|
Post by Den60 on Mar 4, 2015 8:44:45 GMT -8
The infrastructure issues surrounding the El Cajon Speedway are no more or less problematic than a Downtown SD Stadium. Neither is set up for the traffic and parking issues of a 70K stadium. Did you think downtown traffic would be a breeze for a Monday night or Thursday night game Downtown? I can just imagine the issues when the Padres and Chargers have a game scheduled for the same day, bad enough for a Sunday but if it were a Monday or Thursday game added to regular downtown congestion? I am not actively advocating for using the El Cajon Speedway site ... just pointing out that it is no more or less problematic than some of the other sites mentioned ... We all know that there is no way to increase the capability of Friar's Road to handle more traffic on game days ... now add more commercial, residential and recreational development to the site along with more stop lights and intersections and see what we end up with in terms of inadequate infrastructure. OTOH ... we are basically talking about only 8-10 games a year at possibly max capacity for the stadium -- traffic & public transportation issues could be ironed out over time Actually, if you look at this guy's plan, he would take most of the airport out. He has been trying to shut down Gillespie for years. Then you can look at his funding "plan": $500M from the Chargers (OK, that seems workable). $250M from the City of San Diego. OK, why would they pay anything to put the team in El Cajon? $250M from the County. You just took their land, ruined a profitable enterprise for them, so why wouldn't they want to kick in a quarter billion dollars to boot? $100M from SDSU. Hey, he's gotta make the numbers work, right? $50M from three local indian tribes ($150M total. $25M from El Cajon (they must want more traffic). $15M from Santee (they must want more traffic but not as much as El Cajon does). If you could get the first 4 then you have plenty of money to build a stadium on the Q site.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 4, 2015 12:37:31 GMT -8
The infrastructure issues surrounding the El Cajon Speedway are no more or less problematic than a Downtown SD Stadium. Neither is set up for the traffic and parking issues of a 70K stadium. Did you think downtown traffic would be a breeze for a Monday night or Thursday night game Downtown? I can just imagine the issues when the Padres and Chargers have a game scheduled for the same day, bad enough for a Sunday but if it were a Monday or Thursday game added to regular downtown congestion? I am not actively advocating for using the El Cajon Speedway site ... just pointing out that it is no more or less problematic than some of the other sites mentioned ... We all know that there is no way to increase the capability of Friar's Road to handle more traffic on game days ... now add more commercial, residential and recreational development to the site along with more stop lights and intersections and see what we end up with in terms of inadequate infrastructure. OTOH ... we are basically talking about only 8-10 games a year at possibly max capacity for the stadium -- traffic & public transportation issues could be ironed out over time Actually, if you look at this guy's plan, he would take most of the airport out. He has been trying to shut down Gillespie for years. Then you can look at his funding "plan": $500M from the Chargers (OK, that seems workable). $250M from the City of San Diego. OK, why would they pay anything to put the team in El Cajon? $250M from the County. You just took their land, ruined a profitable enterprise for them, so why wouldn't they want to kick in a quarter billion dollars to boot? $100M from SDSU. Hey, he's gotta make the numbers work, right? $50M from three local indian tribes ($150M total. $25M from El Cajon (they must want more traffic). $15M from Santee (they must want more traffic but not as much as El Cajon does). If you could get the first 4 then you have plenty of money to build a stadium on the Q site. I honestly don't care about "his" financing plan ... the numbers that are needed to work here are the same no matter where the stadium goes $200M Chargers (and should be held responsible for any cost over-runs) $200M NFL Loan $200M County of San