|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 15, 2011 17:14:13 GMT -8
Yet another example of why the Chargers should get no public gifts: online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704461304576216330349497852.html?mod=e2twWe're dealing with snake oil salesmen and there is no reason at all that we should give the Spanosites anything, especially if the argument is that only "world-class cities" have farking NFL teams. Let's face it, if the Chargers had anywhere to go they'd have already left; and quite frankly, I'd just as soon see them leave simply because the drama distracts from dealing with the real problems this city faces. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by theman on Jul 16, 2011 22:14:59 GMT -8
The Chargers have gotten no public gifts, and that is why after 10 years, no progress has been made. No difference than a private developer trying to getting a tenative map done. Years of bull, and then after every govt. agency has gotten their pound of flesh, you get approval. BTW, what's with all that developement in the San Diego River floodplain? That would have never happened in the San Luis Rey river floodplain!
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecbruce on Jul 17, 2011 12:10:40 GMT -8
Yet another example of why the Chargers should get no public gifts: online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704461304576216330349497852.html?mod=e2twWe're dealing with snake oil salesmen and there is no reason at all that we should give the Spanosites anything, especially if the argument is that only "world-class cities" have farking NFL teams. Let's face it, if the Chargers had anywhere to go they'd have already left; and quite frankly, I'd just as soon see them leave simply because the drama distracts from dealing with the real problems this city faces. =Bob You come from the small time thinking associated with being a loser. Not saying the stadium should be given to the Chargers but something fair can be worked out and hopefully will, even with speedbumps like you barely standing in the way. |
|
|
|
Post by rolf tomato on Jul 17, 2011 17:53:18 GMT -8
Pro sports provide an intrinsic value that, say, a park full of weeds just can't provide. Ohhhhhhhhhhh, I dunno 'bout that! A park full of wildwood weeds would probably be better than park of Petco. Think about it. A park of Petco is probably going to be nothing but a big pile of sh**! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 18, 2011 16:53:24 GMT -8
1. If a stadium is such a great investment, Spanos (who obviously knows a thing or two about good investments) would be putting up ALL the money for it. 2. If a stadium is such a great investment, the city would do it themselves. 3. I don't believe in these "partnerships." 4. Although I agree that the taxpayer benefit from NFL team is wildly overstated by the NFL, there is an intrinsic value to having pro sports in town. Even librarians and liberals wear Charger Power shirts when the team is kicking ass.In other words, for most people, pro sports are just fun to have around and there's no real price for that. Pro sports provide an intrinsic value that, say, a park full of weeds just can't provide. People aren't sitting in front of their TV's getting drunk and watching C-SPAN on Sundays, I'll tell you that. (Well maybe I do once in a great while but I doubt most people do.) I think I have seen Plumbers and Libertarians sporting Charger gear when they win.  I tend to think in terms of how things will affect the Aztecs. Right now, I think the train has left the station on a good outcome for SDSU, so I am losing interest. I see where a couple of you have cited =Bob for being a impediment to any progress in his working life and having a rather small child's view of the big picture. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 26, 2011 22:23:58 GMT -8
The Cincy deal really has been a nightmare for that county. Let's hope someone at City Hall has the guts to say to the Spanoses, "If you want a new stadium, put up the money yourselves or shut the F up."
