|
Post by doctorsteve on Jan 21, 2015 20:38:15 GMT -8
You have no idea what you're talking about: It's California - we need 2/3 majority vote to raise taxes for a specific purpose. 1/3 of the Atlanta stadium is funded by public money (bond proceeds backed by a hotel tax). The Chargers are willing to pay ~$200 million, which would be less than 15% of a $1.4 billion stadium. The Chargers make ~$30 million in profit/year. They don't have enough skin in the game. I don't know if you're smart enough to understand any of this. No to bypass the 2/3 majority they call it a fee. Happens all the time in this great state. Latest example the new gas tax um I mean carbon fee passed onto consumers..... The California Air Resources Board is using AB 32 (passed in 2006) to enact this new "fee." Prop 26 (passed in 2010) prohibits "hidden fees." That's why so many people are up in arms over the new carbon emission fee. In other words, you are wrong about raising taxes without a vote. There's also Cory Briggs in San Diego. If you don't know who that is, then you haven't been paying attention.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 21, 2015 20:43:45 GMT -8
in Atlanta for the Falcons newstadium.atlantafalcons.com/Check this one out. I just received their glossy brochure and I'm impressed. This one will give Jerry World a run for the top stadium. $1.4 Billion to build. Seating for football 74,951 7500 Club Seats 193 Suites (Jerry World 350) Public/Private Funding to Build It's being built right next door to the Georgia Dome. The Georgia Dome and the Arena all surround the convention center and are used inconjuction to the Convention Center for various large events. San Diego will keep jerking around trying to decide what to do and we'll be without anything suitable for the Bolts. I doubt SDSU has the $$ to keep the Q, redone or otherwise. Raise the damn hotel/car rental taxes as they did in Arizona and make it happen. Build the GD thing. You have no idea what you're talking about: It's California - we need 2/3 majority vote to raise taxes for a specific purpose. 1/3 of the Atlanta stadium is funded by public money (bond proceeds backed by a hotel tax). The Chargers are willing to pay ~$200 million, which would be less than 15% of a $1.4 billion stadium. The Chargers make ~$30 million in profit/year. They don't have enough skin in the game. I don't know if you're smart enough to understand any of this. And I don't know why you would not realize that this kind of ad hominem potshot at a fellow poster is not going to win you any points. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by doctorsteve on Jan 21, 2015 20:46:42 GMT -8
You have no idea what you're talking about: It's California - we need 2/3 majority vote to raise taxes for a specific purpose. 1/3 of the Atlanta stadium is funded by public money (bond proceeds backed by a hotel tax). The Chargers are willing to pay ~$200 million, which would be less than 15% of a $1.4 billion stadium. The Chargers make ~$30 million in profit/year. They don't have enough skin in the game. I don't know if you're smart enough to understand any of this. And I don't know why you would not realize that this kind of ad hominem potshot at a fellow poster is not going to win you any points. AzWm I'm not trying to win any friends, but I'm sick of dullards saying the same thing over and over about the stadium.
|
|
|
Post by alohaboarder on Jan 21, 2015 20:56:43 GMT -8
We already have a 10.5 transient occupancy tax in San Diego on every hotel stay. This generates about 90 million in revenue for the city annually. What percent goes back into promoting the city? Absolutely zero. Thus the hotels created the TMD which is short for tourism marketing district. That is a 1.5 percent fee on top of the 10.5. This fee was supposed to go into marketing San Diego as a destination and to promote such things as the poinsettia bowl, holiday bowl, and other such events. The scumbag Filner and democrats decided that this fee was meant for them. Now were caught up in litigation over 12.5% of tax revenue intended for things such as building a new stadium which is now being spent on wasteful government spending. In the meantime other cities are using these tax revenues to get stuff done.