Diego $200M City of San Diego (or El Cajon & Santee depending on location) $150M Naming Rights $100M PSL/Luxury Box Pre-Sale As far as the specifics regarding the El Cajon Speedway and use (or not) of Gillespie Field ... that is up to architects and planners, but the issue really comes down to parking/tailgating. The actual footprint of a stadium is not that big and probably fits inside the oval at the track. Of the 166 acres of the Mission Valley site, the Stadium takes up 6-7 Acres and the the parking rings (dark asphalt) around the stadium take up another 60 acres. The rest of the site (100 acres) is the lighter grey surface. Whether downtown or El Cajon, parking and traffic will be a big issue. Of course downtown has further issues around the relocation of the MTS bus yard, site clean-up and other issues similar to what Petco experienced with water table and geology too. While I have no clue as the site complications regarding El Cajon Speedway beyond traffic and parking, I do think there is more opportunity for development beyond a stadium in the area. I do not think that downtown or Mission Valley locations have the same amount of opportunities for retail, commercial and residential development as El Cajon and Santee have the potential for and let's admit, that they really need it. Downtown would be better served with a new sports arena & expanded convention center along with hotel and resort development to serve those structures. Mission Valley could continue to be used as the NFL stadium, but if the El Cajon Speedway site works for the Chargers; then let SDSU acquire the Mission Valley site to expand campus and increase the amount of economic activity generated both directly and indirectly through an increase in enrollment and associated spending by the university and its students, faculty and staff. It would be great if the 3 projects could all be advanced at the same time from 3 separate funding sources: convention center expansion, TOT (2/3 City of San Diego vote) Chargers Stadium in El Cajon (Public funding voted on by Santee, El Cajon and County of SD) SDSU expansion in Mission Valley (funded by SDSU, CSU-System and State of California) *Whatever the City of San Diego and SDSU work out for the acquisition price of the Q site, could go towards an upgrade of the Sports Arena, or go back into the general fund for use on roads, water or other projects for the public good.
|
|
|
Post by Luchador El Guerrero Azteca on Mar 4, 2015 15:48:27 GMT -8
I call bull$#!+ on what the councilman said unless it was Donna gyre circa 2003. It's going to be at Qualcomm and willbe a 55 percent vote. The 2/3 vote pertains to the downtown site that deals with hotel taxes and rental car tax. From Fabian Chat... gj4bolts says: Mark, Ron Roberts mentioned a 55% threshold for the establishment of an Incremental Tac District to pay back the loan. Is this number more feasible to obtain Mark Fabiani says: There are real limits to what funds raised by an Infrastructure District can be used for, and those limits make such districts of limited use to a stadium project. Sounds like the 55% vote wouldn't work. You can believe everything Fabiani says.
|
|
|
Post by Ambivalent_Fan on Mar 4, 2015 18:16:44 GMT -8
All I know is that my measly single vote would be "NO" to any tax payer paid stadium for the Chargers (which was exactly my vote for Petco Park to enrich the pockets of John Moores...)...
I would advocate for others to vote "NO" as well...
Now if the Chargers and City/County can convince 2/3 of the voters to enact new taxes on the citizens or visitors of San Diego...I say let them build their stadium wherever they want...but in reality...the city/county has a snowball's chance in hell in getting 2 out of every 3 voters to support a new tax plan to enrich the Chargers...and I would go as far as to say that I don't even think that would win a simple majority at this point...
...but if they can...so be it...the 2/3 will have spoken...
Bring on the vote and be done with it...June will be fine with me...but if it takes to November then that's okay as well...
Just do it and let the chips fall where they may...once and for all...
If the vote fails...the Chargers are free to leave any time they want...
If the vote passes...let's start construction...
