives that have passed and been implemented... The only ones I can think of did not pass or were held up with significant litigation after passing... |
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on May 16, 2017 11:37:42 GMT -8
Initiative only needs a simple majority. 50% + 1 vote. That's a much different threshold than raising taxes and needing a super majority. you are correct, and there have been many other initiatives that did not require 67%, that only required 50%+1... I stand by my statement, I don't think there any initiatives that have passed and been implemented... The only ones I can think of did not pass or were held up with significant litigation after passing... We'll see how everything shakes out. If Acee is correct and the mayor is endorsing soon with or without SDSU. And if the opposition is mostly confined to other developers who have no interest in SDSU. Then I think this thing is a virtual lock to pass. Razing Qualcomm and developing land earning money for the City without a dime of tax payer money. My hope is Kaplan had legit info and Manchester is prepared to do something crazy. But outside from that, I'll continue to be totally confused by many if you guys around here. Cutting nose off to spite face deal. |
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on May 16, 2017 11:42:07 GMT -8
The CSU chancellor publicly stated interest in the Mission Valley land yesterday along with announcing the hiring of the interim president. If somehow the FS plan does pass I'm now pretty confident the state will use eminent domain to take what it sees as necessary. I still don't think the FS plan will pass though as opposition hasn't even really begun yet and FS plan details will not be received well as people educate themselves on the proposal.
|
|
|
|
Post by matteosandiego on May 16, 2017 11:45:03 GMT -8
you are correct, and there have been many other initiatives that did not require 67%, that only required 50%+1... I stand by my statement, I don't think there any initiatives that have passed and been implemented... The only ones I can think of did not pass or were held up with significant litigation after passing... We'll see how everything shakes out. If Acee is correct and the mayor is endorsing soon with or without SDSU. And if the opposition is mostly confined to other developers who have no interest in SDSU. Then I think this thing is a virtual lock to pass. Razing Qualcomm and developing land earning money for the City without a dime of tax payer money. My hope is Kaplan had legit info and Manchester is prepared to do something crazy. But outside from that, I'll continue to be totally confused by many if you guys around here. Cutting nose off to spite face deal. JD Wicker will be on 1360 at 5pm today. Should shed some light on developments i hope. And give info if Manchester is in fact in the works. But we'll see.... |
|
|
|
Post by jdgaucho on May 16, 2017 11:54:32 GMT -8
In other totally unrelated news, UCSD's Division 1 referendum expires in September 2018. What a coincidence, huh? |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 16, 2017 11:58:19 GMT -8
In other totally unrelated news, UCSD's Division 1 referendum expires in September 2018. What a coincidence, huh? Meaning what, exactly? |
|
|
|
Post by matteosandiego on May 16, 2017 12:02:40 GMT -8
You seem to not believe any of SDSU's stances on the MV site. The only immediate need the FS plan takes care of is a place to play football. But none of that deal is partnership material. No cost effective expansion, and not the revenue structures SDSU claims are not on a partnership level either. As for developing the land, you are taking one sound bite you heard from one person about taking 20-30 years to develop the land and are running with it like many soccer honks around town. They did say they would immediately begin to develop the land, but it would no doubt take many years to get to completion. And as for campus expansion it all just depends on what direction their vision aims for. But just as Scott Lewis from Voice of SD noted, the soccer city proposal is not the only plan that will generate a tax base. ANYTHING that is developed there on the site will generate a positive tax base compared to what is currently there. Maybe its true like others have noted, that i see things with only my red & black goggles on but I'm really curious since you dont seem to believe the University on ANY of their stances, What do you think is the motivation for SDSU not supporting the FS deal? If its such a great deal for them, why do you think they are so opposed to it? These investors ARE SDSU donors after all right? Why would SDSU take such an opposing stance against them, if the deal is such a good one? It is hard to believe in what doesn't exist. If SDSU has actually proposed a plan with a level of detail (and the means to pull it off) please point me to it. And, actually, the FS proposal does include some student residential and faculty office space. SDSU is not going to be a full partner in