The City of San Diego would own the new stadium, not the Chargers.
Posted by: Dan Cruz at February 17, 2005 03:45 PM

That would save the Chargers from having to pay property tax, then.
Posted by: Neil at February 17, 2005 04:01 PM

The tenor of the 2/17/05 posting implies it would be a bad deal for the City of San Diego to grant title for 60 of the Qualcomm Stadium's 166 acres to the Chargers. In that part of the proposal made by the Chargers calls for those 60 acres to be developed into a commercial and residential project, it only stands to reason that EVERY structure erected on that 60 acres, once completed, will be added to the city's real estate tax rolls; thereby generating a constant revenue stream into the city's coffers. At present, the Qualcomm site generates revenue solely from those who use the stadium and/or the parking lot. In that the Padres no longer use The Q, the city lost an income stream of approximately $4,400,00 per year; leaving the city, at best, in a fiscally precarious position. To convert that site into a city park, as Councilwoman Frye suggests, would not only be very costly (there is leaking from underground storage tanks which has seeped into the soil under the stadium that would have to be remediated) in terms of city investment, but due to the nature of the proposed project would not only generate no real estate tax revenues, but it would constitute a further maintenance burden to an already financially strapped city government. Conversely, the Spanos family invest close to $600 million of their money, give the city a new, state-of-the-art stadium, and, with the development of the 60 acres, creates a permanent source of city revenue. The value added to this scenario is the continued interst in San Diego as the site for future Super Bowls, the Holiday Bowl and a place for both SDSU and city schools to play their football games. Final point: it's a WIN--WIN situation.
Posted by: Vince Wallgren at February 28, 2005 12:18 PM

Councilmember Donna Frye's immediate comment was the call for a 60+ acre city park as part of the Chargers new proposed stadium deal. A deal that would require zero public funds invested. Her "demand" in effect automatically makes the deal economically infeasible. She also fails to mention that the Charger's new proposal includes the development at their expense of a 20+ acre city park. Her stance is quite clear...why does she not just state publicly..." I will not discuss or work on anything that involves an effort to keep the Chargers the San Diego Chargers"
Posted by: Caryl S. Foster at March 1, 2005 04:01 PM

"That would save the Chargers from having to pay property tax, then." When all is said and done, why is this a bad thing?
Posted by: Dan Touchette at March 1, 2005 10:06 PM

I was dismayed at the first Charger playoff home game in nearly a decade (most meaningful game in years} that I did not see one single San Diego Council member in the tailgate area talking with the fans (or at least putting in an appearance}. We were there for many hours and I did not hear of anyone who caught sight of any of them. I can understand the Mayor not walking through perhaps, but not a single representative from my city seemed strange to me. How can they possibly understand what this team means in city pride and morale to so many in this community and yet not show up on that magic night is a legitmate question all taxpayers should question, fan or no fan.
Posted by: Thomas R. Spratt at March 2, 2005 01:42 AM

Wow, lotsa Chargers fans here all of a sudden. In no particular order: 1) The Chargers building their own stadium is nice enough, but 60 acres of free land isn't nothing. It'd be nice to at least see if someone would be interested in developing that land and actually paying the city for it as well. (The Chargers could bid to do this, too, of course.) 2) Super Bowls aren't worth squat to warm-weather cities like San Diego - do a Google search for "Philip Porter" and "Super Bowl" for extensive research on this. 3) The Chargers not paying property tax is not a bad thing if you're the Chargers, but it is a bad thing if you're the government who won't be getting those property taxes, or taxpayers who'll have to pay more in taxes to make up the difference. 4) No matter how often they threaten it, the Chargers are not by any means guaranteed to be gone if they don't get all of their stadium demands - L.A.'s the only real viable alternative for them, and it has not only its own stadium-funding issues, but a bunch of other teams (Saints, Colts, Vikings) potentially interested in moving there. San Diego shouldn't be afraid to drive a tough bargain here.
Posted by: Neil at March 2, 2005 11:48 AM