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Mar 4, 2015 18:34:39 GMT -8
All I know is that my measly single vote would be "NO" to any tax payer paid stadium for the Chargers (which was exactly my vote for Petco Park to enrich the pockets of John Moores...)... I would advocate for others to vote "NO" as well... Now if the Chargers and City/County can convince 2/3 of the voters to enact new taxes on the citizens or visitors of San Diego...I say let them build their stadium wherever they want...but in reality...the city/county has a snowball's chance in hell in getting 2 out of every 3 voters to support a new tax plan to enrich the Chargers...and I would go as far as to say that I don't even think that would win a simple majority at this point... ...but if they can...so be it...the 2/3 will have spoken... Bring on the vote and be done with it...June will be fine with me...but if it takes to November then that's okay as well... Just do it and let the chips fall where they may...once and for all... If the vote fails...the Chargers are free to leave any time they want... If the vote passes...let's start construction... If they wait until the original proposed date for the vote--November 2016--the vote may no longer be necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Ambivalent_Fan on Mar 4, 2015 18:38:23 GMT -8
All I know is that my measly single vote would be "NO" to any tax payer paid stadium for the Chargers (which was exactly my vote for Petco Park to enrich the pockets of John Moores...)... I would advocate for others to vote "NO" as well... Now if the Chargers and City/County can convince 2/3 of the voters to enact new taxes on the citizens or visitors of San Diego...I say let them build their stadium wherever they want...but in reality...the city/county has a snowball's chance in hell in getting 2 out of every 3 voters to support a new tax plan to enrich the Chargers...and I would go as far as to say that I don't even think that would win a simple majority at this point... ...but if they can...so be it...the 2/3 will have spoken... Bring on the vote and be done with it...June will be fine with me...but if it takes to November then that's okay as well... Just do it and let the chips fall where they may...once and for all... If the vote fails...the Chargers are free to leave any time they want... If the vote passes...let's start construction... If they wait until the original proposed date for the vote--November 2016--the vote may no longer be necessary. I can only hope you're right...
|
|
|
Post by greysuit on Mar 4, 2015 18:47:55 GMT -8
I hate to break it to everyone but A. That land is owned by the County not Santee and El Cajon and B. It is federally protected by the FAA for aviation uses only, which is why the uses on that land have shut down over the last decade.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Mar 4, 2015 20:06:34 GMT -8
Actually, if you look at this guy's plan, he would take most of the airport out. He has been trying to shut down Gillespie for years. Then you can look at his funding "plan": $500M from the Chargers (OK, that seems workable). $250M from the City of San Diego. OK, why would they pay anything to put the team in El Cajon? $250M from the County. You just took their land, ruined a profitable enterprise for them, so why wouldn't they want to kick in a quarter billion dollars to boot? $100M from SDSU. Hey, he's gotta make the numbers work, right? $50M from three local indian tribes ($150M total. $25M from El Cajon (they must want more traffic). $15M from Santee (they must want more traffic but not as much as El Cajon does). If you could get the first 4 then you have plenty of money to build a stadium on the Q site. I honestly don't care about "his" financing plan ... the numbers that are needed to work here are the same no matter where the stadium goes $200M Chargers (and should be held responsible for any cost over-runs) $200M NFL Loan $200M County of San Diego $200M City of San Diego (or El Cajon & Santee depending on location) $150M Naming Rights $100M PSL/Luxury Box Pre-Sale As far as the specifics regarding the El Cajon Speedway and use (or not) of Gillespie Field ... that is up to architects and planners, but the issue really comes down to parking/tailgating. The actual footprint of a stadium is not that big and probably fits inside the oval at the track. Of the 166 acres of the Mission Valley site, the Stadium takes up 6-7 Acres and the the parking rings (dark asphalt) around the stadium take up another 60 acres. The rest of the site (100 acres) is the lighter grey surface. Whether downtown or El Cajon, parking and traffic will be a big issue. Of course downtown has further issues around the relocation of the MTS bus yard, site clean-up and other issues similar to what Petco experienced with water table and geology too. While I have no clue as the site complications regarding El Cajon Speedway beyond traffic and parking, I do think there is more opportunity for development beyond a stadium in the area. I do not think that downtown or Mission Valley locations have the same amount of opportunities for retail, commercial and residential development as El Cajon and Santee have the potential for and let's admit, that they really need it. Downtown would be better served with a new sports arena & expanded convention center along with hotel and