Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 8:57:28 GMT -8
YES MAYBE, but doesn't mean SDSU can't attempt to make a case for itself, which I think (Hope) we will see shortly after FS is officially sent to 2018. They can, but FS can sue and block the sale. Thank you so much! Not what I wanted to read. I think the soccer folks now understand they are throwing good money after bad. |
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Jun 14, 2017 8:58:58 GMT -8
First of all...ANY statement that follows "Nick Stone says..." is most likely a blatant distortion of the truth...or an alternative fact...or a boldfaced lie (take your pick)... Second...there can easily be a second initiative on the November 2018 ballot that competes directly with the FSI initiative...all it takes is a better plan and 80,000 signatures...generally what happens is that either initiative would need at least 50% of the vote...if both initiatives get 50% then the one with the higher vote total will go forward (this just happened last November with competing plans for a downtown Chrgers stadium...neither proposal got 50% in that case) That's the path going forward. Good call. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jun 14, 2017 9:06:49 GMT -8
Unfortunately, not having it at all was never an option after the 110,000 signatures. Everybody here sure is enjoying their margaritas though. Nick Stone also says it won't cost a dime of taxpayer money....except of course for the millions of dimes necessary to demolish the Q. He wants that funded by taxpayers reducing the value of their property to fit his vision. He's sort of a reverse Spanos. Spanos wanted taxpayers to fund building a stadium, Stone wants them to fund tearing one down. He also wants them to pony up $5,000,000 for a special vote to meet his timetable. And oh by the way, it's not, and never has been about soccer; it's always been about increasing their chances in an election by holding it at a time with traditionally low voter turnout. I couldn't care less when it comes up for a vote since I'll be voting no whenever Soccer City is on the ballot. You and the other 109,999 petition signers will just have to wait to be disappointed. Also--how many of those 110,000 or so signatures signed the petition mainly under the assumption that the stadium would also be used by SDSU? Since SDSU isn't on board with this plan, the people who signed under that premise might also become no votes. |
|
|
|
Post by pbnative on Jun 14, 2017 9:12:58 GMT -8
Nick Stone also says it won't cost a dime of taxpayer money....except of course for the millions of dimes necessary to demolish the Q. He wants that funded by taxpayers reducing the value of their property to fit his vision. He's sort of a reverse Spanos. Spanos wanted taxpayers to fund building a stadium, Stone wants them to fund tearing one down. He also wants them to pony up $5,000,000 for a special vote to meet his timetable. And oh by the way, it's not, and never has been about soccer; it's always been about increasing their chances in an election by holding it at a time with traditionally low voter turnout. I couldn't care less when it comes up for a vote since I'll be voting no whenever Soccer City is on the ballot. You and the other 109,999 petition signers will just have to wait to be disappointed. Also--how many of those 110,000 or so signatures signed the petition mainly under the assumption that the stadium would also be used by SDSU? Since SDSU isn't on board with this plan, the people who signed under that premise might also become no votes. Yep, and I believe almost all the people who signed the petitions were told it was send it to the City Council for a thumbs up/ down. People weren't sold that it was going to be a vote, and definitely not a $5 million special election. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jun 14, 2017 9:15:15 GMT -8
Also--how many of those 110,000 or so signatures signed the petition mainly under the assumption that the stadium would also be used by SDSU? Since SDSU isn't on board with this plan, the people who signed under that premise might also become no votes. Yep, and I believe almost all the people who signed the petitions were told it was send it to the City Council for a thumbs up/ down. People weren't sold that it was going to be a vote, and definitely not a $5 million special election. Correct, as that was the original FSI plan. They didn't want to go to the ballot. |
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Jun 14, 2017 9:17:03 GMT -8
You're absolutely right. And now that appears it will be on the ballot in 2018, I will know when to vote no on it. Of course, FSI could always withdraw the initiative, since they have said many times they can't wait that long. Allegedly. they can't. Take it for what it is worth. "Nick Stone says ..." is going to replace the iconic Maxwell Smart phrase "Would you believe ..." |
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jun 14, 2017 9:22:17 GMT -8
Assimg that soccer city is put on the 11/18 ballot, I have some questions. Does the initiative take precedence over any agreement between the city and sdsu? Is Sdsu stuck waiting for the elections outcome? Or can the city sell the land to sdsu and nullify the initiative before the vote ? YES MAYBE, but doesn't mean SDSU can't attempt to make a case for itself, which I think (Hope) we will see shortly after FS is officially sent to 2018.