Neil, it would really be nice if you had some real situational knowledge and documentation to back-up your "take". So, in no particular order other than the order you presented your random thoughts, please try to understand this: 1) The Chargers new stadium proposal is basically an offer to exchange their originally proposed City's taxpayer funding of public improvements (estimated at $165,000,000) for fee title and development rights to 60 acres of the 166 acre stadium site. In return, the Chargers will constuct the new stadium and the required surrounding public infrastructure improvements at no cost to the City of San Diego which by the way would retain ownership. Given the City of San Diego's documented current poor local government bond rating and the ongoing investigation of the City Council itself for fiscal mis-management related to the City Employee Pension Fund, it has no real means or chance of publicly financing new stadium improvements anyway; 2) Nonwithstanding someone's "educated" opinion on "the squat value of Superbowls to warm weather cities" or any other city for that matter, nowhere have I ever read an article by any economist that the Superbowl has resulted in a negative fiscal impact to the city and/or region it was held in. In terms of San Diego, despite its deserved classification as a warm weather City, believe it or not late January/February is not a boom tourist time for the San Diego economy. At any rate, the incremental increase in terms of employment, hotel occupancy, restuarants/sports bars, retail sales, and even residents just renting their rooms and/or driveways for parking, let alone the free world-wide media exposure and promotion of San Diego itself all translate into a positive economic impact of hosting a Superbowl. The final fiscal impact number, regardless of which or even without a "multiplier effect" being used, is substantailly greater (as in millions of dollars) than the total fiscal outlay; 3) Unless you are privy to "inside information", how do you conclude that the Chargers have sought or are seeking an exemption from paying any property taxes? Next you will no doubt claim that the Chargers are also requesting exemption from paying building permit fees. Based on known public information todate, increase property taxes generated by the proposed residential and/or commercial building development of the 60 acres will be paid to the County with the City gettings its appropriate share. Certainly, any such type of development, other than the 60 acre city park proposed by Councilmember Donna Frye, would result in substantial property taxes being paid to the local government in contrast to none as it stands now; and 4) Why take a chance at losing a team that has long been a recognized part of the very identity of the San Diego Community? Perhaps you can tell me the economic and social costs paid by the cities and citizens of Oakland, St. Louis, Cleveland, and Houston in order to regain their NFL teams after losing them. In present dollars of course. To conclude, no one is advocating just giving in to the Charger's stadium demands or that the City should not "drive a hard bargain". But please tell me this: In all of the many field of schemes that you have apparently uncovered, have you ever covered one wherein the local government is being asked to invest zero dollars in public funding in order to make a new stadium deal? In the final analysis, this is what the Chargers have proposed. Donna Frye on the other wants a non-revenue generating city taxpayer subsidized city park. You make the call. A Fan of San Diego First, Chargers Fan Second!
Posted by: Caryl S. Foster at March 4, 2005 11:49 PM

Caryl: I'm sorry that writing a book, more than a hundred articles, and a website that now runs hundreds of thousands of words isn't enough "documentation" for you. I will try to provide more: 1) Exchanging a demand for $165M for a demand for land isn't a trade of assets; it's just a switch in tactics. And as for "giving" the stadium to the city of San Diego, in the wacky world of stadium finance it's actually usually to a city's benefit *not* to own a stadium, as I'll discuss further below. 2) Since you apparently have no interest in reading Philip Porter's Super Bowl studies, I'm not surprised that you've never read a study showing Super Bowls to be a bad economic investment. 3) My "inside information" is called "tax law": Teams don't pay property taxes on what they don't own, and as you yourself say, the city would own the stadium. Unless the Chargers agree to pay PILOTs (payments in lieu of taxes), something that I've never heard discussed, this represents a huge city subsidy to the Chargers: They get to play in the stadium and keep all the revenues, but don't have the burden of paying property taxes on it. 4) Sure, cities that have lost NFL teams have thrown money at stadium projects to lure replacement teams. And maybe if San Diego taxpayers decide that the threat of the Chargers leaving is worrisome enough, they'll determine that it's worth a moderate stadium subsidy now to avoid the risk of a large stadium subsidy later. But let's not mince words: This would be a decision to go with the blackmailer you know rather than the blackmailer you don't. Sometimes that's a choice you have to make, but it doesn't make it a pleasant one.
Posted by: Neil at March 6, 2005 05:43 PM