I would think that after the ticket guarantee fiasco, the citiziens of the city of S.D. would say "Hell, NO" if a deal were put up to a vote.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 27, 2011 16:55:05 GMT -8
The Chargers have gotten no public gifts, and that is why after 10 years, no progress has been made. No difference than a private developer trying to getting a tenative map done. Years of bull, and then after every govt. agency has gotten their pound of flesh, you get approval. BTW, what's with all that developement in the San Diego River floodplain? That would have never happened in the San Luis Rey river floodplain! Sorry, I don't hit this forum very often so I didn't see responses, even though I started the thread. Tentative maps do not involve investment of public funds. Well, at least not for the development itself - supporting infrastructure might. Either way, the developer pays for the infrastructure and everything else in a subdivision. As for the years of bull and pounds of flesh, that depends on the developer and the land he wants to develop. I watched a subdivision on an old Christmas tree farm in Lakeside go from first application to first houses for sale in a little less than two years. That's because the developer recognized the land, understood the rules, gave us what we asked for and didn't argue every minor point (and no, I didn't process the map). As for Mission Valley, it was doomed the moment the Council approved Mission Valley Center. And while it's not an excuse or a mitigating circumstance, that valley had been raped by sand miners for a very long time and the rape has just continued. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 27, 2011 17:08:17 GMT -8
Yet another example of why the Chargers should get no public gifts: online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704461304576216330349497852.html?mod=e2twWe're dealing with snake oil salesmen and there is no reason at all that we should give the Spanosites anything, especially if the argument is that only "world-class cities" have farking NFL teams. Let's face it, if the Chargers had anywhere to go they'd have already left; and quite frankly, I'd just as soon see them leave simply because the drama distracts from dealing with the real problems this city faces. =Bob You come from the small time thinking associated with being a loser. Not saying the stadium should be given to the Chargers but something fair can be worked out and hopefully will, even with speedbumps like you barely standing in the way. Perhaps, but IMO "fair" means no public bucks or land giveaways involved. I can understand why the Chargers want a new stadium - the Q really does not fit an NFL team's needs. But I don't see any reason for billionaires to be given public handouts. BTW, before you start worrying about the Chargers leaving town, see my new thread. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecbruce on Aug 1, 2011 8:06:25 GMT -8
You come from the small time thinking associated with being a loser. Not saying the stadium should be given to the Chargers but something fair can be worked out and hopefully will, even with speedbumps like you barely standing in the way. Perhaps, but IMO "fair" means no public bucks or land giveaways involved. I can understand why the Chargers want a new stadium - the Q really does not fit an NFL team's needs. But I don't see any reason for billionaires to be given public handouts. BTW, before you start worrying about the Chargers leaving town, see my new thread. =Bob You continually fail to fathom that it's not just one side that benefits from having a stadium/nfl team. So, if the city benefits from increased revenue why shouldn't they use some public dollars or favors to build a new stadium? The City of Arlington, TX was smart enough to understand this and did make some concessions and two stadiums have been built in their city. Check the hotel occupancy rates in Arlington during game weekends. It's not just a one-way deal. |
|
|
|
Post by socal on Aug 2, 2011 19:22:42 GMT -8
Its not just the city of Arlington, Indianopolis has built TWO football stadiums since Qualcom was built. Seattle, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Cincinnati, etc. etc. are NOT cities with greater economic strength than San Diego yet. San Francisco 49ers got to pick from 2-3 different cities for options on a ballpark.
Revenues:
1) Income Taxes paid by Chargers players and employees exceed $20 million per year.
2) Then, over 3,000 people are employed in jobs directly involved in putting the Chargers games on.
3) Sales taxes, rent from stadiu, parking, etc. is more than $3 million.
Above three points don't even include Super Bowls or even World Cup Soccer matches that San Diego would land with a new stadium.
