|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jul 17, 2017 20:00:48 GMT -8
Go back and look at posts by many on this board. I guarantee you that you will find folks that had the FSI "partnership" pegged back in November as well as many other things correct. I posted a little over a month ago that something would CE out in the next two weeks. I was wrong, but the support from the council and others in and around the city/county caused leadership to "slow their roll" and wait to announce "plans". For example, I am 100% certain that one of the potential plans being worked on right now is a 12-17 acre carve out that would be rezoned and sold to SDSU through surplus property. It is a real possibility. Just because it doesn't happen won't mean that it wasn't seriously considered, even if the SDSU leadership at some point acoffs at the option as something that they never really considered. They may. It publicly say everything... Yes, a carve out is a good way to put it. No full SDSU west is gonna happen. I never expected it would but SDSU will get a good chunk of land in MV for future expansion. I would expect a minimum of 35-40 acres plus an additional 12 acres minimum for a new stadium. Go SDSU WEST! Go AZTECS!
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Jul 18, 2017 7:52:08 GMT -8
We expecting that to get shot down or what? Haven't heard much on the topic lately. Here is Myrtle's tweet about the 25th... The city council has no authority over land disposition. They can not make it surplus land. Only the mayor has the authority to do that. So this discussion next week will be them asking the real estate assets department - who works for the mayor - what their options are. What do you think REA will tell them?
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jul 18, 2017 8:18:10 GMT -8
Here is Myrtle's tweet about the 25th... The city council has no authority over land disposition. They can not make it surplus land. Only the mayor has the authority to do that. So this discussion next week will be them asking the real estate assets department - who works for the mayor - what their options are. What do you think REA will tell them? Been through this on another thread and posted all of the relevant information. There is nothing that says that the council can't do it. There is wording that requires the mayors office to report on assets to the council at least once per year and when they ask. We will see how the council plays it...
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jul 18, 2017 9:15:06 GMT -8
Even if the mayor doesn't declare it surplus what is to stop Fenton/Sudbury from funding a citizens initiative to sell 15 acres at FMV to SDSU or a stadium authority so construction can begin much sooner than soccer city. Sounds like the council would support that and would be the final blow to soccer city.
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Jul 18, 2017 9:21:58 GMT -8
Even if the mayor doesn't declare it surplus what is to stop Fenton/Sudbury from funding a citizens initiative to sell 15 acres at FMV to SDSU or a stadium authority so construction can begin much sooner than soccer city. Sounds like the council would support that and would be the final blow to soccer city. this is much more realistic than the council making it surplus. The mayor would veto that council action anyway. My mind is boggled by the amount of people on this board who think the city - mayor or council - is really going to go out of their way to help SDSU. They talked a big game last month. But the reality is, we are a convenient foil for the Democrats on the city council to stick it to the mayor. Push comes to shove, we will need private support to make anything happen.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Jul 18, 2017 9:56:35 GMT -8
Even if the mayor doesn't declare it surplus what is to stop Fenton/Sudbury from funding a citizens initiative to sell 15 acres at FMV to SDSU or a stadium authority so construction can begin much sooner than soccer city. Sounds like the council would support that and would be the final blow to soccer city. this is much more realistic than the council making it surplus. The mayor would veto that council action anyway. My mind is boggled by the amount of people on this board who think the city - mayor or council - is really going to go out of their way to help SDSU. They talked a big game last month. But the reality is, we are a convenient foil for the Democrats on the city council to stick it to the mayor. Push comes to shove, we will need private support to make anything happen. [/b] There is private support, and the City Council is "going out of its way" to support SDSU. In fact, ever sense SDSU has backed out of the FSI deal, everything that SDSU has pushed for as happened. Naturally, the War is not over, but SDSU has won every battle since the War was declared.
