|
|
Post by McQuervo on Jul 22, 2010 19:06:56 GMT -8
Relax- Qualcom is not the solution, have some faith. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Fred Noonan on Jul 23, 2010 8:50:06 GMT -8
I don't recall asking anyone to blindly follow anything. You are free to hold whatever views you choose, and vote accordingly. I believe I suggested that cold reality and assessment thereof is what is needed on SDSU's behalf. Hopefully those in charge on the Mesa are not looking at this question through their ideologically colored glasses--whichever ones they might be wearing. This is a dangerous game for SDSU, one that needs to be played quietly and in ruthless self interest. Please, do not think for one moment that this does not impact the viability of future SDSU football, for it does. The Fred Noonan School of Navigation.  Oh, and one more point. As to if the EIR were properly written litigation and frustration would be avoided I'd add that if pigs had wings they could fly. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 23, 2010 10:32:54 GMT -8
Since then, I've heard the guy interviewed a couple other times by people more akin to actual journalists and he has seemed slimy as hell. Fabiani is a snake oil salesman supreme. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 23, 2010 10:33:42 GMT -8
I don't recall asking anyone to blindly follow anything. You are free to hold whatever views you choose, and vote accordingly. I believe I suggested that cold reality and assessment thereof is what is needed on SDSU's behalf. Hopefully those in charge on the Mesa are not looking at this question through their ideologically colored glasses--whichever ones they might be wearing. SDSU doesn't have to worry about how much debt the City is in, so I'm quite sure they are just looking at what's in their best interests. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 23, 2010 12:35:25 GMT -8
The point that people tend to miss about the Q is that even if the Chargers leave town tomorrow, nobody is going to immediately tear down the stadium. The amount of environmental contamination, as well as impacts to the river area will have even it's demolition held up in courts for 5-10 years. This is San Diego, the most litigious city in America .See: Seals/Childrens pool, Soledad Cross, Airport Somebody archive this somewhere: We will be playing football at Qualcomm stadium 20 years from now. Good points. The city can't afford to raze the stadium now even if they wanted to. And contractually must give 5 years notice to do so |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 23, 2010 16:53:12 GMT -8
Just to offer something else, I'm really getting tired of those who think that CEQA would somehow hold up an on-campus stadium (not that I'm all that enamored with an on-campus stadium). The opinions on this come from the arena and do not necessarily hold true for a new stadium, if one were to be built.
Viejas was held up because the idiots managing the EIR contract either allowed, or directed, a crap traffic study. And it wasn't a problem with the athletic events, it was an underestimation of the traffic when it came to concerts and other such events. What it came down to is SDSU wrote another alternative (CEQA requires feasible alternatives be considered) that had a lot less non-athletic events and the court upheld the document.
There is this mistaken belief that CEQA can kill any and every project and that's not the case. All CEQA requires is that the decision making body has all information needed to make an informed decision. The best litigants against a project can hope for is that new alternative, addressing their complaints, be developed. Once that's done they have no option other than to settle.
If there were to be a new on-campus stadium proposed, all SDSU would need to do would be to offer an honest assessment of the environmental impacts (and I see nothing other than traffic) in order to win any litigation that came down the pike. And if it were an honest assessment, with real mitigation measures, it would not be held up in the courts for more than a year, assuming anyone would be stupid enough to litigate.
=Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2010 9:39:43 GMT -8
Thanks, Bob. Knowledge is power and although you may not know any more, or even as much, about football as many here, you patently know more about this environmental stuff than anybody so only an idiot would argue with you on that.
