|
|
Post by aardvark on Sept 23, 2019 17:01:20 GMT -8
From what I have gathered the Measure G initiative gives SDSU an exclusive 20 year negotiation period to the land. SDSU is in the driver's seat. With the Chargers long gone, the Sky Show drew 40k, USU 27k. Apathy will kill the deal long before anything else.  |
|
|
|
Post by ragin'aztec on Sept 24, 2019 4:27:54 GMT -8
BOYCOTT THE CHARGERS!!
|
|
|
|
Post by longtimebooster on Sept 24, 2019 4:46:16 GMT -8
From what I have gathered the Measure G initiative gives SDSU an exclusive 20 year negotiation period to the land. SDSU is in the driver's seat. With the Chargers long gone, the Sky Show drew 40k, USU 27k. Apathy will kill the deal long before anything else. Pop quiz: When was the last time you were right about anything on this board? |
|
|
|
Post by moctezumaii on Sept 24, 2019 4:55:23 GMT -8
Could the CSU system (the state of California) threaten the city with eminent domain and take the SDCCU stadium site? They could, but from that proclamation would flow an acrimonious legal imbroglio that could extend beyond the demise of the football program---in my opinion. Although, theoretically, they could "take" the property now, and THEN we'd all endure the fight in the background. However, neither SDSU, nor the System, would have the huevos, or the stomach, for the latter. Is the city still on the hook for the expenses associated with SDCCU? If so, that could be an incentivizer. |
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Sept 24, 2019 5:04:59 GMT -8
They could, but from that proclamation would flow an acrimonious legal imbroglio that could extend beyond the demise of the football program---in my opinion. Although, theoretically, they could "take" the property now, and THEN we'd all endure the fight in the background. However, neither SDSU, nor the System, would have the huevos, or the stomach, for the latter. Is the city still on the hook for the expenses associated with SDCCU? If so, that could be an incentivizer. I had assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the city was only allowing the stadium use for another 3 or 4 years before demolition, BECAUSE of that cost factor. Hopefully, I'm wrong, and the school is in control of the timeline. But if I were mayor, and my city attorney allowed that to happen in the negotiations, I'd fire him/her. (I know that's hyperbole, since the C.A. is elected) |
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Sept 24, 2019 8:10:48 GMT -8
From what I have gathered the Measure G initiative gives SDSU an exclusive 20 year negotiation period to the land. SDSU is in the driver's seat. With the Chargers long gone, the Sky Show drew 40k, USU 27k. Apathy will kill the deal long before anything else. Why are you here? You do nothing but sow discontent and negativity. Do everyone a favor and retire from this website. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Sept 24, 2019 12:40:40 GMT -8
They could, but from that proclamation would flow an acrimonious legal imbroglio that could extend beyond the demise of the football program---in my opinion. Although, theoretically, they could "take" the property now, and THEN we'd all endure the fight in the background. However, neither SDSU, nor the System, would have the huevos, or the stomach, for the latter. Is the city still on the hook for the expenses associated with SDCCU? If so, that could be an incentivizer. Through 2020. "As part of the lease terms, SDSU will pay $1.1 million per season and all of the game-day operating costs associated with the university’s use of the stadium, where it has been a tenant since 1967. Additionally, all net concessions and parking revenue generated during Aztec football games will go directly to the City to assist in covering the operating costs of the stadium year-round." newscenter.sdsu.edu/sdsu_newscenter/news_story.aspx?sid=77319 |
|
|
|
Post by moctezumaii on Sept 24, 2019 14:12:00 GMT -8
Is the city still on the hook for the expenses associated with SDCCU? If so, that could be an incentivizer. Through 2020. "As part of the lease terms, SDSU will pay $1.1 million per season and all of the game-day operating costs associated with the university’s use of the stadium, where it has been a tenant since 1967. Additionally, all net concessions and parking revenue generated during Aztec football games will go directly to the City to assist in covering the operating costs of the stadium year-round." newscenter.sdsu.edu/sdsu_newscenter/news_story.aspx?sid=77319But there is a maintenance bill that must be paid, general costs associated with this. Wouldn't that make this an albatross they want to get rid of? It can't pencil out to play hard-ball with the university indefinitely, can it? |
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Sept 24, 2019 14:26:14 GMT -8
No need, the city of LA is already doing it. |
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Sept 24, 2019 14:30:56 GMT -8
No need, the city of LA is already doing it. Well-played.  |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Sept 24, 2019 15:04:24 GMT -8
