|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Jun 28, 2017 21:02:08 GMT -8
Double negatives are hard reading (don't and nothing as per above). How about - there is every reason to believe that SDSU will acquire the MV property. Typical of this board the negativists, even in the face off the news , think the shopping center moguls that are FSI are still going to win. Only Kevin Acee still believes that fantasy .
|
|
|
|
Post by obboy13 on Jun 28, 2017 21:25:38 GMT -8
Slow down a bit there cowboy. First off the City Council has yet to even declare the land surplus. If that happens, there are any number of public agencies that might want to get involved in bidding on land in Mission Valley. Then the City has to negotiate a price for the land with the agency they choose, and like the bold politicians they are, may decide to put the question to a vote. After that, there's going to be more litigation than you and I together can imagine. Concurrently, EIR's, CEQA requirements, and other state and federal regulations could tie things up for quite a while. Finally, and this is in my opinion worth remembering, the FS deal looked so good to them because they had arranged to be written in their proposal that the City would reduce the ultimate purchase price by the certain costs including demolition of the Q. That won't be a part of any deal with a governmental agency unless a majority of Council members are SDSU alumni, and as rabid about Aztec athletics as those on this Board. I have little doubt that SDSU and CSU could come up with $110 million (remember Hirshman said he already had $100 million) but realistically the price will be much greater than that, and there are a number of other operational (the Q is a money loser) and developmental costs associated with ownership of the land. So, while this seems to be a step in the right direction, it's just one step and the road ahead is really really long. Heck, they haven't even announced it publicly yet. It's no surprise the Mayor's guy was unaware, I mean only one of us attended the event, and Wicker probably felt because he was among friends he could comfortably offer up a nugget. Not the smartest thing to do in his position, but enough to make folks here get excited, and they're going to need an excited base to help pull this off. The only problem, and I certainly don't relish being a buzz-killer, is that the finished product most likely will not occur in most of our lifetimes, since even SDSU's initial projections indicated they don't need the land for 10 years or so. That's a long time and a lot can happen during the intervening period. So break out the Cuervo, time for a bit of a celebration. It's not a win yet, but at least it looks as if we're in the game. Disagree with you here. When SDSU gets the land they will build the stadium first obviously. I would guess the park will also be high on the city and SDSU list. They already have buildings they lease in MV that could be eventually moved to MV. The land will certainly not be developed over night. It will be 20-30 years or more for build-out. Hell, even FoS investors weren't going to build out MV for 15 years. So, yes if you are 60 you may not live to see the Grand SDSU WEST; you should see a new stadium in 5 years or less. First off 2003 I admire your passion and confidence, and you already know I support the SDSU West concept. However, that being said, I don't share your belief that SDSU can purchase the land, and then finance a stadium in 5 years, much less get it built in that time. If you really think they'll meet the 5 year goal, I've got two words for you.....Cory Briggs. If not him then some other attorney can tie them up longer than 5 years. Hell, I don't even think the City can get through whatever process they need to quick enough to get the issue on the November 2018 ballot; and if it doesn't go to a vote (and maybe even if it does) every State regulatory agency could justify taking a shot at the University's plans. Hope you're right and I'm wrong, but history is my side in this. |
|
|
|
Post by obboy13 on Jun 28, 2017 21:38:50 GMT -8
Slow down a bit there cowboy. First off the City Council has yet to even declare the land surplus. If that happens, there are any number of public agencies that might want to get involved in bidding on land in Mission Valley. Then the City has to negotiate a price for the land with the agency they choose, and like the bold politicians they are, may decide to put the question to a vote. After that, there's going to be more litigation than you and I together can imagine. Concurrently, EIR's, CEQA requirements, and other state and federal regulations could tie things up for quite a while. Finally, and this is in my opinion worth remembering, the FS deal looked so good to them because they had arranged to be written in their proposal that the City would reduce the ultimate purchase price by the certain costs including demolition of the Q. That won't be a part of any deal with a governmental agency unless a majority of Council members are SDSU alumni, and as rabid about Aztec athletics as those on this Board. I have little doubt that SDSU and CSU could come up with $110 million (remember Hirshman said he already had $100 million) but realistically the price will be much greater than that, and there are a number of other