Field of Schemes
sports stadium news and analysis


This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.

March 08, 2011

Chargers, San Diego meet about stadium funding, agree that they could use some

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders met with Chargers CEO Dean Spanos (son of owner Alex) yesterday to "explore alternatives" for stadium funding, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune, in case neither the NFL nor redevelopments come through, as looks increasingly likely. And after the meeting, the two sides excitedly announced:

"The Chargers and the Mayor's Office will continue to work together as these important issues are resolved," the statement said.
A mayoral spokesman said no further meetings have been scheduled but staff will stay in close contact in coming weeks.

Now that's unbridled enthusiasm. The most positive post-meeting statement came from acting San Diego development corporation president Fred Maas, who said, "I think there's a lot of novel things that can be done. I'm not a person who just decides to lie down and throw up the white flag because we've been confronted with hurdles we never expected." No, he told the Union-Trib, he's prepared to attend more meetings. If any are ever held, that is.


I think Governor Brown's proposed elimination of state-funded RDA's is really going to affect everything in California, until the issue is resolved. Even if redevelopment funds are only 10% of a given project's budget, it can throw the entire thing out of kilter.

Great article in yesterday's Matier and Ross (sfgate) on this subject -- and apparently, it was the stadium in Oakland while he was mayor that convinced him on RDA's.

Posted by MikeM on March 8, 2011 06:25 PM

g3 for San Diego

Posted by Nick Pirce on March 8, 2011 06:54 PM

Mike M.

It totally blows my mind that the leaders of Santa Clara don't see Oakland as a cautionary tale.

I trust and hope that Mr. Brown is paying attention to what's going on in Santa Clara--the latest shenanigans here are perfect fodder for this very website.

The Stadium Authority (aka as the city council) is apparently exploring the possiblity of issuing SA dept right here and now! At least that's what the Merc recently reported. (Do the 49ers even have their share of the $$--we have no idea!)

I guess it would be akin to the Israelis' practice of creating "facts" on the ground with their settlements...

Posted by santa clara jay on March 8, 2011 07:56 PM

@MM- you missed the point of the M &R article- the Oakland example that Brown refers to did not use rda funds- it used general funds- the man was mayor of that city for how long and now governor and he doesn't know the difference between the 2- hardly impressivet

Posted by sanJoseA's on March 9, 2011 03:26 AM

sanJoseA's I feel the point you're making is
a distinction without a difference. Do you seriously doubt that the Oakland general fund would not had been on the hook in one way or another if it was RDA debts weren't being serviced?

Here in Santa Clara, city officials are trying to mollify us by assuring this "can't miss" deal nonetheless is isolated from our general fund by a supposed independent stadium authority. A complete fiction of course as any dedicated reader of this website knows...

Posted by santa clara jay on March 9, 2011 01:00 PM

@jay- 2 differwnt buckets of money with rules as to how you can apply them- not the auditor of rda took exception to those cities who co- mingled gf and rda fund- so yes- there is a distinct difference

Posted by San Jose A's on March 9, 2011 01:24 PM

The RDA contribution still causes a loss of $20,000,000 to our General Fund over time. Fact.

Reason: The RDA can't issue the bonds without an SB 211 amendment, and it's that amendment that cuts off RDA payments that the RDA OWES to our General Fund. Read the so-called "tax benefits" memo to the June 2, 2009 Term Sheet, Santa Clara city website.

Doesn't matter that they're two buckets - one does affect the other, and the stadium subsidy means that the Santa Clara City Council is breaking a promise they so solemnly made back on January 9th, 2007: That the General Funds would suffer NO impacts from the stadium subsidy.

Now we find out that they had their fingers crossed.

Wait till the 49ers really put the screws to the Stadium Authority - that agency will probably end up being the sick man of the County.

Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair dot Org


Posted by Bill Bailey on March 10, 2011 03:39 AM

Latest News Items