resort development to serve those structures. Mission Valley could continue to be used as the NFL stadium, but if the El Cajon Speedway site works for the Chargers; then let SDSU acquire the Mission Valley site to expand campus and increase the amount of economic activity generated both directly and indirectly through an increase in enrollment and associated spending by the university and its students, faculty and staff. It would be great if the 3 projects could all be advanced at the same time from 3 separate funding sources: convention center expansion, TOT (2/3 City of San Diego vote) Chargers Stadium in El Cajon (Public funding voted on by Santee, El Cajon and County of SD) SDSU expansion in Mission Valley (funded by SDSU, CSU-System and State of California) *Whatever the City of San Diego and SDSU work out for the acquisition price of the Q site, could go towards an upgrade of the Sports Arena, or go back into the general fund for use on roads, water or other projects for the public good. Umm, kinda my point. If they can get the financing then the MV site is the best option and it appears that will be the recommendation or the stadium commission. But this thread is about essentially taking out Gillepsie Field (not just the 70 acres which El Cajon Speedway took) which is never going to be an option. As for whether SDSU can come up with the money to fund their own stadium I am one that thinks that will be very hard for them to do.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 4, 2015 20:21:31 GMT -8
I honestly don't care about "his" financing plan ... the numbers that are needed to work here are the same no matter where the stadium goes $200M Chargers (and should be held responsible for any cost over-runs) $200M NFL Loan $200M County of San Diego $200M City of San Diego (or El Cajon & Santee depending on location) $150M Naming Rights $100M PSL/Luxury Box Pre-Sale As far as the specifics regarding the El Cajon Speedway and use (or not) of Gillespie Field ... that is up to architects and planners, but the issue really comes down to parking/tailgating. The actual footprint of a stadium is not that big and probably fits inside the oval at the track. Of the 166 acres of the Mission Valley site, the Stadium takes up 6-7 Acres and the the parking rings (dark asphalt) around the stadium take up another 60 acres. The rest of the site (100 acres) is the lighter grey surface. Whether downtown or El Cajon, parking and traffic will be a big issue. Of course downtown has further issues around the relocation of the MTS bus yard, site clean-up and other issues similar to what Petco experienced with water table and geology too. While I have no clue as the site complications regarding El Cajon Speedway beyond traffic and parking, I do think there is more opportunity for development beyond a stadium in the area. I do not think that downtown or Mission Valley locations have the same amount of opportunities for retail, commercial and residential development as El Cajon and Santee have the potential for and let's admit, that they really need it. Downtown would be better served with a new sports arena & expanded convention center along with hotel and resort development to serve those structures. Mission Valley could continue to be used as the NFL stadium, but if the El Cajon Speedway site works for the Chargers; then let SDSU acquire the Mission Valley site to expand campus and increase the amount of economic activity generated both directly and indirectly through an increase in enrollment and associated spending by the university and its students, faculty and staff. It would be great if the 3 projects could all be advanced at the same time from 3 separate funding sources: convention center expansion, TOT (2/3 City of San Diego vote) Chargers Stadium in El Cajon (Public funding voted on by Santee, El Cajon and County of SD) SDSU expansion in Mission Valley (funded by SDSU, CSU-System and State of California) *Whatever the City of San Diego and SDSU work out for the acquisition price of the Q site, could go towards an upgrade of the Sports Arena, or go back into the general fund for use on roads, water or other projects for the public good. Umm, kinda my point. If they can get the financing then the MV site is the best option and it appears that will be the recommendation or the stadium commission. But this thread is about essentially taking out Gillepsie Field (not just the 70 acres which El Cajon Speedway took) which is never going to be an option. As for whether SDSU can come up with the money to fund their own stadium I am one that thinks that will be very hard for them to do. My thoughts on the El Cajon Speedway is that it will not get a serious look by the STF (stadium task force) because the STF was assembled by the Mayor of the City of SD to find a City of SD solution ... had the STF been assembled by the County, they may have looked for solutions beyond just the Mission Valley or Downtown sites. As for what SDSU can afford to do: Endowment is $190M Campanile Assets are $270M Presidents Fund is approaching $750M SDSU can self-fund some projects, can get help from the CSU-System to fund larger projects and the State can come in on even bigger ones. Assuming the project was $250M, SDSU could actually fund the project as a capital asset, then lease the building to the athletic department. The Bond could be paid down through the rent & donations as well as fees. The building could further be funded by an association with an entity like AEG. The project could be a joint effort by all three (SDSU, CSU, State) with each contributing a bond to the effort. To put it simply, the STF wants SDSU on board BECAUSE it has the resources that the City, County and Chargers do not.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Mar 4, 2015 21:01:55 GMT -8
