Post by Den60 on Sept 17, 2019 7:19:51 GMT -8
10. The People of the City of San Diego desire that the City not pay for any stadium
rehabilitation costs, stadium demolition or removal costs, stadium cost overruns, Joint
Use Stadium operating costs, Joint Use Stadium maintenance, or Joint Use Stadium
capital improvement expenses; and that the City be reimbursed for reasonable costs
incurred by the City in providing public safety and traffic management-related activities
for games or other events at the Existing Stadium Site.
rehabilitation costs, stadium demolition or removal costs, stadium cost overruns, Joint
Use Stadium operating costs, Joint Use Stadium maintenance, or Joint Use Stadium
capital improvement expenses; and that the City be reimbursed for reasonable costs
incurred by the City in providing public safety and traffic management-related activities
for games or other events at the Existing Stadium Site.
The cost of the demolition of the stadium was included in the land sale proposal to Soccer City.
As for traffic mitigation, the city can fall back on this language in Measure G from section 2, 1a:
(a) Such sale shall be at such price and upon such terms and timing as the City
Council shall deem to be fair and equitable and in the public interest
Council shall deem to be fair and equitable and in the public interest
SDSU now has exclusive rights to negotiate for the sale. Given the budget of Soccer City's proposal this is a more than $1B dollar project though I have not seen numbers from the university. And yetwe are arguing over the cost to demo the stadium and add a bridge in the big scheme of things. Again, I don't think SDSU should be responsible for the complete construction cost of the bridge, but they should negotiate an offer to help facilitate that. As for the demo of the existing stadium they should not be asking for an additional discount when the earlier appraisal depreciated that cost in the value of the property.
No, there will not be a ballot measure anytime soon. But there may be no movement in the negotiations and later subsequent litigation. Neither helps us get things done in Mission Valley anytime soon.
In arriving at the Fair Market Value, the City may fairly consider various factors, adjustments, deductions, and equities including, but not limited to: the costs for demolition, dismantling, and removal of the Existing Stadium; the costs associated with addressing current flooding concerns; the costs of existing contamination; the costs for revitalizing and restoring the adjacent River Park and the costs of avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating impacts to biota and riparian habitat.
So if the city choose to deduct demo they could and it was explicitly called out on the measure.
In the end, measure G is clear. State is entitled to purchase the property at a price as determined by the City Council. The city can factor in the cost of the bridge, if they so choose, but that would a political mistake and one the city council would avoid. It would anger not only the CSU system but Sacramento if the city of San Diego tried to stick the entire cost of the bridge to State which they have been deferring building and collecting any requisite developer fees for decades. It would be in bad faith and is counter productive.
In the end the CA taxpayer will bear the burden, all it does is spread the cost out a little to more CA taxpayers. But turnabout is fair play, will the State then reduce tax dollars for transportation, and other State funds that would have otherwise been directed to SD. Everyone needs to remember that SDSU is the State and sticking it to the State is sticking it to yourself.
Again, the cost of demolishing the existing stadium was factored into the city's appraisal. IIRC, they had it at $10.5 million which was deducted from the price of the land.