They can, but FS can sue and block the sale. The words "try to" need to be inserted between "and" and "block." |
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jun 14, 2017 10:13:53 GMT -8
Thank you so much! Not what I wanted to read. I think the soccer folks now understand they are throwing good money after bad. Yup. They know their only chance is a direct adopt by CC which isn't going to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Jun 14, 2017 11:01:56 GMT -8
I think the soccer folks now understand they are throwing good money after bad. Yup. They know their only chance is a direct adopt by CC which isn't going to happen. I start chasing bad money when I start playing for midnight on the craps table. Still, I think my chance of getting 66 on a roll in craps is better than stones right now. |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jun 14, 2017 11:41:04 GMT -8
YES MAYBE, but doesn't mean SDSU can't attempt to make a case for itself, which I think (Hope) we will see shortly after FS is officially sent to 2018. They can, but FS can sue and block the sale. Thank you so much! Not what I wanted to read. I have talked with several folks that are very knowledgeable about citizens initiatives, etc and this is what I have gleaned... 1. It is just that an initiative, it has no validity nor does it require anyone to do anything. Except for in this case be voted on at some time. 2. The city is not legally bound by it until after it is passed and if it has competing ballot initiatives receives more votes than any other competing initiative. 3. The city can start an RFP process right now or accept another CI or receive another CI and put it on a special election or a "normal" election in 2018, they can basically do whatever they want. However, there is always the chance that someone brings litigation to stop any action the City decides to take. 4. Anything that would be done to stop The City from acting would need to be "brought" as an action by FSI as the initiative sponsor, if they don't act then they would be allowing their initiative to become irrelevant, because the City may no longer "own" the property. 5. If FSI was to go down the path of acquiring the property through the initiative process and wins with 50%+1 in 2018 that does not preclude another entity, SDSU/CSU, from using eminent domain to acquire the land from FSI.(there is a whole other thread on this with significant backup for how it has been done to support universities both private and public) I was told that the amount actually paid directly to the City would more than likely be the "fair market value" for the land... |
|
|
|
Post by badfish on Jun 14, 2017 15:01:02 GMT -8
How long does an RFl take? If/when CC denies special election, will we be voting on this in 2018?
Also, how confident are we that we will extend lease at Q and pay for it ourselves until stadium is built?
|
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jun 14, 2017 15:37:02 GMT -8
How long does an RFl take? If/when CC denies special election, will we be voting on this in 2018? Also, how confident are we that we will extend lease at Q and pay for it ourselves until stadium is built? RFP. Request for Proposals, i.e., a request for bids. It's been a long time since I dealt with that so I can't recall the long and the short of it but some government contracts in California aren't legal without there first having been an RFP. To my recollection the standard for acceptance at least used to be that the contract had to be offered to the company with the "lowest responsible bid." Meaning that bids from organizations without demonstrated competence in the field or possession of the requisite licenses are not valid. RFPs always have some filing deadline and that can vary according to the sophistication of the project. Rome wasn't built in a day so it can be assumed an RFP for anything as big as development of the Qualcomm site is going to have to allot several months for private enterprises to put something together. |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jun 14, 2017 15:47:08 GMT -8
How long does an RFl take? If/when CC denies special election, will we be voting on this in 2018? Also, how confident are we that we will extend lease at Q and pay for it ourselves until stadium is built? RFP. Request for Proposals, i.e., a request for bids. It's been a long time since I dealt with that so I can't recall the long and the short of it but some government contracts in California aren't legal without there first having been an RFP. To my recollection the standard for acceptance at least used to be that the contract had to be offered to the company with the "lowest responsible bid." Meaning that bids from organizations without demonstrated competence in the field or possession of the requisite licenses are not valid. An RFI can be as little as 30 days since you are only looking for ideas. Then you could expect 30 to 60 days to incorporate ideas into a formal RFP. Then 60 to 90 days until responses are due back. Then 30 to 60 days for clarification/questions answered on the bids as well as thinning the field down to finalists. Then another 30 days to award. So from six to nine months. No more than one year, unless someone sues the city to stop the process. One final note, at the end of the process the council could always decide to put the award on the ballot instead of actually awarding the RFP, but that is unlikely. And one final, final note... the council could just sell the property for the appraised amount right now to any party, but if they wanted to do that it would require letting other government agencies know of their intent. |
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jun 14, 2017 16:17:45 GMT -8
Thanks BA. As I said, it's been a long time since I was directly involved with that type of thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdaztec on Jun 14, 2017 17:57:19 GMT -8
I just received a phone call from a young woman asking that I attend Monday City Council Meeting to oppose Soccer City in 2017. I told her I would send an e-mail and she sent me to The Publiclandpublicvote website. It will not allow me to e-mail since I am not a San Diego City Resident. This is obviously a Region wide issue. How can I send my e-mail ?
|
|