operational (the Q is a money loser) and developmental costs associated with ownership of the land. So, while this seems to be a step in the right direction, it's just one step and the road ahead is really really long. Heck, they haven't even announced it publicly yet. It's no surprise the Mayor's guy was unaware, I mean only one of us attended the event, and Wicker probably felt because he was among friends he could comfortably offer up a nugget. Not the smartest thing to do in his position, but enough to make folks here get excited, and they're going to need an excited base to help pull this off. The only problem, and I certainly don't relish being a buzz-killer, is that the finished product most likely will not occur in most of our lifetimes, since even SDSU's initial projections indicated they don't need the land for 10 years or so. That's a long time and a lot can happen during the intervening period. So break out the Cuervo, time for a bit of a celebration. It's not a win yet, but at least it looks as if we're in the game. I don't disagree with anything you wrote, much of that could happen and if the property is declared surplus and is sold it will require a public vote if it is more than 80 acres, that is the law. But none of that matters as there are no local agencies that could come anywhere near the $110m needed to acquire the land. Not only that, but I have heard that the SDSU proposal will have a portion of the land devoted to low income housing. And before someone asks, no it would not be SDSU developing low income housing, just setting aside some of the land for that purpose. SDSU doesn't need all of the land... Still 100% sure that it is over... Think you're equating FS losing with SDSU winning. For starters, let's hope it goes to a vote, because that's the only way SDSU maybe avoids the EIR process. Not sure where you "heard" about low income housing, but whoever said that is just guessing. If they were smart enough to actually be in on plan development, they would by definition be smart enough not to talk about it. And finally, there are over 15 other public agencies who could come up with 110 million dollars without breaking a sweat. Just for your wealth of knowledge, the County of San Diego just passed a budget with an uncommitted reserve of over 1.5 billion dollars. That's billion with a B. They could write a check for the land tomorrow and still have enough left to buy every citizen of Boise season tickets to the FB games. It's great you're certain it's over, but...know whereof you speak before betting the ranch. |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jun 28, 2017 21:48:29 GMT -8
I don't disagree with anything you wrote, much of that could happen and if the property is declared surplus and is sold it will require a public vote if it is more than 80 acres, that is the law. But none of that matters as there are no local agencies that could come anywhere near the $110m needed to acquire the land. Not only that, but I have heard that the SDSU proposal will have a portion of the land devoted to low income housing. And before someone asks, no it would not be SDSU developing low income housing, just setting aside some of the land for that purpose. SDSU doesn't need all of the land... Still 100% sure that it is over... Think you're equating FS losing with SDSU winning. For starters, let's hope it goes to a vote, because that's the only way SDSU maybe avoids the EIR process. Not sure where you "heard" about low income housing, but whoever said that is just guessing. If they were smart enough to actually be in on plan development, they would by definition be smart enough not to talk about it. And finally, there are over 15 other public agencies who could come up with 110 million dollars without breaking a sweat. Just for your wealth of knowledge, the County of San Diego just passed a budget with an uncommitted reserve of over 1.5 billion dollars. That's billion with a B. They could write a check for the land tomorrow and still have enough left to buy every citizen of Boise season tickets to the FB games. It's great you're certain it's over, but...know whereof you speak before betting the ranch. I am would be surprised if you haven't read the portion of the state law and city policy that requires any land greater than 80 acres sold by the city to be approved by the council and then out on a ballot. The resolution that goes to the ballot cloud be just a sale as is or it can include changes to "plans", zoning, etc. if the council wants to agree to those things. If the voters say yes then all of those time consuming things go away. My understanding is that there are five Council members that will work with SDSU on terms such as these. Do you really think the City is going to sell the site to the County? Is there another agency that you would like to put forward that can easily come up with $110m? As I said before a lot of what you wrote could come to pass, but I am ready to "bet the ranch" on SDSU getting the site. |
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jun 28, 2017 21:56:02 GMT -8
The FoS deal structure alone is shady as hell. Let's see, can't sell 80 acres ore more without offering it to other public institutions first?....make it a sale of 79.9 and a ground lease of the remaining 86 acres for 99 years. KFaulc is SHADY!