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Jul 18, 2017 10:12:01 GMT -8
this is much more realistic than the council making it surplus. The mayor would veto that council action anyway. My mind is boggled by the amount of people on this board who think the city - mayor or council - is really going to go out of their way to help SDSU. They talked a big game last month. But the reality is, we are a convenient foil for the Democrats on the city council to stick it to the mayor. Push comes to shove, we will need private support to make anything happen. [/b] There is private support, and the City Council is "going out of its way" to support SDSU. In fact, ever sense SDSU has backed out of the FSI deal, everything that SDSU has pushed for as happened. Naturally, the War is not over, but SDSU has won every battle since the War was declared.[/quote] What has the city council done for SDSU aside from stopping the special election, which wasn't "for SDSU." ? Have they urged the mayor to extend our lease? Have they started working on an RFP process for the site? They are beholden to labor, not us. If labor gets a deal they like with SoccerCity, guess who will jump on board... Dems on council. I certainly hope things go our way and they all follow through with all the things they said at the hearing last month. But I'm not optimistic. As I said before, SDSU is a convenient excuse for screwing the mayor. But until shovels are in the ground for our new stadium, I don't believe a word ANY of the elected officials in this town say.
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jul 18, 2017 10:29:34 GMT -8
[/b] There is private support, and the City Council is "going out of its way" to support SDSU. In fact, ever sense SDSU has backed out of the FSI deal, everything that SDSU has pushed for as happened. Naturally, the War is not over, but SDSU has won every battle since the War was declared.[/quote] What has the city council done for SDSU aside from stopping the special election, which wasn't "for SDSU." ? Have they urged the mayor to extend our lease? Have they started working on an RFP process for the site? They are beholden to labor, not us. If labor gets a deal they like with SoccerCity, guess who will jump on board... Dems on council. I certainly hope things go our way and they all follow through with all the things they said at the hearing last month. But I'm not optimistic. As I said before, SDSU is a convenient excuse for screwing the mayor. But until shovels are in the ground for our new stadium, I don't believe a word ANY of the elected officials in this town say. [/quote] I am sure they are happy to "stick it to the mayor", but 6 of9 have supported SDSU in public comments and listed it as a reason to slow down or stop SuckerCity. Five of the council members have stated that one of the key criteria for what to do with the land is meeting the needs of SDSU. It is clear now that the Mayor and FSI knew that there was no way to get their plan through the council which is why they went with the initiative process.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jul 18, 2017 11:08:59 GMT -8
[/b] There is private support, and the City Council is "going out of its way" to support SDSU. In fact, ever sense SDSU has backed out of the FSI deal, everything that SDSU has pushed for as happened. Naturally, the War is not over, but SDSU has won every battle since the War was declared.[/quote] What has the city council done for SDSU aside from stopping the special election, which wasn't "for SDSU." ? Have they urged the mayor to extend our lease? Have they started working on an RFP process for the site? They are beholden to labor, not us. If labor gets a deal they like with SoccerCity, guess who will jump on board... Dems on council. I certainly hope things go our way and they all follow through with all the things they said at the hearing last month. But I'm not optimistic. As I said before, SDSU is a convenient excuse for screwing the mayor. But until shovels are in the ground for our new stadium, I don't believe a word ANY of the elected officials in this town say. [/quote] I am sure they are happy to "stick it to the mayor", but 6 of9 have supported SDSU in public comments and listed it as a reason to slow down or stop SuckerCity. Five of the council members have stated that one of the key criteria for what to do with the land is meeting the needs of SDSU. It is clear now that the Mayor and FSI knew that there was no way to get their plan through the council which is why they went with the initiative process. [/quote] But didn't FSI originally go through the initiative process to avoid having a vote by the electorate? Their original plan was to get thousands of signatures, and present those signatures to the council, figuring the "overwhelming support" could just be approved by the city council, and off FSI would go into developing the Qualcomm site. With or without SDSU.
