|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jun 29, 2017 11:41:41 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. Zapf does not like Soccer City. Just need to sway her vote. |
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jun 29, 2017 11:44:22 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 probably think nothing of it. They are hedge fund managers and probably use insider trading frequently.  |
|
|
|
Post by obboy13 on Jun 29, 2017 11:56:51 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. Let's keep our discussion on track. I was responding to your rather broad statement that "But none of that matters as there are no local agencies that could come anywhere near the $110m needed to acquire the land." There are in fact many, but for the sake of brevity I chose to name only one. My point was not so much to disprove your contention (although ipso facto) as it was to demonstrate there could be competing agencies for what is a valuable tract of land. As for which entity the City might sell it to, well money has a way of speaking louder than school loyalty, and since the majority of voters in the City didn't go to SDSU there's no guarantee the City Council will not listen to other proposals. Since you've now asked for other agencies, I'll provide you with one more the State of CA, and feel that now even you must admit your original statement wasn't accurate. If you're still interested in understanding how incorrect that statement was, I'd refer you to your property tax bill if you own property in the City. Anyone of those taxing agencies could come up with $110 million secured by MV. That's it though, time to let that argument go. With all that, I sure hope you and your unnamed source are right, as I thought the bold face lies and half truths from FS investors was way too much. However, I just can't see things going so smoothly. It's sort of like the Captain of the Titanic who went to bed because he was certain the ice didn't extend that far south. Confidence can be a good thing...over-confidence, maybe not so much. |
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Jun 29, 2017 13:24:08 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. Let's keep our discussion on track. I was responding to your rather broad statement that "But none of that matters as there are no local agencies that could come anywhere near the $110m needed to acquire the land." There are in fact many, but for the sake of brevity I chose to name only one. My point was not so much to disprove your contention (although ipso facto) as it was to demonstrate there could be competing agencies for what is a valuable tract of land. As for which entity the City might sell it to, well money has a way of speaking louder than school loyalty, and since the majority of voters in the City didn't go to SDSU there's no guarantee the City Council will not listen to other proposals. Since you've now asked for other agencies, I'll provide you with one more the State of CA, and feel that now even you must admit your original statement wasn't accurate. If you're still interested in understanding how incorrect that statement was, I'd refer you to your property tax bill if you own property in the City. Anyone of those taxing agencies could come up with $110 million secured by MV. That's it though, time to let that argument go. With all that, I sure hope you and your unnamed source are right, as I thought the bold face lies and half truths from FS investors was way too much. However, I just can't see things going so smoothly. It's sort of like the Captain of the Titanic who went to bed because he was certain the ice didn't extend that far south. Confidence can be a good thing... over-confidence, maybe not so much. Overconfidence? On this board? I've never been so sure of it in my life . |
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Aug 19, 2022 16:10:46 GMT -8
I sent an email to Faulconer yesterday voicing my support for SDSU acquiring the MV land, and this is what I got back: "I have not seen any reports that SDSU is interested in purchasing the property at its appraised value. John Ly Director of Outreach" Was John Ly the chair of his gubernatorial campaign? |
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Aug 19, 2022 16:11:59 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. Christmas came and there was a red ryder bb gun under the tree. |
|
|
|
Post by azson on Aug 22, 2022 10:18:24 GMT -8
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. Christmas came and there was a red ryder bb gun under the tree. LOL - man, NCM is one poster I certainly do not miss. |
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Aug 22, 2022 10:20:23 GMT -8
NCM was the absolute worst
|
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Aug 22, 2022 12:40:13 GMT -8
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. Christmas came and there was a red ryder bb gun under the tree. And a brand new Huffy and a pony and even more.  |
|
|
|
Post by PAC12 Aztec on Aug 22, 2022 13:58:03 GMT -8
NCM was the absolute worst Agree! However, I did get a kick out of some of his psots. If nothing, he was entertaining with his mumbo jumbo. |
|