Through 2020. "As part of the lease terms, SDSU will pay $1.1 million per season and all of the game-day operating costs associated with the university’s use of the stadium, where it has been a tenant since 1967. Additionally, all net concessions and parking revenue generated during Aztec football games will go directly to the City to assist in covering the operating costs of the stadium year-round." newscenter.sdsu.edu/sdsu_newscenter/news_story.aspx?sid=77319But there is a maintenance bill that must be paid, general costs associated with this. Wouldn't that make this an albatross they want to get rid of? It can't pencil out to play hard-ball with the university indefinitely, can it? Yes, they can after the 2020 season and will likely do so. They have already committed to paying for the stadium costs through next year, though they get all the Aztec parking and commissions to help cover their operating costs. At that point they can say, no deal, then if you want the stadium to remain you pay all of the operating costs if you want a place to play. They gave SDSU two years to get a deal done at which point SDSU takes over all costs of operating the stadium. So I would say that it is of no advantage to SDSU to drag this out. My personal opinion, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Sept 24, 2019 15:04:40 GMT -8
From what I have gathered the Measure G initiative gives SDSU an exclusive 20 year negotiation period to the land. SDSU is in the driver's seat. Can you find that in the measure because I don't see it. The closest I can find is that after the 20th anniversary of the initiative a vote of the people is not required to amend or repeal it. So, to me, it says that should there be an impasse it can be put before the voters again. I ain't no lawyer, of course: SECTION 7. Amendment. A. On or after the 20th Anniversary of the adoption of this Initiative, a vote of the people shall not be required to amend or repeal any portion of this Initiative, and this Initiative and the Amendments that it adopts, including all exhibits thereto, may be amended or repealed by any procedure otherwise authorized by law. B. Any amendments to this Initiative shall not impair the contractual rights or vested rights conferred by a lease and option agreement or any associated development agreement. www.sdvote.com/content/dam/rov/en/election/2932-Nov18/G.pdfIt took me a bit, but the 20 year negotiation period came from this Q&A with VOSD: www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/your-questions-about-the-status-of-the-mission-valley-stadium-answered/ |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Sept 24, 2019 15:29:22 GMT -8
Can you find that in the measure because I don't see it. The closest I can find is that after the 20th anniversary of the initiative a vote of the people is not required to amend or repeal it. So, to me, it says that should there be an impasse it can be put before the voters again. I ain't no lawyer, of course: SECTION 7. Amendment. A. On or after the 20th Anniversary of the adoption of this Initiative, a vote of the people shall not be required to amend or repeal any portion of this Initiative, and this Initiative and the Amendments that it adopts, including all exhibits thereto, may be amended or repealed by any procedure otherwise authorized by law. B. Any amendments to this Initiative shall not impair the contractual rights or vested rights conferred by a lease and option agreement or any associated development agreement. www.sdvote.com/content/dam/rov/en/election/2932-Nov18/G.pdfIt took me a bit, but the 20 year negotiation period came from this Q&A with VOSD: www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/your-questions-about-the-status-of-the-mission-valley-stadium-answered/The article basically says what I posted. Should the negotiations falter the city or others can put a new initiative to the voters. So saying we have "dibs" or "exclusive" rights for 20 years is not accurate. After 20 years then the city can amend or cancel the agreement without voter approval. Still, if it takes anywhere close to half that long the stadium will never get built. Following the 2020 season SDSU's lease will likely not be renewed without the university taking on all the costs of operating it. They don't have a budget to do that long term, even the fact that they would have to do it for 2 years already (once they buy the land, they buy the liabilities) puts a strain on their financial capabilities. So, from where I sit, it doesn't look like an advantage to SDSU to draw this thing out. It looks the opposite to me. |
|
|
|
Post by moctezumaii on Sept 24, 2019 15:32:30 GMT -8
But there is a maintenance bill that must be paid, general costs associated with this. Wouldn't that make this an albatross they want to get rid of? It can't pencil out to play hard-ball with the university indefinitely, can it? Yes, they can after the 2020 season and will likely do so. They have already committed to paying for the stadium costs through next year, though they get all the Aztec parking and commissions to help cover their operating costs. At that point they can say, no deal, then if you want the stadium to remain you pay all of the operating costs if you want a place to play. They gave SDSU two years to get a deal done at which point SDSU takes over all costs of operating the stadium. So I would say that it is of no advantage to SDSU to drag this out. My personal opinion, of course. Well, if I understand, that would mean the City might think they can play hardball and try and drag this out to put pressure for a better deal, thinking the university will want to avoid paying massive bills on the grey lady. But then I would believe the State of California would get involved and force a result? The mandate of the vote and the way it went down with a huge plurality would factor in, I suspect. |
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Sept 24, 2019 18:19:53 GMT -8
The City has few options - at some point the city council must place a value on the property and conditions for sale.
