|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Dec 21, 2015 9:32:26 GMT -8
Gotta love liberal California and all the bs that comes along with it. WTF??? |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Dec 21, 2015 11:11:34 GMT -8
Donna Frye was on Scott & BR and she alluded that SDSU/President Elliot Hirshman was very close to supporting the Citizens Initative. Do not be fooled by frye, she is one who opposed the original redevelopment of the Murph that the Chargers said they would pay for in exchange for the ability to do some commercial development there to pay for the new stadium. I may be mistaken but its my recollection that she opposed the memorial on Soledad mountain after claiming she wouldn't oppose it. The Chargers also wanted free land--60 acres worth. The Chargers and all of their private investors (which I don't think they ever had) could have paid the going rate for the land back then, and built their stadium and ancillary development. But for the cost of the land (allegedly), they chose not to go through with. |
|
|
|
Post by survalli on Dec 21, 2015 11:23:03 GMT -8
Do not be fooled by frye, she is one who opposed the original redevelopment of the Murph that the Chargers said they would pay for in exchange for the ability to do some commercial development there to pay for the new stadium. I may be mistaken but its my recollection that she opposed the memorial on Soledad mountain after claiming she wouldn't oppose it. The Chargers also wanted free land--60 acres worth. The Chargers and all of their private investors (which I don't think they ever had) could have paid the going rate for the land back then, and built their stadium and ancillary development. But for the cost of the land (allegedly), they chose not to go through with. if someone comes to you and offers you free land would that not make business sense you? the City of San Diego had their chance. Chargers dont want to lease land they want to own it. its not even an issue of the city selling them land. The city wants the Chargers to remain tenants. why rent when you can buy? |
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Dec 21, 2015 11:42:14 GMT -8
In hindsight, the City should have parted with the 60 acres and watched the Chargers lose their asses building spec condos when the market tanked. That was the last opportunity cities had at somewhat reasonable stadium costs before they exploded. As an SDSU fan I'm glad they passed so we have an opportunity to get that land.
|
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Dec 21, 2015 12:03:12 GMT -8
The Chargers also wanted free land--60 acres worth. The Chargers and all of their private investors (which I don't think they ever had) could have paid the going rate for the land back then, and built their stadium and ancillary development. But for the cost of the land (allegedly), they chose not to go through with. if someone comes to you and offers you free land would that not make business sense you? the City of San Diego had their chance. Chargers dont want to lease land they want to own it. its not even an issue of the city selling them land. The city wants the Chargers to remain tenants. why rent when you can buy? Why would the city want the Chargers to continue being tenants in something that costs the city millions each year? That's hilarious. The Chargers haven't paid rent since 2007. I think had the Chargers offered to buy the 60 acres, the city couldn't have said yes fast enough. |
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Dec 21, 2015 12:19:22 GMT -8
When the Chargers leave MV . The City Council will be looking for another NFL team , for MV . Not so if DT facility is voted in and MV is for Universities and open space .
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecbo on Dec 21, 2015 12:31:19 GMT -8
Gotta love liberal California and all the bs that comes along with it. Move to Mississippi. |
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Dec 21, 2015 12:34:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by survalli on Dec 21, 2015 14:19:27 GMT -8
if someone comes to you and offers you free land would that not make business sense you? the City of San Diego had their chance. Chargers dont want to lease land they want to own it. its not even an issue of the city selling them land. The city wants the Chargers to remain tenants. why rent when you can buy? Why would the city want the Chargers to continue being tenants in something that costs the city millions each year? That's hilarious. The Chargers haven't paid rent since 2007. I think had the Chargers offered to buy the 60 acres, the city couldn't have said yes fast enough. why buy when you can get it for next to nothing. this all goes back to land ownership and self determination. its about maximizing profits. that cannot be realized on city owned or city leased land. the stadium is only a quarter of the equation. team profits must be realized in land development, parking (if any) and subsequent leasing fees on any housing, retail, city mass transit...etc |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Dec 21, 2015 15:52:16 GMT -8
Why would the city want the Chargers to continue being tenants in something that costs the city millions each year? That's hilarious. The Chargers haven't paid rent since 2007. I think had the Chargers offered to buy the 60 acres, the city couldn't have said yes fast enough. why buy when you can get it for next to nothing. this all goes back to land ownership and self determination. its about maximizing profits. that cannot be realized on city owned or city leased land. the stadium is only a quarter of the equation. team profits must be realized in land development, parking (if any) and subsequent leasing fees on any housing, retail, city mass transit...etc ...Which was why the Chargers wanted to build the ancillary development around the stadium they claimed they would build. They not only wanted that development to help pay for that stadium, but they ALSO wanted the land for free. In the long run, it worked out well for the Chargers, as they avoided having to deal with the housing market collapse, and have continued to play for free at the Q since 2007, while increasing their income by leaps and bounds. |
|
|
|
Post by survalli on Dec 21, 2015 15:56:08 GMT -8
why buy when you can get it for next to nothing. this all goes back to land ownership and self determination. its about maximizing profits. that cannot be realized on city owned or city leased land. the stadium is only a quarter of the equation. team profits must be realized in land development, parking (if any) and subsequent leasing fees on any housing, retail, city mass transit...etc ...Which was why the Chargers wanted to build the ancillary development around the stadium they claimed they would build. They not only wanted that development to help pay for that stadium, but they ALSO wanted the land for free. In the long run, it worked out well for the Chargers, as they avoided having to deal with the housing market collapse, and have continued to play for free at the Q since 2007, while increasing their income by leaps and bounds. i think we are talking about the same thing, but you arent explaining it correctly. the city did not offer free land to the Chargers, the Chargers offered to build the stadium for free land. the city thought about it and changed their minds (mainly because their were legal questions that needed to be addressed) thats the true story. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Dec 21, 2015 17:01:56 GMT -8
...Which was why the Chargers wanted to build the ancillary development around the stadium they claimed they would build. They not only wanted that development to help pay for that stadium, but they ALSO wanted the land for free. In the long run, it worked out well for the Chargers, as they avoided having to deal with the housing market collapse, and have continued to play for free at the Q since 2007, while increasing their income by leaps and bounds. i think we are talking about the same thing, but you arent explaining it correctly. the city did not offer free land to the Chargers, the Chargers offered to build the stadium for free land. the city thought about it and changed their minds (mainly because their were legal questions that needed to be addressed) thats the true story. Yeah, I may have things a bit out of order. |
|