Umm, kinda my point. If they can get the financing then the MV site is the best option and it appears that will be the recommendation or the stadium commission. But this thread is about essentially taking out Gillepsie Field (not just the 70 acres which El Cajon Speedway took) which is never going to be an option. As for whether SDSU can come up with the money to fund their own stadium I am one that thinks that will be very hard for them to do. My thoughts on the El Cajon Speedway is that it will not get a serious look by the STF (stadium task force) because the STF was assembled by the Mayor of the City of SD to find a City of SD solution ... had the STF been assembled by the County, they may have looked for solutions beyond just the Mission Valley or Downtown sites. As for what SDSU can afford to do: Endowment is $190M Campanile Assets are $270M Presidents Fund is approaching $750M SDSU can self-fund some projects, can get help from the CSU-System to fund larger projects and the State can come in on even bigger ones. Assuming the project was $250M, SDSU could actually fund the project as a capital asset, then lease the building to the athletic department. The Bond could be paid down through the rent & donations as well as fees. The building could further be funded by an association with an entity like AEG. The project could be a joint effort by all three (SDSU, CSU, State) with each contributing a bond to the effort. To put it simply, the STF wants SDSU on board BECAUSE it has the resources that the City, County and Chargers do not. Can those funds be used to fund a football stadium? Cal had to come up with separate financing for their stadium renovation and from what I've read it will put their whole athletics department in a real bind. I have to say that I just looked at the Campanile Funds and they state about $2.6M in assets.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 4, 2015 21:18:14 GMT -8
My thoughts on the El Cajon Speedway is that it will not get a serious look by the STF (stadium task force) because the STF was assembled by the Mayor of the City of SD to find a City of SD solution ... had the STF been assembled by the County, they may have looked for solutions beyond just the Mission Valley or Downtown sites. As for what SDSU can afford to do: Endowment is $190M Campanile Assets are $270M Presidents Fund is approaching $750M SDSU can self-fund some projects, can get help from the CSU-System to fund larger projects and the State can come in on even bigger ones. Assuming the project was $250M, SDSU could actually fund the project as a capital asset, then lease the building to the athletic department. The Bond could be paid down through the rent & donations as well as fees. The building could further be funded by an association with an entity like AEG. The project could be a joint effort by all three (SDSU, CSU, State) with each contributing a bond to the effort. To put it simply, the STF wants SDSU on board BECAUSE it has the resources that the City, County and Chargers do not. Can those funds be used to fund a football stadium? Cal had to come up with separate financing for their stadium renovation and from what I've read it will put their whole athletics department in a real bind. The Presidents fund can be used to buy the property and stadium ... renovations can be financed through construction bonds and can be done through the capital improvement funds like any other building. It can be spread out over 3-4 years if the renovations are done in phases (like demo of the end zones, then the renovating of each side) and because its a capital improvement, the athletic department would have to pay the university rent like they would to the city if the city owned it. Then t here are the usual ways to help pay the bond like naming rights, sponsorship and advertising. This is one example of how it could be done ... there are others like contracting with a company like AEG to renovate and operate the stadium in exchange for the rights to market it for concerts, events and bring in other tenants like an MLS team.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 4, 2015 21:25:25 GMT -8
Can those funds be used to fund a football stadium? Cal had to come up with separate financing for their stadium renovation and from what I've read it will put their whole athletics department in a real bind. I have to say that I just looked at the Campanile Funds and they state about $2.6M in assets.Do not confuse funds with assets ... you are probably looking at the Operations Fund. In regards to Cal ... Financing The university (UC-Berkeley) incurred a controversial $445 million of debt for the stadium's $321 million renovation and a new $153 million student athletic center, which it planned to finance with the sale of special stadium endowment seats. However, in June 2013 news surfaced that the university has had trouble selling the seats. The roughly $18 million interest-only annual payments on the debt consumes 20 percent of Cal's athletics' budget; principal repayment begins in 2032 and is scheduled to conclude in 2113.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Mar 4, 2015 22:40:47 GMT -8