This is a prime example of why companies are leaving this city and state.
|
|
|
Post by azteceric on Jan 21, 2015 22:16:28 GMT -8
Wish I was as confident as him, if the Chargers leave then San Diego has no reason to keep Qualcomm Stadium going. Will be even more of a money pit. Contracts can always be broken. Ha, you must not be a lawyer. There's a shred of truth to that statement in the abstract, but in this case SDSU can be very confident in having at least 4 years (if not the full 5) upon the Chargers providing notification of leaving where we can still use the Q. And in that time, we'll either take over the Q site and/or build our own stadium. Not sure where you get the 5 years from, the contract ends in 2018. And there are outs. legacy.utsandiego.com/sports/aztecs/images/090727stadiumlease.pdf
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jan 22, 2015 2:38:33 GMT -8
Ha, you must not be a lawyer. There's a shred of truth to that statement in the abstract, but in this case SDSU can be very confident in having at least 4 years (if not the full 5) upon the Chargers providing notification of leaving where we can still use the Q. And in that time, we'll either take over the Q site and/or build our own stadium. Not sure where you get the 5 years from, the contract ends in 2018. And there are outs. legacy.utsandiego.com/sports/aztecs/images/090727stadiumlease.pdfAnd I would look at sections 4 and 24. Due to the stature of SDSU in the local community... seeing the city bend over backwards to screw the university is HIGHLY unlikely. So... SDSU could petition for primary tenant status, or seek transfer of the city's interests in the stadium site to SDSU via eminent domain. This has been hashed out ad nauseam on this board and its precursor(s). Some SDSU fans believe that there is a (mostly privately agreed) process in place to steer a resolution of the Q site strongly in favor of the university, some don't/cannot believe that. No amount of sending electrons back & forth will change that. Go Aztecs.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jan 22, 2015 8:18:08 GMT -8
I'll play nice. What part of what I wrote indicates I don't know what I'm talking about? (This ought to be good) I've read over your fragmented figures (notice I didn't say facts) Are you one of those who thinks that if the Chargers leave that all those fans would all of a sudden become Aztec fans? My facts are facts. Go look at any of the unbiased articles on a new chargers stadium. They won't get it without a vote. You can't raise taxes without a vote. That is what you don't understand. Also, I don't think the Chargers leaving will help SDSU's fanbase. I have no idea where you gleaned that little nugget. I gleaned that little nugget from the $#!+ you posted. No, I do understand a vote is needed re a new tax. OK Genius- Don't you think the public would vote for a new hotel/car rental tax to help pay for a new stadium SINCE it doesn't come out of their pockets? That's the whole idea isn't it? Many don't want any money coming out of THEIR pockets to pay for it. This ain't hard to figure even for some genius like you. Is this rocket science to you? Your facts aren't facts. Just because Atlanta's beautiful new stadium is going to cost $1.4 doesn't mean it will cost that much here. Anybody who has been to many stadiums like I have sees a future here with a B Stadium, similar to the one in Arizona, Baltimore or Denver. i.e. there OK and sufficient but not the beauties that Jerry World is and what Atlanta is building. As far as "unbiased" articles. Really? There are NO ARTICLES that are 100% UNBIASED about anything.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jan 22, 2015 8:23:10 GMT -8
My facts are facts. Go look at any of the unbiased articles on a new chargers stadium. They won't get it without a vote. You can't raise taxes without a vote. That is what you don't understand. Also, I don't think the Chargers leaving will help SDSU's fanbase. I have no idea where you gleaned that little nugget. I gleaned that little nugget from the $#!+ you posted. No, I do understand a vote is needed re a new tax. OK Genius- Don't you think the public would vote for a new hotel/car rental tax to help pay for a new stadium SINCE it doesn't come out of their pockets? That's the whole idea isn't it? Many don't want any money coming out of THEIR pockets to pay for it. This ain't hard to figure even for some genius like you. Is this rocket science to you? Your facts aren't facts. Just because Atlanta's beautiful new stadium is going to cost $1.4 doesn't mean it will cost that much here. Anybody who has been to many stadiums like I have sees a future here with a B Stadium, similar to the one in Arizona, Baltimore or Denver. i.e. there OK and sufficient but not the beauties that Jerry World is and what Atlanta is building. As far as "unbiased" articles. Really? There are NO ARTICLES that are 100% UNBIASED about anything. More for the infamous Dr. Steve... Funding part of the stadium via PSLs as Atlanta and Santa Clara have scheduled. Niners fans have purchased about 61,000 licenses. These are just the rights to buy future tickets to football games and other events at Levi’s Stadium. That could bring in more than $500 million to help the stadium owner pay back these giant loans.