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jul 18, 2017 13:02:30 GMT -8
[/b] There is private support, and the City Council is "going out of its way" to support SDSU. In fact, ever sense SDSU has backed out of the FSI deal, everything that SDSU has pushed for as happened. Naturally, the War is not over, but SDSU has won every battle since the War was declared.[/quote] What has the city council done for SDSU aside from stopping the special election, which wasn't "for SDSU." ? Have they urged the mayor to extend our lease? Have they started working on an RFP process for the site? They are beholden to labor, not us. If labor gets a deal they like with SoccerCity, guess who will jump on board... Dems on council. I certainly hope things go our way and they all follow through with all the things they said at the hearing last month. But I'm not optimistic. As I said before, SDSU is a convenient excuse for screwing the mayor. But until shovels are in the ground for our new stadium, I don't believe a word ANY of the elected officials in this town say. [/quote] I am sure they are happy to "stick it to the mayor", but 6 of9 have supported SDSU in public comments and listed it as a reason to slow down or stop SuckerCity. Five of the council members have stated that one of the key criteria for what to do with the land is meeting the needs of SDSU. It is clear now that the Mayor and FSI knew that there was no way to get their plan through the council which is why they went with the initiative process. [/quote] But didn't FSI originally go through the initiative process to avoid having a vote by the electorate? Their original plan was to get thousands of signatures, and present those signatures to the council, figuring the "overwhelming support" could just be approved by the city council, and off FSI would go into developing the Qualcomm site. With or without SDSU.[/quote] Same thing... they went with the initiative because they new there was no way they would get a land sale from the city, have it approved by the council and voters and avoid the surplus preference for government agencies. There was just no way. I think they hoped that SDSU was going to be on board and that they could get the council to say yes or at least put it on the ballot. That was easily there best and only option. It just didn't work.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jul 18, 2017 16:17:12 GMT -8
Even if the mayor doesn't declare it surplus what is to stop Fenton/Sudbury from funding a citizens initiative to sell 15 acres at FMV to SDSU or a stadium authority so construction can begin much sooner than soccer city. Sounds like the council would support that and would be the final blow to soccer city. this is much more realistic than the council making it surplus. The mayor would veto that council action anyway. My mind is boggled by the amount of people on this board who think the city - mayor or council - is really going to go out of their way to help SDSU. They talked a big game last month. But the reality is, we are a convenient foil for the Democrats on the city council to stick it to the mayor. Push comes to shove, we will need private support to make anything happen. Not if they have 6 votes. His veto has no power at that point. We already have 5 & I could see Zapf flipping to the SDSU side.
|
|
|
Post by charger90 on Jul 18, 2017 16:30:52 GMT -8
People claiming they have insider information..
|
|
|
Post by badfish on Jul 18, 2017 19:08:19 GMT -8
People claiming they have insider information.. Yup. Been posting here for a while and have an idea of who's an ass and who isn't, but I've seen my fair share of "sources" to know not to trust the internet, regardless of who's posting.
|
|
|
Post by naztec on Jul 18, 2017 19:13:46 GMT -8
Wow this thread is lit. Sounds like it's going really really well. Just fantastic, lots of progress.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jul 18, 2017 19:20:38 GMT -8
this is much more realistic than the council making it surplus. The mayor would veto that council action anyway. My mind is boggled by the amount of people on this board who think the city - mayor or council - is really going to go out of their way to help SDSU. They talked a big game last month. But the reality is, we are a convenient foil for the Democrats on the city council to stick it to the mayor. Push comes to shove, we will need private support to make anything happen. Not if they have 6 votes. His veto has no power at that point. We already have 5 & I could see Zapf flipping to the SDSU side. Assuming Zapf shows up to vote this time.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jul 18, 2017 20:08:00 GMT -8
Not if they have 6 votes. His veto has no power at that point. We already have 5 & I could see Zapf flipping to the SDSU side. Assuming Zapf shows up to vote this time. :rotflmao Just goes to show you how much she hates Soccer City.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Jul 18, 2017 20:15:41 GMT -8
Here is Myrtle's tweet about the 25th... The city council has no authority over land disposition. They can not make it surplus land. Only the mayor has the authority to do that. So this discussion next week will be them asking the real estate assets department - who works for the mayor - what their options are. What do you think REA will tell them? Pt. Loma: Well then we will see where the power lies. You make a case for the mayors autonomy. What battles has he won lately,? He backed the carpetbaggers and lost , did he not? Now you are saying he alone will decide the disposition of the site? I think he has pathetically miscalculated the strength of SDSU . It stands with the Military and the tourism industry as one of the three most important entities in sd county. The city council will not support the logic and power of SDSU getting a chunk of the site ? Is that what you're saying? Even the mayor, the anti Aztec , will in time acquiesce to the inivetable. You paint the scene as Repub vs Dem. seems too simplistic thsat way. It's about influence groups too and SDSU is certainly one of the strong arm Players.