Can those funds be used to fund a football stadium? Cal had to come up with separate financing for their stadium renovation and from what I've read it will put their whole athletics department in a real bind. I have to say that I just looked at the Campanile Funds and they state about $2.6M in assets.Do not confuse funds with assets ... you are probably looking at the Operations Fund. In regards to Cal ... Financing The university (UC-Berkeley) incurred a controversial $445 million of debt for the stadium's $321 million renovation and a new $153 million student athletic center, which it planned to finance with the sale of special stadium endowment seats. However, in June 2013 news surfaced that the university has had trouble selling the seats. The roughly $18 million interest-only annual payments on the debt consumes 20 percent of Cal's athletics' budget; principal repayment begins in 2032 and is scheduled to conclude in 2113. I just pulled up Campanile fund and that is what I got. I am not sure what point you are making with the Cal stadium financing. It puts a huge burden on their athletics department. though they delay that with interest only payments for 20 years. If they cannot meet the terms the money will come from some other source. A hundred year loan? No private entity will do that. That kind of financing will have to be backed by the taxpayers. Do you really believe that the Cal stadium will be viable in 2113? I really don't believe that the universiy has over $1.2B available to spend on a football stadium. In fact, as a taxpayer, I would be incredibly upset to think they have even one tenth of that amount to set aside. I heard recently that SDSU pays less than 100 grand on rent for use of the Q.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 4, 2015 23:36:49 GMT -8
Do not confuse funds with assets ... you are probably looking at the Operations Fund. In regards to Cal ... Financing The university (UC-Berkeley) incurred a controversial $445 million of debt for the stadium's $321 million renovation and a new $153 million student athletic center, which it planned to finance with the sale of special stadium endowment seats. However, in June 2013 news surfaced that the university has had trouble selling the seats. The roughly $18 million interest-only annual payments on the debt consumes 20 percent of Cal's athletics' budget; principal repayment begins in 2032 and is scheduled to conclude in 2113. I just pulled up Campanile fund and that is what I got. I am not sure what point you are making with the Cal stadium financing. It puts a huge burden on their athletics department. though they delay that with interest only payments for 20 years. If they cannot meet the terms the money will come from some other source. A hundred year loan? No private entity will do that. That kind of financing will have to be backed by the taxpayers. Do you really believe that the Cal stadium will be viable in 2113? I really don't believe that the universiy has over $1.2B available to spend on a football stadium. In fact, as a taxpayer, I would be incredibly upset to think they have even one tenth of that amount to set aside. I heard recently that SDSU pays less than 100 grand on rent for use of the Q. financial statements as of 2012 bfa.sdsu.edu/~finrept/pdf/SDSUFinRpt1112.pdfpage 10 will have the financials for SDSU (University) and Campanile (Auxiliary Organizations) and if you read through the whole thing you may begin to understand how assets are different from funds and how the budget accounts for payments on bonds ... It is also of note that ... Capital Project Management Delegation of Authority SDSU has delegated authority from CSU Chancellor’s Office, Capital Planning, Design and Construction (CPDC) to locally plan and manage all capital outlay projects. This facilitates the selection of design professionals and the bidding and awarding of contracts for major capital projects. It also speeds invoicing and change order processing as compared to centrally managed projects. bfa.sdsu.edu/fpm/delegation.htmnow in terms of Bonds ... this part is math, $100M Bond at 5% for 30 years could have annual payments of $5M ... a total repayment of $150M (interest) +$100M (principle) at maturity -- for comparison, a 30 year US Treasury Bond has a current yield of approximately 2.75% (A Bond is basically a loan. How much and how often you get paid interest depends on the terms of the bond. The interest rate, also called the coupon, is typically higher with long-term bonds. These interest payments are usually doled out semiannually, but they can also be sent out annually, quarterly or even monthly. When the bond reaches the date of maturity, the issuer repays the principle, or original amount of the loan. For you, the lender, a bond is a kind of investment, like a stock. The difference is that stocks aren't loans. Rather, stocks represent partial ownership in a company, and the returns represent a share in profits. For that reason, stocks are riskier and more volatile -- they closely reflect the success of a company. Bonds, on the other hand, often have a fixed interest rate.)