There is NOTHING that the city spends money on today that generates that type of annual revenue.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecbruce on Aug 3, 2011 9:11:42 GMT -8
Its not just the city of Arlington, Indianopolis has built TWO football stadiums since Qualcom was built. Seattle, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Cincinnati, etc. etc. are NOT cities with greater economic strength than San Diego yet. San Francisco 49ers got to pick from 2-3 different cities for options on a ballpark. Revenues: 1) Income Taxes paid by Chargers players and employees exceed $20 million per year. 2) Then, over 3,000 people are employed in jobs directly involved in putting the Chargers games on. 3) Sales taxes, rent from stadiu, parking, etc. is more than $3 million. Above three points don't even include Super Bowls or even World Cup Soccer matches that San Diego would land with a new stadium. There is NOTHING that the city spends money on today that generates that type of annual revenue. People like =Bob fail to look at the big picture as you have pointed out. They just resent folks like the Spanos that "have". Sad! |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 10, 2011 16:46:41 GMT -8
Its not just the city of Arlington, Indianopolis has built TWO football stadiums since Qualcom was built. Seattle, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Cincinnati, etc. etc. are NOT cities with greater economic strength than San Diego yet. San Francisco 49ers got to pick from 2-3 different cities for options on a ballpark. Revenues: 1) Income Taxes paid by Chargers players and employees exceed $20 million per year. 2) Then, over 3,000 people are employed in jobs directly involved in putting the Chargers games on. 3) Sales taxes, rent from stadiu, parking, etc. is more than $3 million. Above three points don't even include Super Bowls or even World Cup Soccer matches that San Diego would land with a new stadium. There is NOTHING that the city spends money on today that generates that type of annual revenue. People like =Bob fail to look at the big picture as you have pointed out. They just resent folks like the Spanos that "have". Sad! Arguing on the basis of class warfare is rather unbecoming. I don't resent self-made rich people, I simply resent billionaires who demand the public pays for their business facilities. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 10, 2011 16:53:26 GMT -8
Its not just the city of Arlington, Indianopolis has built TWO football stadiums since Qualcom was built. Seattle, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Cincinnati, etc. etc. are NOT cities with greater economic strength than San Diego yet. San Francisco 49ers got to pick from 2-3 different cities for options on a ballpark. Revenues: 1) Income Taxes paid by Chargers players and employees exceed $20 million per year. Please offer the source of that stat.2) Then, over 3,000 people are employed in jobs directly involved in putting the Chargers games on. And please offer your source on this. And while you're at it, please tell us how many of those jobs are seasonal and minimum wage.3) Sales taxes, rent from stadiu, parking, etc. is more than $3 million. Sign, again the source.Above three points don't even include Super Bowls or even World Cup Soccer matches that San Diego would land with a new stadium. And what are your guarantees for either? MLS doesn't much care for 72,000 seat stadiums. Most likely we'd get a Super Bowl here and there but SB revenues have been shown to be totally overblown by the NFL.There is NOTHING that the city spends money on today that generates that type of annual revenue. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecbruce on Aug 11, 2011 9:44:39 GMT -8
Its not just the city of Arlington, Indianopolis has built TWO football stadiums since Qualcom was built. Seattle, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Cincinnati, etc. etc. are NOT cities with greater economic strength than San Diego yet. San Francisco 49ers got to pick from 2-3 different cities for options on a ballpark. Revenues: 1) Income Taxes paid by Chargers players and employees exceed $20 million per year. Please offer the source of that stat.2) Then, over 3,000 people are employed in jobs directly involved in putting the Chargers games on. And please offer your source on this. And while you're at it, please tell us how many of those jobs are seasonal and minimum wage.3) Sales taxes, rent from stadiu, parking, etc. is more than $3 million. Sign, again the source.Above three points don't even include Super Bowls or even World Cup Soccer matches that San Diego would land with a new stadium. And what are your guarantees for either? MLS doesn't much care for 72,000 seat stadiums. Most likely we'd get a Super Bowl here and there but SB revenues have been shown to be totally overblown by the NFL.There is NOTHING that the city spends money on today that generates that type of annual revenue. =Bob So what? Didn't the city and tax dollars pay for the convention center? This city has to start thinking big-time instead of crawling under a rock like you and the rest of the "lets stay small town" mentality folks. This city needs to attract as many big events as possible. The Super Bowl is just one of them. There's no reason that the people of San Diego COUNTY shouldn't kick in some for a new stadium just as we have for the convention center. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 11, 2011 19:15:46 GMT -8