If they don’t act in good faith, a judge will compel them to do so.
Any question of whether a bridge needs to be built has to be dealt with via the CEQA process. So the MV planning group and the city would have to supply the requisite feedback via CEQA. The Initiative specifically calls out that the master plan and CEQA process as being the vehicle.
I believe the EIR report already factored in the ingress and egress pattern changes and has provided the remediation. A bridge was not noted.
The city has a tough row to hoe, they identified the bridge almost 40 years ago as necessary and then deferred any action either collection or planning for that same period. It is going to be hard to pin a large % of the bill to SDSU. That is even in the case the bridge would be built. Which is a big if, environmental groups have voiced their concern about building any more bridges across the SD River.
In the end, the city is going to have to put a price tag on the property. A delay will land them in court and any bad faith offer would be equally bad to the courts as well as to the electorate.
Remember the imitative sets the price at the time of the initiative as the property sat. The appraisal sourced by the city has set the ceiling for what the city can ask for for from SDSU.
|
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Sept 25, 2019 7:37:30 GMT -8
Yes, they can after the 2020 season and will likely do so. They have already committed to paying for the stadium costs through next year, though they get all the Aztec parking and commissions to help cover their operating costs. At that point they can say, no deal, then if you want the stadium to remain you pay all of the operating costs if you want a place to play. They gave SDSU two years to get a deal done at which point SDSU takes over all costs of operating the stadium. So I would say that it is of no advantage to SDSU to drag this out. My personal opinion, of course. Well, if I understand, that would mean the City might think they can play hardball and try and drag this out to put pressure for a better deal, thinking the university will want to avoid paying massive bills on the grey lady. But then I would believe the State of California would get involved and force a result? The mandate of the vote and the way it went down with a huge plurality would factor in, I suspect. I believe the city has already given the university a number, I believe its the same one that SC was given. As I understand it, the university wants to deduct the cost of demolishing the stadium from that number but that number was already deducted as part of appraisal (which, IIRC, was something like $10.5M at the time). There is also some mention of funding toward a bridge but we really don't know if that is an actual sticking point. But, my comment on the subject was more to the point as to whether SDSU has exclusive rights to negotiate for the next 20 years. They don't, it just requires a vote of the people to amend or renege the deal for that term. The city has given SDSU two years with the stadium to get a deal done. After that two years, the lease terminates and would have to be renegotiated and I can see the city being in a good position to simply put all the operating costs for maintaining the stadium on SDSU if they want to continue to play there. Again, this is in response to those who would like to use the cost of maintaining the stadium by the city as their own "hardball" play. I don't believe the State of California is going to get involved in a land deal where the centerpiece is building a football stadium, not to the extent where they use something like eminent domain to take the property by force. |
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Sept 25, 2019 7:41:59 GMT -8
Well, if I understand, that would mean the City might think they can play hardball and try and drag this out to put pressure for a better deal, thinking the university will want to avoid paying massive bills on the grey lady. But then I would believe the State of California would get involved and force a result? The mandate of the vote and the way it went down with a huge plurality would factor in, I suspect. I believe the city has already given the university a number, I believe its the same one that SC was given. As I understand it, the university wants to deduct the cost of demolishing the stadium from that number but that number was already deducted as part of appraisal (which, IIRC, was something like $10.5M at the time). There is also some mention of funding toward a bridge but we really don't know if that is an actual sticking point. But, my comment on the subject was more to the point as to whether SDSU has exclusive rights to negotiate for the next 20 years. They don't, it just requires a vote of the people to amend or renege the deal for that term. The city has given SDSU two years with the stadium to get a deal done. After that two years, the lease terminates and would have to be renegotiated and I can see the city being in a good position to simply put all the operating costs for maintaining the stadium on SDSU if they want to continue to play there. Again, this is in response to those who would like to use the cost of maintaining the stadium by the city as their own "hardball" play. I don't believe the State of California is going to get involved in a land deal where the centerpiece is building a football stadium, not to the extent where they use something like eminent domain to take the property by force. Keep in mind that the SC number is a data point, but SDSU should not pay that amount. The simple reason is that the parcel SDSU is buying is smaller than that which SC was going to purchase. The $83M (IIRC) quote for SC would drop to somewhere around $50M (approximately, going off of memory here) for SDSU when you deduct the Charger practice property, property north of Friars, and reduction in acreage around the stadium. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Sept 25, 2019 8:02:17 GMT -8