Neil, I note with interest that you cite yourself and your prior "articles", book, and website on the topic of a new stadium in San Diego as "documentation" to support your various points of view. I can write hundreds of articles, books and conjure nifty websites claiming that starting a land war in asia is a good idea. However, that doesn't make it so. Citing your own dubious literary efforts as legitimate support for your tortured analyses only underscores the weakness of your positions. I hope you aren't a lawyer because if you are, you might walk into court to tell a judge murder is legal. Why? because you have said so in thousands of articles and host www.murderislegal.com. Looking at Ms. Frye's concept of a 60 acre park we can see that she could earn a recall on the stupidity of this gem alone: Donna Frye claims that a park is needed in Mission Valley because residents there do not have one. This claim is specious. The beach is 12 minutes away, Mission Bay, Fiesta Island, Kate Sessions, Ocean Beach, and of course Balboa park are just minutes away. Mission Valley is rife with planned communities enjoying "green zones" and the like. Who is foolish enough to think that people will flock to eastern Mission Valley to savor a 60 acre park?!? Moreover, just because the city owns the land, doesn't mean for a minute that it can afford to do anything with it, much less create a park. The cost of tearing down the Q is tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. Recouped how? Oh yes, by building and maintaining a park, basically the most revenue-absent use of land a city can devise. As for the work of the "expert" Philip Porter regarding Super Bowl impacts on the economies of hosting cities, well, last time I checked, I haven't yet found a host city that said, "Hey, no more of THOSE for us, what a terrible experience". I am familiar with Mr. Porter's work and simply cannot reach the same conclusions because the fundamental bases for his arguments are flawed. As far as a "loss of tax revenue" by nature of the city's ownership of the new stadium, would that not allow the city to enjoy revenue generated from leases (including the Chargers), branding, and other events hosted there? Much less all those great taxes and leases generated by concessions, licensees and all the other ancillary income generators? That's forgetting about the hotels, condominimums, and retail interests created flowing revenue into the city coffers on sales and real estate taxes. And of course Neil, forget about growth. Growth that is managed and beautifully executed to continue to make San Diego America's Finest City and a showpiece of the modern age. A decaying Murph really doesn't fit that image.
Posted by: Richard at March 7, 2005 10:48 PM

The documentation is *in* the articles, bright light. (The book even has footnotes, if that makes you happier.) You're welcome to disagree with my conclusions, but just throwing sarcastic quote marks around is no way to have an adult debate. Meanwhile, speaking of documentation, can you provide some backup for your contention that Phil Porter's research is "flawed"?
Posted by: Neil at March 8, 2005 01:48 PM

