|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Oct 18, 2018 19:42:15 GMT -8
Liberal spin? Isn’t a more conservative news source than most? Liberal mainstream media is a myth. Conservatives just like to harp on the myth because it is a political winner for them. Any media that they disagree with is "liberal." It's been that way for years. Don't hijack threads . Talk your politics elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Oct 18, 2018 21:14:53 GMT -8
If I lived down in San Diego, I would vote no on both. The whole thing is a sham and needs to thought out. Maybe the Padres could follow the Chargers since they stink year after year, and SDSU could grab Petco.🤓 I see that you are uninformed . Let me help. Those of us with a vote are obligated to read thru which is best long term. Is it to build another strip mall as in soccer city? Or, to do something that generates much good as in expanding our wonderful university. Its an easy choice. No on Both means your are a know nothing. That is no answer at all and not acceptable . Understand this --- The property will be sold . That is a given. Who should get it??? But will it be sold at full market price..? Then who gets it? If not full market price.......no deal at all and start over. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Oct 18, 2018 21:23:39 GMT -8
If I lived down in San Diego, I would vote no on both. The whole thing is a sham and needs to thought out. Maybe the Padres could follow the Chargers since they stink year after year, and SDSU could grab Petco.🤓 I see that you are uninformed . Let me help. Those of us with a vote are obligated to read thru which is best long term. Is it to build another strip mall as in soccer city? Or, to do something that generates much good as in expanding our wonderful university. Its an easy choice. No on Both means your are a know nothing. That is no answer at all and not acceptable . Understand this --- The property will be sold . That is a given. Who should get it??? Will it be sold, or will it be part of a sweetheart lease deal? |
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Oct 18, 2018 22:37:53 GMT -8
I see that you are uninformed . Let me help. Those of us with a vote are obligated to read thru which is best long term. Is it to build another strip mall as in soccer city? Or, to do something that generates much good as in expanding our wonderful university. Its an easy choice. No on Both means your are a know nothing. That is no answer at all and not acceptable . Understand this --- The property will be sold . That is a given. Who should get it??? Will it be sold, or will it be part of a sweetheart lease deal?
Yes, I remain a non-resident, but that said, I've wondered why, from the beginning the city was so quick to turn over this land. The only two proposals offered thus far are filled with holes.
I don't necessarily agree it would be in the best interests of this city to sell any of this land, at least at this time. Commercial development, that could include....
a building capable of housing all the additional classroom space arguably needed by State, (as well as the required accoutrements, including parking space), could be developed and proposed to the city and, if approved, built on leased land.
A stadium capable of housing a mid-level football team could be developed and proposed to the city and, if approved, would be housed on leased land. Likewise, a proposal for a soccer stadium, as well as the required accoutrements, could be developed and proposed to the city and, if approved, built on leased land. This would also include land desired for any further commercial development.
The beauty of this would be the onus would on those making the proposals while the city maintains control of the land, with arguably nothing to lose. And to think there wouldn't be more lucrative proposals in the future would be ludicrous.
Some, if not all, may think this proposal is crazy, but I'm pretty much of the opinion, that anything less, will result in a lot of law firms getting very, very rich. For me, as a San Diego native, it's always been about what is in the long term interests of the city and that doesn't include two long term proposals that would permanently terminate the city's control of this most certainly valuable land.
|
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Oct 18, 2018 23:13:28 GMT -8
Will it be sold, or will it be part of a sweetheart lease deal?
Yes, I remain a non-resident, but that said, I've wondered why, from the beginning the city was so quick to turn over this land. The only two proposals offered thus far are filled with holes.
I don't necessarily agree it would be in the best interests of this city to sell any of this land, at least at this time. Commercial development, that could include....
a building capable of housing all the additional classroom space arguably needed by State, (as well as the required accoutrements, including parking space), could be developed and proposed to the city and, if approved, built on leased land.
A stadium capable of housing a mid-level football team could be developed and proposed to the city and, if approved, would be housed on leased land. Likewise, a proposal for a soccer stadium, as well as the required accoutrements, could be developed and proposed to the city and, if approved, built on leased land. This would also include land desired for any further commercial development.
The beauty of this would be the onus would on those making the proposals while the city maintains control of the land, with arguably nothing to lose. And to think there wouldn't be more lucrative proposals in the future would be ludicrous.
Some, if not all, may think this proposal is crazy, but I'm pretty much of the opinion, that anything less, will result in a lot of law firms getting very, very rich. For me, as a San Diego native, it's always been about what is in the long term interests of the city and that doesn't include two long term proposals that would permanently terminate the city's control of this most certainly valuable land.