Not sure if the City spends any bucks on it, but ComicCon generates far more annual revenue.=Bob So what? Didn't the city and tax dollars pay for the convention center? Um no, at least for the original convention center. That was paid for by the Port District, mostly on funds from airport fees.This city has to start thinking big-time instead of crawling under a rock like you and the rest of the "lets stay small town" mentality folks. God, I am so tired of this bull$#!+ argument. Let's face a couple facts. The first fact is there is nothing wrong with disputing public spending on billionaire desires that they should be financing on their own. The second is you are compromised in every argument you offer because your business is predicated upon events that you can make bucks from. Your conflict of interest is quite obvious.This city needs to attract as many big events as possible. The Super Bowl is just one of them. I'm sure that would offer you more income, but what does it offer the servers and such you employ at minimum wage?There's no reason that the people of San Diego COUNTY shouldn't kick in some for a new stadium just as we have for the convention center. Um, in case you haven't noticed, the County Board of Supervisors consists of 5 Republicans, all SDSU grads who have no interest at all in spending bucks to kiss ass to the Spanosite billions or enhancing your business. Suzie Golding was the last politician to do that and we got an east end stadium expansion that's crap. I mean really, Bruce, the only reason you're offering this argument is because a new stadium might make you money. Admit it, you really don't give a flying f x x x what the cost to taxpayers would be as long as your business gets to make some bucks from hospitality tents. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecbruce on Aug 17, 2011 11:49:17 GMT -8
So what? Didn't the city and tax dollars pay for the convention center? Um no, at least for the original convention center. That was paid for by the Port District, mostly on funds from airport fees.This city has to start thinking big-time instead of crawling under a rock like you and the rest of the "lets stay small town" mentality folks. God, I am so tired of this bull$#!+ argument. Let's face a couple facts. The first fact is there is nothing wrong with disputing public spending on billionaire desires that they should be financing on their own. The second is you are compromised in every argument you offer because your business is predicated upon events that you can make bucks from. Your conflict of interest is quite obvious.This city needs to attract as many big events as possible. The Super Bowl is just one of them. I'm sure that would offer you more income, but what does it offer the servers and such you employ at minimum wage?There's no reason that the people of San Diego COUNTY shouldn't kick in some for a new stadium just as we have for the convention center. Um, in case you haven't noticed, the County Board of Supervisors consists of 5 Republicans, all SDSU grads who have no interest at all in spending bucks to kiss ass to the Spanosite billions or enhancing your business. Suzie Golding was the last politician to do that and we got an east end stadium expansion that's crap. I mean really, Bruce, the only reason you're offering this argument is because a new stadium might make you money. Admit it, you really don't give a flying f x x x what the cost to taxpayers would be as long as your business gets to make some bucks from hospitality tents. =Bob As usual you spout off most about what you know least about.  1/ Having a new stadium puts no more money in my pocket than the old stadium - so stick that up your sorry ass. 2/ It's a two way street where the city, the people of the city, and the team can all benefit. Just because you're too sorry to afford a ticket doesn't mean squat in the debate. Amazing, you think just because something happens 1 time that its going to happen again. The stadium expansion has brought more money into the coffers due to the increased attendance for Bolts and Bowl games. Oh, and motocross, monster trucks etc.. Just because the pinheads in the City can't sell the stadium as a venue for major events isn't my fault. What happened to the big concerts? Are they that bad of sales people they can't even attract one major concert at that venue? Your mind is closed just like the cave you came from. So once again your argument is full of nothing but hot air and inaccuracies. Start from scratch and come back with anything that makes any sense whatsoever. I'm sure it will be "lets keep San Diego Small" campaign that you marched for in the 60s.  |
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Sept 8, 2011 10:56:48 GMT -8
People like =Bob fail to look at the big picture as you have pointed out. They just resent folks like the Spanos that "have". Sad! Arguing on the basis of class warfare is rather unbecoming. I don't resent self-made rich people, I simply resent billionaires who demand the public pays for their business facilities. =Bob I really don't want to get in the crossfire of this, there are certainly risks when any city pours streams of money into a major stadium construction. That said, I would agree with the argument that owners should pay for their own venues, (and some have), if they were, in fact, the only ones reaping all the benefits. But the fact is, there are many beneficiaries, (if the project ultimately proves successful). So, in simple logic, why not pony up for a piece of the pie? I have no doubt that a successful stadium plan, (and therein lies the rub), will produce benefits for not only the Spanos family but the City and County of San Diego. |
|
|
|
Post by ragin'aztec on Sept 8, 2011 20:23:15 GMT -8
It may take awhile, but a new stadium will pay for itself eventually so it should get built. I want the SuperBowl back in SD. San Diego was quite literally the center of the universe when we had the superbowl here those three times.  AC/DC noise complaints from an AC/DC show come as far as 12 miles away. Nice! www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/ac-dc-are-overly-loud-207234 |
|
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(40)/discogs-images/A-18845-1164509294.jpeg.jpg)