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 5, 2015 0:03:01 GMT -8
Do not confuse funds with assets ... you are probably looking at the Operations Fund. In regards to Cal ... Financing The university (UC-Berkeley) incurred a controversial $445 million of debt for the stadium's $321 million renovation and a new $153 million student athletic center, which it planned to finance with the sale of special stadium endowment seats. However, in June 2013 news surfaced that the university has had trouble selling the seats. The roughly $18 million interest-only annual payments on the debt consumes 20 percent of Cal's athletics' budget; principal repayment begins in 2032 and is scheduled to conclude in 2113. I just pulled up Campanile fund and that is what I got. I am not sure what point you are making with the Cal stadium financing. It puts a huge burden on their athletics department. though they delay that with interest only payments for 20 years. If they cannot meet the terms the money will come from some other source. A hundred year loan? No private entity will do that. That kind of financing will have to be backed by the taxpayers. Do you really believe that the Cal stadium will be viable in 2113? I really don't believe that the universiy has over $1.2B available to spend on a football stadium. In fact, as a taxpayer, I would be incredibly upset to think they have even one tenth of that amount to set aside. I heard recently that SDSU pays less than 100 grand on rent for use of the Q. Why would the University spend $1.2B on a stadium ... Arizona State and Washington each renovated their stadiums for $250M and Houston just built one for $300M.
|
|
|
Post by fowl on Mar 5, 2015 10:53:45 GMT -8
I just pulled up Campanile fund and that is what I got. I am not sure what point you are making with the Cal stadium financing. It puts a huge burden on their athletics department. though they delay that with interest only payments for 20 years. If they cannot meet the terms the money will come from some other source. A hundred year loan? No private entity will do that. That kind of financing will have to be backed by the taxpayers. Do you really believe that the Cal stadium will be viable in 2113? I really don't believe that the universiy has over $1.2B available to spend on a football stadium. In fact, as a taxpayer, I would be incredibly upset to think they have even one tenth of that amount to set aside. I heard recently that SDSU pays less than 100 grand on rent for use of the Q. Why would the University spend $1.2B on a stadium ... Arizona State and Washington each renovated their stadiums for $250M and Houston just built one for $300M. Actually Houston's new stadium only cost them $128M - thedailycougar.com/2014/11/15/uh-announces-investigation-5-million-used-tdecu-stadium/"The stadium once budgeted at $105 million has escalated to as much as $128 million."
|
|
|
Post by fowl on Mar 5, 2015 10:58:04 GMT -8
now in terms of Bonds ... this part is math, $100M Bond at 5% for 30 years could have annual payments of $5M ... Actually the university could issue bonds much closer to 3% given that they would be tax free to a taxable investor.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 5, 2015 11:01:08 GMT -8
Ha ha. thanks ... If we really wanted to get a bargain basement deal ... Tulane constructed Yulman Stadium for around $75M (capacity 30K)
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 5, 2015 11:04:18 GMT -8
now in terms of Bonds ... this part is math, $100M Bond at 5% for 30 years could have annual payments of $5M ... Actually the university could issue bonds much closer to 3% given that they would be tax free to a taxable investor. true, I wanted to keep the numbers round and not get into things like bond ratings and such, but you are correct sir ...
|
|