I believe the city has already given the university a number, I believe its the same one that SC was given. As I understand it, the university wants to deduct the cost of demolishing the stadium from that number but that number was already deducted as part of appraisal (which, IIRC, was something like $10.5M at the time). There is also some mention of funding toward a bridge but we really don't know if that is an actual sticking point. But, my comment on the subject was more to the point as to whether SDSU has exclusive rights to negotiate for the next 20 years. They don't, it just requires a vote of the people to amend or renege the deal for that term. The city has given SDSU two years with the stadium to get a deal done. After that two years, the lease terminates and would have to be renegotiated and I can see the city being in a good position to simply put all the operating costs for maintaining the stadium on SDSU if they want to continue to play there. Again, this is in response to those who would like to use the cost of maintaining the stadium by the city as their own "hardball" play. I don't believe the State of California is going to get involved in a land deal where the centerpiece is building a football stadium, not to the extent where they use something like eminent domain to take the property by force. Keep in mind that the SC number is a data point, but SDSU should not pay that amount. The simple reason is that the parcel SDSU is buying is smaller than that which SC was going to purchase. The $83M (IIRC) quote for SC would drop to somewhere around $50M (approximately, going off of memory here) for SDSU when you deduct the Charger practice property, property north of Friars, and reduction in acreage around the stadium. Actually, I believe that SDSU is purchasing more than Soccer City was going to, as Soccer City was going to buy 79.9 acres (that was how they planned to avoid the city charter stipulation of the sale of 80 acres or more of city property without a vote of the people, as they originally wanted the council to just approve the deal without a city-wide vote) and had planned to lease the rest. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Sept 25, 2019 8:30:24 GMT -8
I believe the city has already given the university a number, I believe its the same one that SC was given. As I understand it, the university wants to deduct the cost of demolishing the stadium from that number but that number was already deducted as part of appraisal (which, IIRC, was something like $10.5M at the time). There is also some mention of funding toward a bridge but we really don't know if that is an actual sticking point. But, my comment on the subject was more to the point as to whether SDSU has exclusive rights to negotiate for the next 20 years. They don't, it just requires a vote of the people to amend or renege the deal for that term. The city has given SDSU two years with the stadium to get a deal done. After that two years, the lease terminates and would have to be renegotiated and I can see the city being in a good position to simply put all the operating costs for maintaining the stadium on SDSU if they want to continue to play there. Again, this is in response to those who would like to use the cost of maintaining the stadium by the city as their own "hardball" play. I don't believe the State of California is going to get involved in a land deal where the centerpiece is building a football stadium, not to the extent where they use something like eminent domain to take the property by force. Keep in mind that the SC number is a data point, but SDSU should not pay that amount. The simple reason is that the parcel SDSU is buying is smaller than that which SC was going to purchase. The $83M (IIRC) quote for SC would drop to somewhere around $50M (approximately, going off of memory here) for SDSU when you deduct the Charger practice property, property north of Friars, and reduction in acreage around the stadium. The appraisal only covers the land around the stadium, it does not include former Chargers practice facility. I don't have time to look through the below link thoroughly right now, but I recall that the land North of Friars didn't add much to the value of the land (most of it slope) and has an existing tenant in the SDFD. It certainly isn't valued at $30M. The main portion of the land was valued at $73.8M and the mitigation portion (the River Park portion) was $9M. They did include the cost of the stadium demolition as a credit of $11.5M which you can see on page 111. |
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Sept 25, 2019 16:31:34 GMT -8
Keep in mind that the SC number is a data point, but SDSU should not pay that amount. The simple reason is that the parcel SDSU is buying is smaller than that which SC was going to purchase. The $83M (IIRC) quote for SC would drop to somewhere around $50M (approximately, going off of memory here) for SDSU when you deduct the Charger practice property, property north of Friars, and reduction in acreage around the stadium. The appraisal only covers the land around the stadium, it does not include former Chargers practice facility. I don't have time to look through the below link thoroughly right now, but I recall that the land North of Friars didn't add much to the value of the land (most of it slope) and has an existing tenant in the SDFD. It certainly isn't valued at $30M. The main portion of the land was valued at $73.8M and the mitigation portion (the River Park portion) was $9M. They did include the cost of the stadium demolition as a credit of $11.5M which you can see on page 111. |
|
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(40)/discogs-images/A-18845-1164509294.jpeg.jpg)