And ultimately, the city will be responsible should they lose control of this land. Faulconer was in such a hurry to do something, but thanks to his "leadership", he shat the bed. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Oct 19, 2018 9:13:56 GMT -8
If it's a no on both or by some miracle "E" wins then the State of California should take the land via eminent domain. Stop playing nice.
|
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Oct 19, 2018 9:50:41 GMT -8
Soccer City is dead in the water. What are the chances of SDSU West happening? 50-50 perhaps?
|
|
|
|
Post by junior on Oct 19, 2018 10:06:11 GMT -8
Soccer City is dead in the water. What are the chances of SDSU West happening? 50-50 perhaps? Good question. If you believe polls, then SDSU has quite an advantage in voters as well as support from a wide base of organizations. Sucker City has them out-funded by 4-1., though. They're well funded. So expect a blitz campaign to begin in the next few days. They've already started ramping it up on some of the backwater local news channels. While there aren't a huge number of undecideds, there is still room for $C to push a number of the " who really cares, but I like SDSU" voters into an undecided funk. That could make it so that neither gets 50%. And then the bunglers in City Hall get to deal with the sales issue again. Anyone's guess what happens if that happens. Could be a completely different group that swoops in… |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Oct 19, 2018 10:06:52 GMT -8
The only way that the property doesn’t come to CSU is through the SuckerCity initiative... period
All other roads lead to Rome or in this case CSU-SDSU...
Measure G
City Council
Eminent Domain
Since SuckerCity has no chance to pass I am not worried at all...
|
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Oct 19, 2018 10:17:45 GMT -8
The only way that the property doesn’t come to CSU is through the SuckerCity initiative... period All other roads lead to Rome or in this case CSU-SDSU... Measure G City Council Eminent Domain Since SuckerCity has no chance to pass I am not worried at all... As long as Soccer City is on the ballot, there is always a chance. Stranger things have happened. |
|
|
|
Post by Cwag on Oct 19, 2018 12:32:10 GMT -8
yes lets not make a decision and continue to be a two bit sports town.......
|
|
|
|
Post by jdaztec on Oct 19, 2018 12:34:02 GMT -8
Thought today's UT "fact check" was BS.
|
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Oct 19, 2018 12:43:04 GMT -8
The only way that the property doesn’t come to CSU is through the SuckerCity initiative... period All other roads lead to Rome or in this case CSU-SDSU... Measure G City Council Eminent Domain Since SuckerCity has no chance to pass I am not worried at all... As long as Soccer City is on the ballot, there is always a chance. Stranger things have happened.True. NCM even made a positive post once.  |
|
|
|
Post by fisher1fan on Oct 19, 2018 13:54:42 GMT -8
I wish there was a vote for anything but Soccer City.
RFP Or SDSU West. That would get a lot of votes.
I support RFP as the process should be followed
|
|
|
|
Post by azson on Oct 19, 2018 15:59:32 GMT -8
Liberal mainstream media is a myth. Conservatives just like to harp on the myth because it is a political winner for them. Any media that they disagree with is "liberal." It's been that way for years. Don't hijack threads . Talk your politics elsewhere. Interesting that you call out the responder, but not he who made it political in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecfanatic on Oct 20, 2018 7:39:54 GMT -8
Why do the mods allow the takes that are political in nature. Right/left/in-between; this is not the place for it. These things are important to all of us but this is not the correct venue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Oct 20, 2018 9:54:04 GMT -8
If it's a no on both or by some miracle "E" wins then the State of California should take the land via eminent domain. Stop playing nice. I don't see the state of California stealing land from the city of San Diego to build a college football stadium. |
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Oct 20, 2018 10:36:35 GMT -8
yes lets not make a decision and continue to be a two bit sports town....... It is a two bit sports town. Always has been. It will always be the butthole to LA when it comes to sports. |
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Oct 20, 2018 11:17:39 GMT -8
Thought today's UT "fact check" was BS. Fact checking once in a lifetime was laughable. It is obviously an opinion not a fact. But the fact that since 1965, we have not discussed university expansion, it is more fact than opinion. The UT editorial board is suspect |
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Oct 20, 2018 12:09:52 GMT -8
If it's a no on both or by some miracle "E" wins then the State of California should take the land via eminent domain. Stop playing nice. I don't see the state of California stealing land from the city of San Diego to build a college football stadium. You do realize that the stadium, while the flashiest part of the proposal, is the least important in the overall befit to San Diego County? Posters here are talking more about the stadium than the expansion of the campus and additional research facilities because this is a sports board. |
|