Neil, first I appreciate your response and certainly have no problem and actually enjoy exchanging opinions with knowledgeable people. Second, for the record, my reference to “situational knowledge and documentation to back-up your “take”, certainly was not in reference to your prior work, but rather to your knowledge and documentation of the “specifics of the situation” in San Diego. Indeed, it is because of your knowledge and documentation of "other stadium deals" that I have engaged in this conversation in the first place. With that clarification, I offer the following point-by-point response in response: 1) I agree with you term “switch in tactics”. It relieves the City of the any need to raise, invest, and pay-off public dollars to cover a portion of the costs of constructing a new stadium. Given the local political climate, any attempt to do so would be the focal point of those who make a name for themselves filing civic lawsuits. The same ones who cost San Diego Taxpayers millions and millions of dollars by causing a 2 year delay in the construction of the citizens voted and approved Padres Petco Park. So the Chargers are now willing to pay and assume the financial risk for building the entire stadium in exchange for 60 acres that is currently used for stadium parking thus requiring a zero dollar public investment by the City. 2) It just so happens that I have read a few of Phillip Porter’s studies and moreover, in the past, I have been a “practicing economist” as well as a commercial appraiser. I have performed and written fiscal impact studies and consequently I understand “multipliers”, “direct” and “indirect economic benefits”, etc., etc. Mr. Porter basic premise is that the “Superbowl Fiscal Impact” is often over-stated and over-blown. And I agree with that. However, my point remains that no one has reported that the cities that have hosted a Superbowl have suffered a net economic loss. If so, please enlighten me. 3) My reference to property taxes had nothing to do with the stadium itself, but only with those taxes which will be generated as a result of the 60 acres being developed into it’s highest and best use. These property taxes, building permit fees, and retail sales taxes etc. will be paid to the appropriate local/state governmental entity by the owners of the property whether it be the Chargers or the people who ultimately buy from them. The Chargers plan is to invest all the money up-front to cover the cost of the stadium and to recover a portion of that investment with the future residential/commercial development of the 60 acres. 4) You make a distinction between a “moderate subsidy now” vs a “substantial subsidy stadium later”. My only problem with this is that “in real present value fiscal dollar terms” where is any type of public subsidy at all to be found in the Chargers proposal? You could say the City’s subsidy is in the form of a projected future value loss of not selling the 60 acres of land to a third-party after the Chargers are no longer playing there. At $25 per square foot, such a sale would roughly gross 65 million dollars. But I believe any rational government entity would consider this as a fair exchange and as a better investment for the public good as opposed to the present value cost of publicly financing a portion of the new stadium or the future economic and social impact of losing its NFL football team. At any rate, I will restate my question from my earlier posting and will look forward to your direct response to it: “In all of the many field of schemes that you have apparently uncovered, have you ever covered one wherein the local government is being asked to invest zero dollars in public funding in order to make a new stadium deal? In the final analysis, this is what the Chargers have proposed. Donna Frye on the other hand wants a non-revenue generating city taxpayer subsidized city park.” And one final thought, perhaps upon further investigation you might come to view Councilmember Donna Frye as the blackmailer and not as the “blackmailee” in this particular situation. A Fan of San Diego First, Chargers Fan Second!
Posted by: Caryl S. Foster at March 8, 2005 04:52 PM

Wow, this guy Neil is really amusing. On the one hand, he criticizes me by saying "throwing sarcastic quote marks around is no way to have an adult debate", yet he leads off this laughable statement by resorting to puerile name-calling. Hello kettle? Pot calling. . . I guess they'll let just about anybody with a box of crayons write a book nowadays. I do enjoy watching a sop-called friend of the people from NY purport to understand the local socio-political scene in San Diego nonetheless. Let me know when you wish to address the substance of my earlier post (ideally with factualy references that are NOT self-derived). In the meantime, if you wish to engage in name-calling, thereby ducking the germane issues, by all means, indulge yourself. This is after all your site. Maybe you can even cite references from it as "authority" for the silly names you choose. Let me know when you decide whether this is a forum for intelligent discourse, or a playground.
Posted by: Richard at March 8, 2005 06:29 PM

Caryl: Sorry for my earlier misinterpretation of your comment - you're right that my expertise is in stadium politics in general, not the specific San Diego political scene. Anyway, on to your points: 1) There's nothing per se wrong with the switch in tactics, but there's still an opportunity cost to giving away 60 acres of city land, whether it's currently being used or not. Might be worth it, might not, but it is a cost. 2) No, Porter doesn't say Super Bowls lose money, just that in warm-weather sites, Super Bowl tourists largely just displace the tourists who would otherwise be there. (I believe San Diego was one of the cities he studied, but it's been a while since I read his papers on this.) There's some evidence that Super Bowl tourists may be less economically valuable than the regular kind because they're forced to book hotels for the entire week but only fly in for the weekend, but I don't know if Porter has tried to quantify this. 3) I think we're talking about two different things, then - all I said up top was that the Chargers wouldn't have to pay property taxes on the stadium, thanks to it being owned by the government. 4) Sure, there are lots of deals where the public has just provided the land, and the team has paid for the stadium - the New England Patriots, Washington Redskins, I think a couple of others. As for whether $65 million worth of land is a fair price for making the Chargers happy - or whether the best use of the land is a commercial/residential development, a park, or something else - that's for the people of San Diego to decide. My main concern is that they go into it with their eyes wide open, not with, say, visions of Super Bowl tourist windfalls being dangled before their eyes. (Not that you're dangling the windfalls, mind you, but I'm sure somebody will.)
Posted by: Neil at March 9, 2005 05:13 PM

