|
Post by Den60 on Oct 20, 2018 13:07:16 GMT -8
I don't see the state of California stealing land from the city of San Diego to build a college football stadium. You do realize that the stadium, while the flashiest part of the proposal, is the least important in the overall befit to San Diego County? Posters here are talking more about the stadium than the expansion of the campus and additional research facilities because this is a sports board. The stadium figures prominently in the SDSU West "plan," and to many San Diego voters this is what the whole deal is about - mainly because building a new stadium in MV has been before them for years. Also, the university requires a partnership with a developer in order to fund and develop the property though there are no details as to how much will be retail and commercial and how much is actually going to be for a university campus. I just don't see the state using eminent domain for any of this (nor am I a fan of such a government overreach). Such an action would be very unpopular with the city of San Diego, the county, and local, state and federal representatives. And, maybe most important, while the CSU system could gain ownership over the property via such a drastic action, the real control over the land's use would still be in control of the city via zoning, building permits, traffic mitigation and the like. The city could make life very difficult for the university should they get strong armed by the state in this manner. Just remember, a lot of people who live in the area want the stadium gone with no replacement and the majority of the land to be turned into a park. Getting the land is one thing but whatever happens to it will still require approval of San Diego voters. A land grab by the state would make that sort of approval process even more difficult. Finally, while SCOTUS has, to this point, seemed to side with the rights of states to use ED rather liberally when it comes to taking private property the court is changing and this would be more of an issue as to whether the state is bettered suited than cities and counties when it comes to deciding the best 'public" use of property. So the use of ED would be in the courts for years before it would be settled.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Oct 20, 2018 14:01:26 GMT -8
I don't see the state of California stealing land from the city of San Diego to build a college football stadium. You do realize that the stadium, while the flashiest part of the proposal, is the least important in the overall befit to San Diego County? Posters here are talking more about the stadium than the expansion of the campus and additional research facilities because this is a sports board. There's more than a few here who have not read the competing props, nor kept up with who the entities are. It's silly to think the state will take over city land. I'm increasingly confident we will prevail.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Oct 20, 2018 14:57:07 GMT -8
You do realize that the stadium, while the flashiest part of the proposal, is the least important in the overall befit to San Diego County? Posters here are talking more about the stadium than the expansion of the campus and additional research facilities because this is a sports board. There's more than a few here who have not read the competing props, nor kept up with who the entities are. It's silly to think the state will take over city land. I'm increasingly confident we will prevail. Both props have issues. But I was responding specifically to whether the use of eminent domain is a viable alternative should SDSU not get what they want. This is a war between developers with SDSU being used as a pawn to try to win over more voters than the other side. I don't care if it s FS1, JMI, Manchester or any other developer, they are looking first and foremost to their own interests, not those of SDSU. If the CSU system felt it was imperative that SDSU needs to expand in MV they would be much more involved in the process.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Oct 20, 2018 15:33:17 GMT -8
There's more than a few here who have not read the competing props, nor kept up with who the entities are. It's silly to think the state will take over city land. I'm increasingly confident we will prevail. Both props have issues. But I was responding specifically to whether the use of eminent domain is a viable alternative should SDSU not get what they want. This is a war between developers with SDSU being used as a pawn to try to win over more voters than the other side. I don't care if it s FS1, JMI, Manchester or any other developer, they are looking first and foremost to their own interests, not those of SDSU. If the CSU system felt it was imperative that SDSU needs to expand in MV they would be much more involved in the process. It is not a war between developers. SDSU wants to control the q site for expansion and to control its Destiny’s as well. SDSU will take control of the site and have a much lighter footprint than SC. An expansion of SDSU is much more to the liking of Sudberry, Fenton, and anyone else tho has an interest in MV / allied garden land. But just because suds and Fenton want to stuff sc, SDSU does not mean that SDSU is in between anyone. SDSU would have taken this path regardless of Suds and Fenton.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Oct 20, 2018 15:34:28 GMT -8
Both props have issues. But I was responding specifically to whether the use of eminent domain is a viable alternative should SDSU not get what they want. This is a war between developers with SDSU being used as a pawn to try to win over more voters than the other side. I don't care if it s FS1, JMI, Manchester or any other developer, they are looking first and foremost to their own interests, not those of SDSU. If the CSU system felt it was imperative that SDSU needs to expand in MV they would be much more involved in the process. It is not a war between developers. SDSU wants to control the q site for expansion and to control its Destiny’s as well. SDSU will take control of the site and have a much lighter footprint than SC. An expansion of SDSU is much more to the liking of Sudberry, Fenton, and anyone else tho has an interest in MV / allied garden land. But just because suds and Fenton want to stuff sc, SDSU does not mean that SDSU is in between anyone. SDSU would have taken this path regardless of Suds and Fenton. One last point, the CSU Trustees endorses G. So the argument that the CSU board somehow lacks support for expansion is just plain wrong.
|
|