|
|
|
|
Post by naztec on Jun 28, 2017 22:20:16 GMT -8
The FoS deal structure alone is shady as hell. Let's see, can't sell 80 acres ore more without offering it to other public institutions first?....make it a sale of 79.9 and a ground lease of the remaining 86 acres for 99 years. KFaulc is SHADY! Yeah Shady! (Drinks) Oh wait it's the law. |
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jun 28, 2017 22:39:42 GMT -8
Disagree with you here. When SDSU gets the land they will build the stadium first obviously. I would guess the park will also be high on the city and SDSU list. They already have buildings they lease in MV that could be eventually moved to MV. The land will certainly not be developed over night. It will be 20-30 years or more for build-out. Hell, even FoS investors weren't going to build out MV for 15 years. So, yes if you are 60 you may not live to see the Grand SDSU WEST; you should see a new stadium in 5 years or less. First off 2003 I admire your passion and confidence, and you already know I support the SDSU West concept. However, that being said, I don't share your belief that SDSU can purchase the land, and then finance a stadium in 5 years, much less get it built in that time. If you really think they'll meet the 5 year goal, I've got two words for you.....Cory Briggs. If not him then some other attorney can tie them up longer than 5 years. Hell, I don't even think the City can get through whatever process they need to quick enough to get the issue on the November 2018 ballot; and if it doesn't go to a vote (and maybe even if it does) every State regulatory agency could justify taking a shot at the University's plans. Hope you're right and I'm wrong, but history is my side in this. I guess we will just have to wait and see. Go SDSU WEST! Go AZTECS! |
|
|
|
Post by ryandickie on Jun 28, 2017 23:30:14 GMT -8
The FoS deal structure alone is shady as hell. Let's see, can't sell 80 acres ore more without offering it to other public institutions first?....make it a sale of 79.9 and a ground lease of the remaining 86 acres for 99 years. KFaulc is SHADY! Yeah Shady! (Drinks) Oh wait it's the law. It's skirting the law and violating spirit of the law. But what does it matter as long as you get a soccer team. |
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jun 29, 2017 6:46:25 GMT -8
Yeah Shady! (Drinks) Oh wait it's the law. It's skirting the law and violating spirit of the law. But what does it matter as long as you get a soccer team. So tired of these Soccer Honks. Particularly when they come on an Aztec message board to spew their propaganda. There is a right way to bring a pro MLS team to SD and the FoS plan is NOT it. Go SDSU WEST! Go AZTECS! |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jun 29, 2017 8:02:26 GMT -8
The FoS deal structure alone is shady as hell. Let's see, can't sell 80 acres ore more without offering it to other public institutions first?....make it a sale of 79.9 and a ground lease of the remaining 86 acres for 99 years. KFaulc is SHADY! Yeah Shady! (Drinks) Oh wait it's the law. No, his point is that FSI and KF we're skirting the law by limiting the "sale" to 79.9 acres... it is actually one of the areas that would have generated a lawsuit for sure as interested parties would have made a case that the 79.9 acres was in reality limited to that number so that FSI wouldn't have to wait for the property to clear other government interest. Yes... shady |
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Jun 29, 2017 8:07:14 GMT -8
Think you're equating FS losing with SDSU winning. For starters, let's hope it goes to a vote, because that's the only way SDSU maybe avoids the EIR process. Not sure where you "heard" about low income housing, but whoever said that is just guessing. If they were smart enough to actually be in on plan development, they would by definition be smart enough not to talk about it. And finally, there are over 15 other public agencies who could come up with 110 million dollars without breaking a sweat. Just for your wealth of knowledge, the County of San Diego just passed a budget with an uncommitted reserve of over 1.5 billion dollars. That's billion with a B. They could write a check for the land tomorrow and still have enough left to buy every citizen of Boise season tickets to the FB games. It's great you're certain it's over, but...know whereof you speak before betting the ranch. I am would be surprised if you haven't read the portion of the state law and city policy that requires any land greater than 80 acres sold by the city to be approved by the council and then out on a ballot. The resolution that goes to the ballot cloud be just a sale as is or it can include changes to "plans", zoning, etc. if the council wants to agree to those things. If the voters say yes then all of those time consuming things go away. My understanding is that there are five Council members that will work with SDSU on terms such as these. Do you really think the City is going to sell the site to the County? Is there another agency that you would like to put forward that can easily come up with $110m? As I said before a lot of what you wrote could come to pass, but I am ready to "bet the ranch" on SDSU getting the site. In our lifetime? I admire the passion but I've got to be honest, some of the enthusiasm I've seen regarding SDSU and MV is akin to a kid who wakes up Christmas morning expecting that Santa brought him a brand new Huffy, only to find a pack of socks and school supplies under the tree. I just hope everyone getting their hopes up isn't devastated when SDSU either "can't afford" the raised appraisal price or isn't able to build something before football becomes irrelevant again. |
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Jun 29, 2017 8:28:17 GMT -8
The mayor seems hell bent on the vote happening.
KF must believe his political career is over in 18 so he is positioning himself to be hired in the private sector. My guess is as spokesman for sucker city.