Neil, I have read through your comments on this issue and I will begin by saying that I too feel that any stadium deal should be fair to both sides. I view the Chargers’ current proposal very favorably, it is much more friendly that many stadium proposals that I have seen. Simply comparing it to the proposed stadium in New York City should underscore that point. However, even though I feel it is fair, the proposal is only a starting point in working for a fair deal for both sides. From what I have read on this site, it appears that you are against public funding in part or in whole of any stadium. It seems that the only circumstance that you would agree with public funding at any level is if it resulted in the loss of the team and higher cost to the city in the future. I wonder, do you have this view on other issues that government funding is often used for as well? For instance, do you oppose public subsidies of the arts? How do you feel about public funding of colleges and taxpayer operated colleges? And how do you feel about taxpayer funded festivals and events? Why do I ask your view on all of these? Simple, they are expenditures that are not a necessity of life, but do improve the quality of life for the citizens. Governments do provide many concrete and necessary services, such as fire protection, law enforcement and water/sewage among others, however they also provide the quality of life things that make a city or town a home. This is uniform across the country, there are no cities that I am aware of that do not in some way do this. The city should seek to obtain the best deal that it can for itself, while at the same time making a fair deal for all sides concerned. The Chargers proposal is actually exactly what the city asked for. Not being from San Diego, have you actually read the proposal? It seems that you have not, or have only read newspaper accounts of it. Do you know that it is based on the suggestions of a city appointed study group? Do you know that the city of San Diego has basically refused to work with the Chargers? That the city council voted against hiring consultants to work with the Chargers on the proposal? So how can you say that the deal is so bad when the city will not even make counter offers? Councilwoman Frye’s proposal to use sixty acres of the site is the only counter offer from the city council to date. Are you aware of the poor condition of the current stadium? Do you know that the city has failed to perform more than $50 million in stipulated maintenance on the structure? Have you seen any of the video shown on the various stadium issue shows that reveal the decaying innards of the stadium? Are you aware that the stadium has been determined to be seismically unstable? Can you imagine the results of a moderate earthquake during a football game in a stadium that is not properly designed and has not been maintained properly. The death toll would be in the tens of thousands. How much would this cost the city in terms of liability issues? So, if we follow your course and do not address the stadium issue jointly with the city and Chargers acting as partners, the Chargers will be forced to leave town. There is just no doubt about this, the stadium will not last forever and is becoming less and less competitive with other NFL stadiums due to increasing age and overdue maintenance. Why you make the point that they have no where to go, I would have to disagree with you. There are only 32 NFL teams and it is a major distinction to have one of them from a quality of life point of view. Cities may not be trampling over each other to get one, but the surely would not be a long wait in receiving offers. While you site studies that do not show big economic impact for warm weather cities, studies can easily be colored to gain preconceived findings. I could give you studies that say that they do bring in a lot of money. The Chargers have used them in their support of the stadium proposal. The truth lies somewhere in between the two sides. Yes, in a warm weather city, a Super Bowl is not the huge impact event that the NFL would have you believe. This is certainly true of the cost to the city in added security and other services that are required by the Super Bowl, but not directly tied to the Super Bowl. Councilwoman Frye has said that she does not believe that the city makes any money on the Super Bowls. And strictly speaking, this may be true. If you solely at what the city spends directly on the Super Bowl, they have to spend more than what comes in. However, if you look at the big picture, things are different. Consider all the money that everyone associated with the Super Bowl brings into the local area and spends, food, lodging, car rentals, souvenirs. That adds up quickly and reaches into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Now, as stated by others, San Diego is a warm weather city, but January and February are not high points in for tourism. As such, the displacement of tourists that might take place will be outweighed by the influx of Super Bowl related visitors. Also consider the huge amount of free advertising that a Super Bowl provides. There is no denying that it is the single biggest sporting event in the world. And while there are other sporting events that are arguably bigger in their totality, they occur over the course of days. The Super Bowl is the biggest one day sports event that there is and is viewed by people in countries all over the world. All those people are seeing San Diego and thinking how nice it looks. Inevitably, some of those people will travel to San Diego because of what they saw on the Super Bowl. There is also the impact on the local work force. There are more jobs created than would be without it, even if they are not permanent jobs. You also have the overtime that is created for it. That money flows around and a portion of it gets spent in San Diego again. And each time it is spent, some sales tax goes to the city. So while studies can be done to show that the Super Bowl does not have a big impact, studies can be shown to show that it does. Personally, the chance of having a Super Bowl is not a big selling point for me. It would be nice, but I would be just as happy with a new stadium and no Super Bowl an having the new stadium and Super Bowls. You believe that giving the Chargers sixty acres to develop is not a good deal for the city. But what is the alternative? Yes, you can sell it to developers who will then develop it and you will get that money plus property and sales tax. However, you will loose the Chargers. While you might think that is OK, you would loose more than that as well. Consider that the Aztecs college football team also plays there. Would you still say to maintain a stadium for a college team? Obviously you would not do that, so then you would loose college football as well, there simply is no other facility in San Diego to use for large football games. You also loose any other events that can be held there, as without the Chargers there, the city will not do more maintenance than they are now, and as they are already more than $50 million dollars behind, things are not going to get any better. How many developers are going to jump at the chance to redevelop a parking lot next to what will soon be a dead hulk of a stadium? The city could tear it down and clean up the land, but there goes a very large chunk of money and a good portion of any positive cash flow from selling the sixty acres. In the end, I think that he Chargers are making a good faith effort to make the deal happen and are trying to meet the needs of the city and themselves. I think it is a scheme only in that it is a way to get the deal done with as little fiscal impact on both sides as possible. I don’t believe that this would even be an issue you would be talking about if it were not for the fact that the city of San Diego has almost totally failed to work with the Chargers on this issue. I look forward to your reply.
Posted by: James "Magoo" Parrotte at March 10, 2005 05:13 PM

