|
Post by aztecbolt on May 21, 2015 14:15:18 GMT -8
So let me get this right, according to reports: The taxpayers are going to pay almost $1B (according to this article) The Chargers are going to pay almost $1B (according to team sources) So we now have a $2B stadium? Hmmmm… That means a deal is going to get struck somewhere in the middle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2015 14:23:24 GMT -8
So let me get this right, according to reports: The taxpayers are going to pay almost $1B (according to this article) The Chargers are going to pay almost $1B (according to team sources) So we now have a $2B stadium? Hmmmm… In effect yes ... the CSAG specifically left out infrastructure improvements as well as other stadium maintenance costs in their proposal ... everything in their plan relates only to construction of the stadium & parking structure. Basically the cost to develop/prep the property for future use?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on May 21, 2015 14:37:14 GMT -8
In effect yes ... the CSAG specifically left out infrastructure improvements as well as other stadium maintenance costs in their proposal ... everything in their plan relates only to construction of the stadium & parking structure. Basically the cost to develop/prep the property for future use? In order to get the $225M for those 75 acres ... "This estimate assumes the Site gains an approved Master Plan, that Merchant Builders would go through a substantial review for its individual neighborhood design proposals consistent with the Master Plan, and such Merchant Builders would be delivered sheet-graded fully serviced pads with perimeter infrastructure provided." It also leaves River Park unfunded, as well as the repayment of the Q expansion bonds which the City will have to pay off. Surcharges on tickets and parking are considered contributions by the team by the NFL so the city will not be able to use those funds to maintain the new stadium as the CSAG used those for construction. There are many items in the CSAG plan that have hidden costs that negotiations will not address and will be the responsibility of the City or County to pay for.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on May 21, 2015 15:25:44 GMT -8
As of today...
After having some time to digest the plan and listening to people debate about the CSAG plan I believe now more than ever before that the Chargers will be leaving San Diego.
I believe the Rams will get a new stadium in St. Louis and will likely stay there.
The Raiders are in worse shape than any team and have the very little chance of getting a new stadium in Oakland.
Even if the Chargers/NFL & City/County can come to terms (which I don't even believe will happen) the proposal would not be approved by the voters of San Diego.
I believe that Carson is in fact a viable option. Granted it won't be an easy one.
I also believe that the Raiders & Chargers can get the majority vote of the NFL owners for relocation and that the NFL is more willing to appease the 2 teams that are not ikely to get new stadiums in their home markets (unlike the Rams who appear to be making great progress according to the NFL).
Of course this can all change.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 21, 2015 15:44:53 GMT -8
We believe what we want to believe. Building a stadium on a landfill in CALIFORNIA is not going to be a near impossible task, especially since they're trying to bypass the EIR . People point out that it's been done in NY/NJ but that ain't the same as getting it done in California. You think there's going to be lawsuits here in San Diego? Wait until they try to stick a shovel in Carson. AEG is going to be the first one up, followed by a host of environmental groups. Inglewood is the preferred site (no environmental lawsuits to deal with), the Rams are the preferred team (LA doesn't care about the Chargers) and Kroenke is the preferred owner ($$$). Don't believe anything coming out the NFL regarding "only 2 teams in So Cal" or now the reports leaking out that "Carson is in the lead" (Funny how that comes out right after the CSAG proposal) They want first and foremost to help their teams with all the leverage possible to get a deal done in their existing cities. What do you think they're discussing in these owner meetings? The fact that people still think Carson is a threat and even has the edge shows you how good the NFL is at this game. They've been doing it forever.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on May 21, 2015 16:33:07 GMT -8
We believe what we want to believe. Building a stadium on a landfill in CALIFORNIA is not going to be a near impossible task, especially since they're trying to bypass the EIR . People point out that it's been done in NY/NJ but that ain't the same as getting it done in California. You think there's going to be lawsuits here in San Diego? Wait until they try to stick a shovel in Carson. AEG is going to be the first one up, followed by a host of environmental groups. Inglewood is the preferred site (no environmental lawsuits to deal with), the Rams are the preferred team (LA doesn't care about the Chargers) and Kroenke is the preferred owner ($$$). Don't believe anything coming out the NFL regarding "only 2 teams in So Cal" or now the reports leaking out that "Carson is in the lead" (Funny how that comes out right after the CSAG proposal) They want first and foremost to help their teams with all the leverage possible to get a deal done in their existing cities. What do you think they're discussing in these owner meetings? The fact that people still think Carson is a threat and even has the edge shows you how good the NFL is at this game. They've been doing it forever. Ther are multiple ways this could turn out to be sure. As of now what I described is the most plausible outcome IMO.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on May 21, 2015 16:35:33 GMT -8
What do Mile High Stadium, Giants Stadium, Autzen Stadium, Sun Devil Stadium, Comiskey Park, Candelstick Park and the Astros/Nationals new spring training facility have in common?...they were all built on former dumps. That was about a minute of internet research and I'm sure theres lots more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2015 5:53:56 GMT -8
What do Mile High Stadium, Giants Stadium, Autzen Stadium, Sun Devil Stadium, Comiskey Park, Candelstick Park and the Astros/Nationals new spring training facility have in common?...they were all built on former dumps. That was about a minute of internet research and I'm sure theres lots more. How many of those are so bad they reqiure systems to pump ground water from the site in order to treat it before dumping it into the sewer? How many of those sites will require on-going methane gas remediation to the tune of $4,000,000/yr? www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Projects/upload/Cal_Compact_FS_Site_Restoration.pdfWe're told the site is "ready" www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-nfl-carson-stadium-20150221-story.html but "ready" is relative. From the article it sounds as if the remediation is about 50% complete. They've done the front end stuff; compaction and water wells. The hard, and expensive parts( liner, top soil, gas wells, monitoring systems, "flare-off" systems and building protection systems) remains as they are project specific. Add in the complex work rules pertaining to movement of materials, dust control etc and you have what can only be considered a VERY expensive site upon which to build anything,
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on May 22, 2015 8:54:24 GMT -8
So let me get this right, according to reports: The taxpayers are going to pay almost $1B (according to this article) The Chargers are going to pay almost $1B (according to team sources) So we now have a $2B stadium? Hmmmm… In effect yes ... the CSAG specifically left out infrastructure improvements as well as other stadium maintenance costs in their proposal ... everything in their plan relates only to construction of the stadium & parking structure. Why would the city spend over 200 million to build a parking structure just so they could sell off 75 acres of the stadium site for 225 million (if they can get that)?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on May 22, 2015 9:01:07 GMT -8
In effect yes ... the CSAG specifically left out infrastructure improvements as well as other stadium maintenance costs in their proposal ... everything in their plan relates only to construction of the stadium & parking structure. Why would the city spend over 200 million to build a parking structure just so they could sell off 75 acres of the stadium site for 225 million (if they can get that)? Parking for the transition -- when the Q is still in use while the new stadium is under construction ... then they have to make up for the loss of the 20-25 acres of parking for the River Park as well as the 75 acres that will be sold for development. Yes ... for people who haven't done the math -- if all goes as planned, the 166 acre Qualcomm site will be reduced to about 60 acres (and supposedly without a public vote).
|
|