|
|
|
Post by doctorsteve on Jan 22, 2015 8:25:35 GMT -8
We already have a 10.5 transient occupancy tax in San Diego on every hotel stay. This generates about 90 million in revenue for the city annually. What percent goes back into promoting the city? Absolutely zero. Thus the hotels created the TMD which is short for tourism marketing district. That is a 1.5 percent fee on top of the 10.5. This fee was supposed to go into marketing San Diego as a destination and to promote such things as the poinsettia bowl, holiday bowl, and other such events. The scumbag Filner and democrats decided that this fee was meant for them. Now were caught up in litigation over 12.5% of tax revenue intended for things such as building a new stadium which is now being spent on wasteful government spending. In the meantime other cities are using these tax revenues to get stuff done. This is a prime example of why companies are leaving this city and state. According to the city's adopted budget, 38.1% of TOT goes to "promotional programs," 52.4% goes to the general fund, and 9.5% is discretionary. The reason the TMD exists is because downtown hoteliers wanted to force ALL city hotels to pay for promotion. They couldn't do that on their own, so they asked the government to do it for them. Also according to the budget, TOT is only 7.8% of general fund revenue. Most of it is property and sales taxes. Also, according to some news articles I read last year during the expansion fight, the convention center is obligated to give more than half of its city stipend to the TMD for promotions. Also, the TMD hotel tax might be illegal since it never went to a public vote; similar to why the proposed convention center expansion tax got shot down by the state appellate court. Finally, according to the municipal code, the TMD assessment cannot be used to fund stadium expansion.
This is a prime example of you always being wrong.
|
|
|
Post by doctorsteve on Jan 22, 2015 8:28:51 GMT -8
My facts are facts. Go look at any of the unbiased articles on a new chargers stadium. They won't get it without a vote. You can't raise taxes without a vote. That is what you don't understand. Also, I don't think the Chargers leaving will help SDSU's fanbase. I have no idea where you gleaned that little nugget. I gleaned that little nugget from the $#!+ you posted. No, I do understand a vote is needed re a new tax. OK Genius- Don't you think the public would vote for a new hotel/car rental tax to help pay for a new stadium SINCE it doesn't come out of their pockets? That's the whole idea isn't it? Many don't want any money coming out of THEIR pockets to pay for it. This ain't hard to figure even for some genius like you. Is this rocket science to you? Your facts aren't facts. Just because Atlanta's beautiful new stadium is going to cost $1.4 doesn't mean it will cost that much here. Anybody who has been to many stadiums like I have sees a future here with a B Stadium, similar to the one in Arizona, Baltimore or Denver. i.e. there OK and sufficient but not the beauties that Jerry World is and what Atlanta is building. As far as "unbiased" articles. Really? There are NO ARTICLES that are 100% UNBIASED about anything. No, people don't like new taxes. I don't think 2/3rds of voters would vote for a new tax. Fine, it might not be $1.4 billion; it might be more, it might be less. The fact of the matter is that the chargers don't want to pay their fair share, so f x x x 'em.