That's a lot to answer, so let me focus on the central question: No, I'm not opposed to ever spending public money on sports stadiums - I'm not even saying that this Chargers deal is necessarily a bad deal. It *is* a subsidy (because of the land value), but not all subsidies are necessarily bad, if they get the public something worthwhile. I do think that for-profit enterprises that charge admission need to be judged by a different standard than parks or libraries or colleges (okay, most colleges do charge "admission," but they do have lower tuitions thanks to public subsidies). If the government builds a library, it's clear what the public gets out of it - access to free books - but if it builds a stadium, fans still have to pay for tickets (more than in the old stadium, usually), so what's the public benefit? Nicer cupholders? Not having to worry about getting blackmailed by move threats for a couple of decades? Not that these aren't benefits - they are. But I think you need to look extra-hard at what the opportunity costs are of giving public assets to a private enterprise - the "what else could we do with this land/money?" - whether it's a matter of $60 million or $600 million.
Posted by: Neil at March 11, 2005 02:36 PM

One truism that maybe needs to be made clear to explain why I approach with skepticism even a deal like what the Chargers are proposing: TEAMS DON'T WANT NEW STADIUMS TO GET NEW STADIUMS, THEY WANT NEW STADIUMS TO GET STADIUM SUBSIDIES. These stadiums are so expensive that it's extremely difficult - not impossible, but extremely difficult - for them to turn a profit on their construction costs. So since stadiums tend to lose money overall, I always start with a healthy dose of skepticism whenever someone proposes one that claims to be a win-win for both team and city - it's hard to fairly divvy up a pie with no slices in it.
Posted by: Neil at March 11, 2005 03:08 PM