BTW, I know it would be a bit of a pain in the butt, but it's been several years since you discussed the manner in which you think Qualcomm could be reconfigured to become more user friendly for just the Aztecs if the Chargers leave. If you would have time again at some point, since I think that now more than then it appears that's exactly what could happen, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on that again.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 24, 2010 9:47:53 GMT -8
Thanks, Bob. Knowledge is power and although you may not know any more, or even as much, about football as many here, you patently know more about this environmental stuff than anybody so only an idiot would argue with you on that. BTW, I know it would be a bit of a pain in the butt, but it's been several years since you discussed the manner in which you think Qualcomm could be reconfigured to become more user friendly for just the Aztecs if the Chargers leave. If you would have time again at some point, since I think that now more than then it appears that's exactly what could happen, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on that again. I was just about to argue with =Bob before I read that. ;D Actually, Bob had some great thoughts on how "The Murph" could be fixed. I am not sure that the infrastructure can be fixed, so a new facility on that site would sure be nice. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2010 10:10:56 GMT -8
I was just about to argue with =Bob before I read that. ;D Actually, Bob had some great thoughts on how "The Murph" could be fixed. I am not sure that the infrastructure can be fixed, so a new facility on that site would sure be nice. You and Bob argue just to argue. His idea as I recall it was that some of the existing superstructure of the east side of the existing stadium could be incorporated into what would ultimately have the appearance of an entirely new facility. It was based partly on what Stanford was then doing and has since completed and as MD has often said, Stanford should be the model for anything we might do with Qualcomm. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 24, 2010 10:18:49 GMT -8
1. The Chargers aren't going anywhere. 2. This town will eventually give them their stadium within city limits. The agreement will have to be one in which the City does not have to pay out of pocket, but it can be done. |
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jul 24, 2010 10:23:39 GMT -8
I was just about to argue with =Bob before I read that. ;D Actually, Bob had some great thoughts on how "The Murph" could be fixed. I am not sure that the infrastructure can be fixed, so a new facility on that site would sure be nice. I admit I'm no engineer, but I think the infrastructure can be fixed as long as it won't be structural. Somewhat like internally remodeling your house without altering the roof or expanding any walls. I've often thought that if the lowest seats were closer to the field and raised a bit, it could be a nice football stadium instead of a multi-purpose one. Even with a full house for the Chargers, the blimp shot of the field looks ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 24, 2010 10:23:46 GMT -8
and just to fabini or however you spell it, it is flat out absurd to think we wouldn't not only be invited to the big west, but they would like all line up and make like circus seals if they could get us The Big West would be an ideal cost effective solution for all sports but Football. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2010 10:30:49 GMT -8
I've often thought that if the lowest seats were closer to the field and raised a bit, it could be a nice football stadium instead of a multi-purpose one. IIRC Bob's thought was that if the western half of the stadium was razed, the field could be moved toward the east, thereby bringing it closer to that side, and new stands could be built on the other side, with the area now used for the western stands becoming a grassy area for tailgating. The west side would again become the home side, having all new amenities, including the grassy area, with the visitors' side being somewhat less nice. (Screw our opponents.) As to raising the seats on the east side, it would seem to me to be cheaper to just lower the playing field a bit. (We are trying to find a way to afford doing this, after all.) |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 24, 2010 10:41:33 GMT -8
I've often thought that if the lowest seats were closer to the field and raised a bit, it could be a nice football stadium instead of a multi-purpose one. IIRC Bob's thought was that if the western half of the stadium was razed, the field could be moved toward the east, thereby bringing it closer to that side, and new stands could be built on the other side, with the area now used for the western stands becoming a grassy area for tailgating. The west side would again become the home side, having all new amenities, including the grassy area, with the visitors' side being somewhat less nice. (Screw our opponents.) As to raising the seats on the east side, it would seem to me to be cheaper to just lower the playing field a bit. (We are trying to find a way to afford doing this, after all.) I wonder if the field could be lowered. There is water not to deep there and the plume from Kinder Morgan. I wish I could remember all that I have read about the plumbing and electric and what needs to be done. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 24, 2010 10:54:31 GMT -8
.... about the Chargers. Now, however, I really want them to get the hell out. Or at least I want the Spanosites to sell the damn team and get the hell out. I sure hope not. Any agreement whereby a new stadium is built at no cost to the taxpayers would most likely have to come through a Charger owner who comes from a construction background. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 24, 2010 10:56:12 GMT -8
William: USF: According to an excellent documentary I saw on I believe it was Between the Lines, they dropped football as the result of one thing mainly. That is, the Dons were invited to I think it was the Orange Bowl but on the condition their two African American players not play. The team unanimously voted not to play and then IIRC, rumor had it that the good old boy network of the bowl system put the kibosh on them ever playing anywhere besides the Rose Bowl, for which they could never qualify. (Damn Jesuits and their ethics.) .... That USF team was one of the greatest in the history of college football. |
|