|
|
|
Post by doctorsteve on Jan 22, 2015 8:30:49 GMT -8
I gleaned that little nugget from the $#!+ you posted. No, I do understand a vote is needed re a new tax. OK Genius- Don't you think the public would vote for a new hotel/car rental tax to help pay for a new stadium SINCE it doesn't come out of their pockets? That's the whole idea isn't it? Many don't want any money coming out of THEIR pockets to pay for it. This ain't hard to figure even for some genius like you. Is this rocket science to you? Your facts aren't facts. Just because Atlanta's beautiful new stadium is going to cost $1.4 doesn't mean it will cost that much here. Anybody who has been to many stadiums like I have sees a future here with a B Stadium, similar to the one in Arizona, Baltimore or Denver. i.e. there OK and sufficient but not the beauties that Jerry World is and what Atlanta is building. As far as "unbiased" articles. Really? There are NO ARTICLES that are 100% UNBIASED about anything. More for the infamous Dr. Steve... Funding part of the stadium via PSLs as Atlanta and Santa Clara have scheduled. Niners fans have purchased about 61,000 licenses. These are just the rights to buy future tickets to football games and other events at Levi’s Stadium. That could bring in more than $500 million to help the stadium owner pay back these giant loans. More you being wrong. Here's what Mark Fabiani said about PSL's. The CHARGERS don't even think they can get PSL's. Why do you?
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jan 22, 2015 8:30:59 GMT -8
We already have a 10.5 transient occupancy tax in San Diego on every hotel stay. This generates about 90 million in revenue for the city annually. What percent goes back into promoting the city? Absolutely zero. Thus the hotels created the TMD which is short for tourism marketing district. That is a 1.5 percent fee on top of the 10.5. This fee was supposed to go into marketing San Diego as a destination and to promote such things as the poinsettia bowl, holiday bowl, and other such events. The scumbag Filner and democrats decided that this fee was meant for them. Now were caught up in litigation over 12.5% of tax revenue intended for things such as building a new stadium which is now being spent on wasteful government spending. In the meantime other cities are using these tax revenues to get stuff done. This is a prime example of why companies are leaving this city and state. According to the city's adopted budget, 38.1% of TOT goes to "promotional programs," 52.4% goes to the general fund, and 9.5% is discretionary. The reason the TMD exists is because downtown hoteliers wanted to force ALL city hotels to pay for promotion. They couldn't do that on their own, so they asked the government to do it for them. Also according to the budget, TOT is only 7.8% of general fund revenue. Most of it is property and sales taxes. Also, according to some news articles I read last year during the expansion fight, the convention center is obligated to give more than half of its city stipend to the TMD for promotions. Also, the TMD hotel tax might be illegal since it never went to a public vote; similar to why the proposed convention center expansion tax got shot down by the state appellate court. Finally, according to the municipal code, the TMD assessment cannot be used to fund stadium expansion.
This is a prime example of you always being wrong. What if the stadium were to be part of the convention center expansion? Does that change anything? (I really dont know, just asking) You seem to have gone into the municipal code to get the details, so perhaps you could elucidate.
|
|
|
Post by doctorsteve on Jan 22, 2015 8:35:45 GMT -8
According to the city's adopted budget, 38.1% of TOT goes to "promotional programs," 52.4% goes to the general fund, and 9.5% is discretionary. The reason the TMD exists is because downtown hoteliers wanted to force ALL city hotels to pay for promotion. They couldn't do that on their own, so they asked the government to do it for them. Also according to the budget, TOT is only 7.8% of general fund revenue. Most of it is property and sales taxes. Also, according to some news articles I read last year during the expansion fight, the convention center is obligated to give more than half of its city stipend to the TMD for promotions. Also, the TMD hotel tax might be illegal since it never went to a public vote; similar to why the proposed convention center expansion tax got shot down by the state appellate court. Finally, according to the municipal code, the TMD assessment cannot be used to fund stadium expansion.