The Chargers aren't asking for a stadium subsidy. There aren't asking for any money at all. They aren't going to take any money from the pockets of San Diego taxpayers. They want 60 acres of land so they can build housing and retail. Sure, it could end up being worth a billion dollars built up (which the Chargers and their Development Partner) will pay for, and ultimately pay property taxes on. That is why they are confident enough in investing $600-900 million dollars on: a stadium the city will own; the surrounding area of about 100 acres, which the city will own; a public park on the San Diego River, which the city will own; public improvements and infrastructure in the neighborhood of $175 million; paying off the previous bonds the city does owe on the previous expansion; and the cleanup of ongoing leaks from nearby petroleum silos. Even the skeptics here in San Diego are softening up. Bruce Henderson, who has sued to prevent previous expansion of Qualcomm and the building of Petco Park, has said this new proposal is "a step in the right direction" for city taxpayers.
Posted by: Dan Touchette at March 20, 2005 08:22 PM

The "pro-Chargers" posts on this list ignore severl important points; 1) There is currently a perfectly adequate stadium in San Diego; Qualcomm. It hosted a Super Bowl just two years ago!! If it was sufficient for such a task at the time, why can't it be sufficient today? Can fans see football from the seats? Are there turnstiles? The only differences in a new stadium would be more luxury boxes; fewer seats, with many of the cheaper seats slightly further from the field than today; and an "open" design that would actually probably reduce crowd noise! 2) The land is obviously worth money, and thus would constitute a contribution. Contributions to for-profit busniesses are pretty difficult to defend. 3) The salaries in the NFL are static; they are a fixed portion of revenue. Why would the Chargers have any difficulty maintaining a profit, in that type of system? 4) Why is everyone so certain that the Chargers will leave? Neil makes a strong argument that there really isn't another suitable market for them to enter that doesn't have problems with public subsidies for stadium development. Maybe a strong line in the sand by San Diego will be a beacon to other cities to fight this trend, and end the race to the bottom.
Posted by: Stadium Buddy at March 22, 2005 12:04 PM

It is utterly unbelievable to me that the city is not jumping at this offer. We would be one of only the few teams in recent history to pay 100% of costs and all we ask for is the land to build a whole new community, not just a stadium. Most of the cities around the nation would drool for a team so willing to make a deal. What is wrong with our brain dead council members, a park? Im fed up with the officials of this city bringing us a bad name.
Posted by: Chris m at March 27, 2005 01:50 AM

I also believe that Stadium Buddy's post is unbelievable and ignorant. (I do not mean this in an attacking way) The hosted a super bowl two years ago because it was awarded a number of years ago and the NFL has ASSURED the city that they will never recieve another Super in the Q. What does that tell you? And the difference between a new and old stadium is unprofound. Thousands upon thousands would attend just to see the stadium! Not everybody goes to watch the game, a new stadium would attrach boundless amounts especially with the surrounding attractions being built. While the revenue is shared througout the NFL the increased revenue would mean more profit. Why are we certain the chargers would leave? Mainly becuase of my previous point, there is a very long line of cities that would be willing to give the Chargers half the deal they are offering. And if that land was so valuable then something would have been made out of it in the past what 40 years? If the city deemed it so valuable why not build a few parking garages and turn half of the parking lot into the "park" the councilmembers yearn for so bad. A park? San Diego needs to realize what the Chargers are willing to do for a new stadium, to revamp a virtually dead 60 acres of land into apartments, condos and parks which in turn make profit! The councilmen no doubt want " bids from developers nationwide" to devolop high priced condos so they can tax them. But that is the Chargers plan too. If the Chargers were demanding an insane amount or hey, even any amount of tax payer's money, it would be a different arguement. The fact is the lot is unused and a waste of land. The fact also is that once this gets onto the ballot you will see that the people of San Diego want this deal and know the value of it.
Posted by: Chris M at March 27, 2005 02:04 AM