Unless the 5 council members can peel another member away, I fear that is what is going to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Jun 29, 2017 8:30:39 GMT -8
Yeah Shady! (Drinks) Oh wait it's the law. No, his point is that FSI and KF we're skirting the law by limiting the "sale" to 79.9 acres... it is actually one of the areas that would have generated a lawsuit for sure as interested parties would have made a case that the 79.9 acres was in reality limited to that number so that FSI wouldn't have to wait for the property to clear other government interest. Yes... shady In tax law there is something known as linked transactions. That's where the taxpayer creates a series of transactions to avoid some tax law that would apply if everything was done as one transactions. The tax court will look at substance over form. Just try making a series of $9,900 cash deposits into your bank to avoid the $10,000 reporting requirement as see how quickly the FBI shows up at your door. I don't think it would take a very good attorney to convince a judge that a sale of 79.9 acres along with a 99 year lease for the rest of the property (edit wasn't) was really just one "sale" transaction for the entire parcel. |
|
|
|
Post by badfish on Jun 29, 2017 8:33:53 GMT -8
It's skirting the law and violating spirit of the law. But what does it matter as long as you get a soccer team. So tired of these Soccer Honks. Particularly when they come on an Aztec message board to spew their propaganda. There is a right way to bring a pro MLS team to SD and the FoS plan is NOT it. Go SDSU WEST! Go AZTECS! Wouldn't even call them "soccer" honks. They are FS honks. A logical soccer fan would see the road to MLS is to work with SDSU, not against them. |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jun 29, 2017 9:20:59 GMT -8
No, his point is that FSI and KF we're skirting the law by limiting the "sale" to 79.9 acres... it is actually one of the areas that would have generated a lawsuit for sure as interested parties would have made a case that the 79.9 acres was in reality limited to that number so that FSI wouldn't have to wait for the property to clear other government interest. Yes... shady In tax law there is something known as linked transactions. That's where the taxpayer creates a series of transactions to avoid some tax law that would apply if everything was done as one transactions. The tax court will look at substance over form. Just try making a series of $9,900 cash deposits into your bank to avoid the $10,000 reporting requirement as see how quickly the FBI shows up at your door. I don't think it would take a very good attorney to convince a judge that a sale of 79.9 acres along with a 99 year lease for the rest of the property wasn't really just one "sale" transaction for the entire parcel. This |
|
|
|
Post by badfish on Jun 29, 2017 9:47:29 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Jun 29, 2017 10:25:24 GMT -8
Wow, that is pretty bad. If this ends up being true, whoever gave the information over needs to repay in full the amount of taxpayer dollars wasted on that memo. And at this point, how does FS claim innocence on this? These guys are a piece of work. |
|
|
|
Post by badfish on Jun 29, 2017 11:17:04 GMT -8
Wow, that is pretty bad. If this ends up being true, whoever gave the information over needs to repay in full the amount of taxpayer dollars wasted on that memo. And at this point, how does FS claim innocence on this? These guys are a piece of work. They can't. The real question, to me, is how much longer will the Mayor support them? We know there's been shady $#!+ going on with him and them, but it's reaching the point where he is so blindly supporting them that he's risking his career for this. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Jun 29, 2017 11:19:02 GMT -8
Wow, that is pretty bad. If this ends up being true, whoever gave the information over needs to repay in full the amount of taxpayer dollars wasted on that memo. And at this point, how does FS claim innocence on this? These guys are a piece of work. They can't. The real question, to me, is how much longer will the Mayor support them? We know there's been shady $#!+ going on with him and them, but it's reaching the point where he is so blindly supporting them that he's risking his career for this.  |
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jun 29, 2017 11:40:24 GMT -8
I am would be surprised if you haven't read the portion of the state law and city policy that requires any land greater than 80 acres sold by the city to be approved by the council and then out on a ballot. The resolution that goes to the ballot cloud be just a sale as is or it can include changes to "plans", zoning, etc. if the council wants to agree to those things. If the voters say yes then all of those time consuming things go away. My understanding is that there are five Council members that will work with SDSU on terms such as these. Do you really think the City is going to sell the site to the County? Is there another agency that you would like to put forward that can easily come up with $110m? As I said before a lot of what you wrote could come to pass, but I am ready to "bet the ranch" on SDSU getting the site. In our lifetime? I admire the passion but I've got to be honest, some of the enthusiasm I've seen regarding SDSU and MV is akin to a kid who wakes up Christmas morning expecting that Santa brought him a brand new Huffy, only to find a pack of socks and school supplies under the tree. I just hope everyone getting their hopes up isn't devastated when SDSU either "can't afford" the raised appraisal price or isn't able to build something before football becomes irrelevant again. I was that kid that woke on Christmas morning to a brand new Huffy and a pack of socks and school supplies under the tree!    :rotflmao Go SDSU WEST! Go AZTECS! |
|
:rotflmao