This is a prime example of you always being wrong. What if the stadium were to be part of the convention center expansion? Does that change anything? (I really dont know, just asking) You seem to have gone into the municipal code to get the details, so perhaps you could elucidate. It's kind of weird and hard to understand. San Francisco is expanding their convention center using a tmd-like assessment. San Jose expanded theirs using a TOT-like special tax (just like the SD tried to do). Both cities were successful. Why? No one challenged them. Different political climates? I just looked at the muni code again. it very loosely defines "activities" allowed under the assessment, but it reference a thing called the district management plan. I found that on the tmd website and it says a bunch of crap about buying and/or constructing public property is not allowed.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jan 22, 2015 8:36:19 GMT -8
I gleaned that little nugget from the $#!+ you posted. No, I do understand a vote is needed re a new tax. OK Genius- Don't you think the public would vote for a new hotel/car rental tax to help pay for a new stadium SINCE it doesn't come out of their pockets? That's the whole idea isn't it? Many don't want any money coming out of THEIR pockets to pay for it. This ain't hard to figure even for some genius like you. Is this rocket science to you? Your facts aren't facts. Just because Atlanta's beautiful new stadium is going to cost $1.4 doesn't mean it will cost that much here. Anybody who has been to many stadiums like I have sees a future here with a B Stadium, similar to the one in Arizona, Baltimore or Denver. i.e. there OK and sufficient but not the beauties that Jerry World is and what Atlanta is building. As far as "unbiased" articles. Really? There are NO ARTICLES that are 100% UNBIASED about anything. No, people don't like new taxes. I don't think 2/3rds of voters would vote for a new tax. Fine, it might not be $1.4 billion; it might be more, it might be less. The fact of the matter is that the chargers don't want to pay their fair share, so f x x x 'em. So according to you, what exactly would the Chargers portion be their "fair share"? Before you jump in and say 100%, consider that the City realizes real and tangible benefits from a new stadium. The low hanging fruit is increased tax revenue and promotion. As you noted before, part of the TOT goes to promotion or advertising if you will for San Diego to encourage tourism. I am hard pressed to think of better exposure then a game in San Diego in December or January. There is no other city that shows better than San Diego on TV and no other venue that gets more TV sets turned on than the NFL.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jan 22, 2015 8:43:01 GMT -8
More for the infamous Dr. Steve... Funding part of the stadium via PSLs as Atlanta and Santa Clara have scheduled. Niners fans have purchased about 61,000 licenses. These are just the rights to buy future tickets to football games and other events at Levi’s Stadium. That could bring in more than $500 million to help the stadium owner pay back these giant loans. More you being wrong. Here's what Mark Fabiani said about PSL's. The CHARGERS don't even think they can get PSL's. Why do you? I'm not wrong. I didn't say that they should or will try to sell them. It's just another option of. You seem to have reading and comprehension problems. Get off your high horse, slow down and open your closed mind.
|
|
|
Post by doctorsteve on Jan 22, 2015 8:45:28 GMT -8
No, people don't like new taxes. I don't think 2/3rds of voters would vote for a new tax. Fine, it might not be $1.4 billion; it might be more, it might be less. The fact of the matter is that the chargers don't want to pay their fair share, so f x x x 'em. So according to you, what exactly would the Chargers portion be their "fair share"? Before you jump in and say 100%, consider that the City realizes real and tangible benefits from a new stadium. The low hanging fruit is increased tax revenue and promotion. As you noted before, part of the TOT goes to promotion or advertising if you will for San Diego to encourage tourism. I am hard pressed to think of better exposure then a game in San Diego in December or January. There is no other city that shows better than San Diego on TV and no other venue that gets more TV sets turned on than the NFL. I'm not sure what their fair share would be. There are many studies that show the dubious nature of "economic impact studies" when it comes to sports facilities and conventions. Civic pride, while not exactly tangible, is likely the best reason to help the chargers stay. I guess my answer is...I don't know. Every article I have read, even on the UT, says the chargers are willing to put in $200 million. The falcons, for example, are putting in $800 million. I know Spanos is no Arthur Blank. I also don't blame Spanos for trying to get the best deal. If it's in LA, then good luck to him and his family.