If we're realistically talking about the latest proposal for the Charger stadium, we need to both look at what happened in the past and look to what the future will bring. The Chargers negotiated for the upgrade of a great dual-purpose stadium. The expansion was touted both by the Chargers and the city of San Diego as making the existing stadium 'state-of-the-art" and the public was told that it was needed to make sure that San Diego had a regular spot on the Super Bowl rotation. Well, the people that actually DID the expansion didn't address many underlying infrastructure issues-- such as upgrading the water and sewer lines, upgrading the electrical systems, upgrading or replacing aging elevators and escalators. They also did a lousy job of planning for drainage-- large pools of water collect very quickly. The Chargers KNEW this. They had an active role in planning for the expansion; they knew what areas were going to be addressed and what areas would not be addressed adequately. And when the expansion was complete, NOBODY from the Charger office told ANY reporter that there were ANY problems with the stadium. In fact Dean Spanos proudly declared that Qualcomm Stadium was, in fact, a 'state of the art facility.' It wasn't until the Task Force on Charger Issues was convened that we heard of any problems with the stadium. Speaking of the Task Force on Charger Issues, you REALLY need to read Chairman David Watson's preliminary conclusion report ( http://www.sandiego.gov/chargersissues/pdf/watsonpres030208.pdf ) for an idea of how the Chargers dealt with the Task Force set up for the express purpose of trying to get a new stadium for them. We also need to examine the behavior of the Chargers once they got their upgrade. They had negotiated for the infamous ticket guarantee-- but had also promised to use their best efforts to market the team effectively, so as to lessen the financial impact if the team had a losing year or two. Ricard Rider, a local tax activist, demonstrated to the City Council that the Chargers actually had a strong incentive NOT to market the team and fill the seats of the stadium-- because the revenues from those seats that were sold would have to be shared with the opposing team, while revenues derived through the ticket guarantee did not. Guess what-- during the life of the ticket guarantee, the Chargers sucked and there were a lot of empty seats-- which didn't prevent Alex Spanos from raising ticket prices. They failed to market the team, period. The ticket guarantee ended. The Chargers miraculously had a winning season and managed to sell out the stadium regularly. Which brings us to the latest proposal. Granted, it is significantly better than what they had tried to foist off on the Task Force, but it still has major problems. One of the previous posters had mentioned the underground leak coming from the gas tank farm next door to the Qualcomm site. That problem has been quite well addressed by the City of San Diego-- the leak has been found and fixed, and cleanup operations have been underway for well over a year-- the Chargers can lay NO claim to having ANYTHING to do with cleaning up that mess. The infrastrucure improvements aren't for the neighboring streets of Friars Road, San Diego Mission or Mission Village Drive-- streets that are already heavily impacted by ongoing development in Mission Valley-- or for any nearby freeway onramps... the infrastructure improvements in the plan are on the Qualcomm site itself. ANY master developer who makes a community has the responsibity of creating the underlying infrastructure. As it stands, the City will still have to lay out a significant chunk of change to upgrade Friars Road and Mission Village Drive to be able to handle the traffic caused by the additional high density development.. and we would have to make those changes BEFORE the additional housing units come on line. And the latest version of the stadium plan doesn't address who pays off the existing stadium bonds if the Chargers do build their new stadium. We know that if they leave San Diego, they are obligated to pay a portion of the remaining debt, based on a sliding scale, but nowhere is it addressed as to who pays off what and on what timeline if the Chargers stay. The previous two contracts between San Diego and the Chargers were heavily one-sided and greatly benefitted the Chargers at the expense of the taxpayers of the City of San Diego. Yes, the latest proposal IS better, but it is by no means a win-win situation for San Diego.
Posted by: Scott at April 30, 2005 01:16 AM