any development of the property as it stands right now, they aren't bringing much money in with them. I don't care if that partner is FS, Moores, Manchester or the next proposed savior, all are going to want to make the development work for them. By the way, I am not a soccer honk. I'd probably tune in a little for a local team (being a native San Diegan). I really find it discouraging that anyone who professes an opinion that may differ from the mean they are immediately labeled a "honk" for the "enemy" by others on this board. Again, what actual plan has SDSU come up with for the property? I repeat myself here because you do. Right now I just see the university opposing plans for the site, both now and in the past. Perhaps their plan is to fight any redevelopment of the site so as to leave it vacant for the day, which may or may not ever come, when they have all the pieces in place to take over and have the money to develop it. That's pretty much a crappy plan if that is the case. Perhaps they are just posturing in order to get more out of FS for themselves. That would be a better plan. At least the FS plan has some detail to it and does have the possibility of getting a new stadium built before 2020. If their vote fails you will be well into 2019 before you can get anything onto the ballot. Sorry if you think i'm calling you a soccer honk. Not the case. But those honks use that soundbite as their main defense to SDSU expansion. Hope you dont buy into that crap and use it too. You shouldn't, if so. But oh well. Not sure what other plans from the past you are referring to that SDSU opposes. The FS plan is obviously not a good deal for SDSU otherwise they would be on board. You suspect SDSU wants to just sit on the land until they have money to develop it? That is also a load of crap considering they have stated from the beginning they want to partner with a developer. You want SDSU to be prepared with a plan...dont you realize they spent the last year negotiating with FS over THAT particular plan. FS was obviously the preferred first choice to work with. But it is FS who was/is unwilling to budge in being a true partner. Why that then leads you to assume SDSU as the "obstructor" is beyond me. Was it not SDSU who put out emails and surveys legitimately asking for MLS/SDSU feedback? |
|
|
|
Post by jdgaucho on May 16, 2017 12:37:38 GMT -8
In other totally unrelated news, UCSD's Division 1 referendum expires in September 2018. What a coincidence, huh? Meaning what, exactly? Meaning SDSU has to potentially work on two fronts at the same time. Obviously your energies are mostly focused on this new stadium with a 40k capacity. It's duly noted that most of y'all don't trust FS. But a stadium is better than none. And while it's unrelated, the timing is such that the second-to-last thing you want is UCSD joining the Division 1 ranks. You want to keep the BW open in case your stadium hopes are dashed, you get a football-only invite to the AAC, decide to go independent, you think the MW is a slow death sentence, whatever. But if they're invited your safety net disappears. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on May 16, 2017 12:54:32 GMT -8
Meaning SDSU has to potentially work on two fronts at the same time. Obviously your energies are mostly focused on this new stadium with a 40k capacity. It's duly noted that most of y'all don't trust FS. But a stadium is better than none. And while it's unrelated, the timing is such that the second-to-last thing you want is UCSD joining the Division 1 ranks. You want to keep the BW open in case your stadium hopes are dashed, you get a football-only invite to the AAC, decide to go independent, you think the MW is a slow death sentence, whatever. But if they're invited your safety net disappears. Sorry, UCSD is not registering, Big West is not registering, AAC is not registering for football only, as they get the same peanuts as the MWC. I wish UCSD well in whatever they are going for, because honestly, they are only relevant when you remind me to believe they should be. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on May 16, 2017 12:58:47 GMT -8
It is hard to believe in what doesn't exist. If SDSU has actually proposed a plan with a level of detail (and the means to pull it off) please point me to it. And, actually, the FS proposal does include some student residential and faculty office space. SDSU is not going to be a full partner in any development of the property as it stands right now, they aren't bringing much money in with them. I don't care if that partner is FS, Moores, Manchester or the next proposed savior, all are going to want to make the development work for them. By the way, I am not a soccer honk. I'd probably tune in a little for a local team (being a native San Diegan). I really find it discouraging that anyone who professes an opinion that may differ from the mean they are immediately labeled a "honk" for the "enemy" by others on this board. Again, what actual plan has SDSU come up with for the property? I