|
|
|
Post by doctorsteve on Jan 22, 2015 8:48:36 GMT -8
I'm not wrong. I didn't say that they should or will try to sell them. It's just another option of. You seem to have reading and comprehension problems. Get off your high horse, slow down and open your closed mind. What? You intimated that PSLs would be a panacea. It's not. SD can't match the corporate buying power of Atlanta or the Silicon Valley.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jan 22, 2015 8:49:27 GMT -8
I gleaned that little nugget from the $#!+ you posted. No, I do understand a vote is needed re a new tax. OK Genius- Don't you think the public would vote for a new hotel/car rental tax to help pay for a new stadium SINCE it doesn't come out of their pockets? That's the whole idea isn't it? Many don't want any money coming out of THEIR pockets to pay for it. This ain't hard to figure even for some genius like you. Is this rocket science to you? Your facts aren't facts. Just because Atlanta's beautiful new stadium is going to cost $1.4 doesn't mean it will cost that much here. Anybody who has been to many stadiums like I have sees a future here with a B Stadium, similar to the one in Arizona, Baltimore or Denver. i.e. there OK and sufficient but not the beauties that Jerry World is and what Atlanta is building. As far as "unbiased" articles. Really? There are NO ARTICLES that are 100% UNBIASED about anything. No, people don't like new taxes. I don't think 2/3rds of voters would vote for a new tax. Fine, it might not be $1.4 billion; it might be more, it might be less. The fact of the matter is that the chargers don't want to pay their fair share, so f x x x 'em. Really? How many local hotel room and car rentals do you use/year? I doubt many locals use any of them SO why wouldn't they welcome money from tourists, conventioneers, and business travelers rather than themselves to help pay for a new stadium? If people are that stupid then this city er ah town has more problems than I thought. What is your opinion of "fair" share? There's no magic number here. Since you seem to have the time to research it all, tell us how much each team paid as their "fair" share who are playing in semi-new to new stadiums? I believe that the Chargers/Spanoses should pay some as I believe that the citizens of our County (not just City) should pay some. With naming rights that could approach $150-$200 mill, car rental/hotel taxes that would eventually pay a helluva lot, loan from the NFL, Spanoses money and the County's money, it can be done. There's just too many fools in the way.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jan 22, 2015 8:51:12 GMT -8
So according to you, what exactly would the Chargers portion be their "fair share"? Before you jump in and say 100%, consider that the City realizes real and tangible benefits from a new stadium. The low hanging fruit is increased tax revenue and promotion. As you noted before, part of the TOT goes to promotion or advertising if you will for San Diego to encourage tourism. I am hard pressed to think of better exposure then a game in San Diego in December or January. There is no other city that shows better than San Diego on TV and no other venue that gets more TV sets turned on than the NFL. I'm not sure what their fair share would be. There are many studies that show the dubious nature of "economic impact studies" when it comes to sports facilities and conventions. Civic pride, while not exactly tangible, is likely the best reason to help the chargers stay. I guess my answer is...I don't know. Every article I have read, even on the UT, says the chargers are willing to put in $200 million. The falcons, for example, are putting in $800 million. I know Spanos is no Arthur Blank. I also don't blame Spanos for trying to get the best deal. If it's in LA, then good luck to him and his family. There seems to be a disconnect in your posts. First you say the Chargers should pay their fair share, then say you have no idea what that is. It seems to me you should have some concept of what the "fairness" is prior to saying Fxxx em. Such inflammatory and careless rhetoric does nothing to advance the discussion and only makes you sound petty.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jan 22, 2015 8:51:54 GMT -8
I'm not wrong. I didn't say that they should or will try to sell them. It's just another option of. You seem to have reading and comprehension problems. Get off your high horse, slow down and open your closed mind. What? You intimated that PSLs would be a panacea. It's not. SD can't match the corporate buying power of Atlanta or the Silicon Valley. Intimated? You assume far too much bucko. Just another option. You see I currently own 4 Club tickets in the Georgia Dome for the Falcons and other events. They want $15000 per seat for the new stadium for Club tickets. Would I pay that? No! Would others, probably. Didn't the Padres charge a PSL when Petco first opened? YES! Not nearly that much but..
|
|