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Jul 19, 2017 9:11:03 GMT -8
The city council has no authority over land disposition. They can not make it surplus land. Only the mayor has the authority to do that. So this discussion next week will be them asking the real estate assets department - who works for the mayor - what their options are. What do you think REA will tell them? Pt. Loma: Well then we will see where the power lies. You make a case for the mayors autonomy. What battles has he won lately,? He backed the carpetbaggers and lost , did he not? Now you are saying he alone will decide the disposition of the site? I think he has pathetically miscalculated the strength of SDSU . It stands with the Military and the tourism industry as one of the three most important entities in sd county. The city council will not support the logic and power of SDSU getting a chunk of the site ? Is that what you're saying? Even the mayor, the anti Aztec , will in time acquiesce to the inivetable. You paint the scene as Repub vs Dem. seems too simplistic thsat way. It's about influence groups too and SDSU is certainly one of the strong arm Players. I hope you are right. However, this is San Diego. And nothing in land use is ever as it seems. The hoteliers and labor pull the strings. As much as we THINK SDSU is influential, the university does not contribute money to campaigns and does not contribute cash to the city coffers. I will not argue the economic impact to the region, because it is substantial. But it is not something people see as tangible. And our elected officials in this town do not look at the long term. They look at what will get them re elected. Hence my skepticism about our actual leverage in this whole mess.
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Jul 19, 2017 9:11:54 GMT -8
this is much more realistic than the council making it surplus. The mayor would veto that council action anyway. My mind is boggled by the amount of people on this board who think the city - mayor or council - is really going to go out of their way to help SDSU. They talked a big game last month. But the reality is, we are a convenient foil for the Democrats on the city council to stick it to the mayor. Push comes to shove, we will need private support to make anything happen. Not if they have 6 votes. His veto has no power at that point. We already have 5 & I could see Zapf flipping to the SDSU side. That would be shocking!
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Jul 19, 2017 9:14:37 GMT -8
Pt. Loma: Well then we will see where the power lies. You make a case for the mayors autonomy. What battles has he won lately,? He backed the carpetbaggers and lost , did he not? Now you are saying he alone will decide the disposition of the site? I think he has pathetically miscalculated the strength of SDSU . It stands with the Military and the tourism industry as one of the three most important entities in sd county. The city council will not support the logic and power of SDSU getting a chunk of the site ? Is that what you're saying? Even the mayor, the anti Aztec , will in time acquiesce to the inivetable. You paint the scene as Repub vs Dem. seems too simplistic thsat way. It's about influence groups too and SDSU is certainly one of the strong arm Players. I hope you are right. However, this is San Diego. And nothing in land use is ever as it seems. The hoteliers and labor pull the strings. As much as we THINK SDSU is influential, the university does not contribute money to campaigns and does not contribute cash to the city coffers. I will not argue the economic impact to the region, because it is substantial. But it is not something people see as tangible. And our elected officials in this town do not look at the long term. They look at what will get them re elected. Hence my skepticism about our actual leverage in this whole mess.Ok, but again, nobody can argue that SDSU has not won every single battle since they pulled out of the Soccer City mess. They have at least five council members on their team, numerous wealthy developers, and former politicians, administrators, etc. Not saying you are doing this, but to infer that SDSU does not have significant influence is obtuse. Still, agree that SDSU's leadership has not been good regarding the PR campaign. But, they have won every fight that has mattered.
|
|