repeat myself here because you do. Right now I just see the university opposing plans for the site, both now and in the past. Perhaps their plan is to fight any redevelopment of the site so as to leave it vacant for the day, which may or may not ever come, when they have all the pieces in place to take over and have the money to develop it. That's pretty much a crappy plan if that is the case. Perhaps they are just posturing in order to get more out of FS for themselves. That would be a better plan. At least the FS plan has some detail to it and does have the possibility of getting a new stadium built before 2020. If their vote fails you will be well into 2019 before you can get anything onto the ballot. Sorry if you think i'm calling you a soccer honk. Not the case. But those honks use that soundbite as their main defense to SDSU expansion. Hope you dont buy into that crap and use it too. You shouldn't, if so. But oh well. Not sure what other plans from the past you are referring to that SDSU opposes. The FS plan is obviously not a good deal for SDSU otherwise they would be on board. You suspect SDSU wants to just sit on the land until they have money to develop it? That is also a load of crap considering they have stated from the beginning they want to partner with a developer. You want SDSU to be prepared with a plan...dont you realize they spent the last year negotiating with FS over THAT particular plan. FS was obviously the preferred first choice to work with. But it is FS who was/is unwilling to budge in being a true partner. Why that then leads you to assume SDSU as the "obstructor" is beyond me. Was it not SDSU who put out emails and surveys legitimately asking for MLS/SDSU feedback? I keep hearing this "SDSU bad guy" thing too. Curious to see how they are, when they haven't said much, haven't openly opposed it on its face, and they don't have "the stroke" for anything anyway, and FSI can do it all themselves. Seems like all these thought processes aren't dovetailing like they should. If FS plan fails, it's because it wasn't a good plan, or perhaps people recognize the long-term value of the land, and want to see what other options there could be when they actually put it to the market. Or, what, FS is going to walk if it is voted no and multiple people can submit proposals? If so, probably wasn't a good plan then. |
|
|
|
Post by jdgaucho on May 16, 2017 13:01:56 GMT -8
Meaning SDSU has to potentially work on two fronts at the same time. Obviously your energies are mostly focused on this new stadium with a 40k capacity. It's duly noted that most of y'all don't trust FS. But a stadium is better than none. And while it's unrelated, the timing is such that the second-to-last thing you want is UCSD joining the Division 1 ranks. You want to keep the BW open in case your stadium hopes are dashed, you get a football-only invite to the AAC, decide to go independent, you think the MW is a slow death sentence, whatever. But if they're invited your safety net disappears. Sorry, UCSD is not registering, Big West is not registering, AAC is not registering for football only, as they get the same peanuts as the MWC. I wish UCSD well in whatever they are going for, because honestly, they are only relevant when you remind me to believe they should be. Just saying keep your eyes peeled. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on May 16, 2017 13:03:37 GMT -8
Sorry, UCSD is not registering, Big West is not registering, AAC is not registering for football only, as they get the same peanuts as the MWC. I wish UCSD well in whatever they are going for, because honestly, they are only relevant when you remind me to believe they should be. Just saying keep your eyes peeled. Noted. Keep us abreast of things.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2017 13:10:39 GMT -8
I don't profess to know much about this but I thought I would throw in a few bits of information I have been told...
The first is from someone who works w/in the Athletic Department at SDSU--- he says the Aztecs are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. It seems some major boosters are in the group of FS developers so even if it's not a great deal for SDSU they can't object too much without offending the major boosters. Of course, I have no hard facts on this, it's simply hearsay.
My second bit of hearsay, which could be completely wrong since I have read nothing about it on here from any of you knowledgeable posters, is from a guy who is or was considering investing in the FS deal (He's got some real coin)... he told me that included in the FS plan is, somewhere down the road, the addition of an NFL Stadium. I questioned him on this but he said, yes, two stadiums are in the plans - all I need to do is review the proposal... Of course, I figured if this was wrong someone here would tell me so. I certainly don't care enough to investigate it.
Have at it... |
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on May 16, 2017 13:14:52 GMT -8
The NFL is never coming back to SD.
|
|
