Industry, California’s football stadium plan may still make smoke and mirrors look solid by comparison, but that’s not going to stop the city from spending $172 million on preparing the land and building infrastructure for it regardless, with work possibly starting as soon as this January. Because apparently according to the lease that Majestic Realty developer Ed Roski signed with the city back in so-long-ago-I-can’t-even-Google-it (2008, maybe? did the web even exist then?), in exchange for a share of the profits from the whatever it is that Roski builds there, the city has to pay for land prep and infrastructure, out of funds from the local Regional Development Authority that was officially abolished in 2011, but which is still committed to paying out on projects that were approved prior to then.
“Under that lease, there is an obligation to put in the infrastructure,” Industry city manager Kevin Radecki told the San Gabriel Valley Tribune. “At a certain point, [the developer] will have to decide which direction they want to go.”
On the bright side, Industry barely has any residents — it was incorporated by a bunch of local companies (hence the name) in the 1950s, essentially as a tax dodge — so it’s not like there are schoolkids who are going to go without pencils as a result of this expense. Though given that the state of California has claimed that the money should be theirs since Roski’s plans aren’t yet finalized, you could certainly argue that schoolkids in, say, Oakland are being denied as a result. But it’ll all be worth it when the flying gondalas are ready.
Uh-huh.
Naturally, the city would have committed to it’s part of the project before Roski has committed much of anything. When will they learn? (I know, I know… never)
NFL LA is happening guys. You can go on about the conspiracy theories, but that’s a huge market. It’s definitely much more viable than LONDON. The NFL just has to make sure the stadium is top-notch and state-of-the-art, and the fans will follow.
NFL LA might happen, after all the other NFL teams have gotten new stadiums. The threat is more valuable than the team would be.
Of course, it may be that the threat of Boise or Newport Beach will be just as powerful as the threat of LA.
@Dave Boz, I don’t understand that theory. There are numerous other markets the NFL could use to threaten other markets that refuse to upgrade their stadiums. Why not Portland? Why not San Antonio? Las Vegas? Salt Lake City? I’m just saying. The LA market is impossible for the NFL to ignore. The stadium and marketing just need to be done properly.
“The LA market is impossible for the NFL to ignore.”
They’ve had 19 of their most successful seasons ignoring it.
In another sport, one that had to sell out more than eight games a year and that depended on cable TV revenues, L.A. would be crazy valuable. (Which is why every other sport has multiple teams in L.A./Orange County.) For the NFL, it’s eminently ignorable — football fans in L.A. still watch the sport on TV, so who cares whether it’s them or people in Buffalo buying tickets?
Right and because half of LA is from somewhere else, they are probably happy not to have a local team. Increases the chances that one of the games broadcast in that market includes their team from back home.
It’s so easy to joke about that $172M, but really, it’s not funny.
I hope the state sues. Go after their asses. They should get all their money back.
We’ll be told soon this is an example of how California is not business friendly. I fully expect it.
Chargers and Rams to share a stadium in LA because neither are getting anything from San Diego or St. Louis.
You guys can’t see things from a corporation’s perspective. All Goodell sees is the chance to make more money. That’s what it’s all about. It’s never about having ENOUGH money. They always want more.
John, not so sure you’re right about San Diego. Now that the Chargers are willing to build at Wualcomm they’re right where the city wants them.
Sorry folks but they were going to grade and do the infrastructure to that site for either a stadium or for a business park. It is for either project not just the stadium get your facts right before you post. So if no stadium gets built than they will build a business park on the site, it was the original plan and apart of the original EIR. $172 million come from the old redevelopment agency. I am from LA and I live in LA, many TRANSPLANTS don’t want a team in LA but us natives do. LA Rams 2015!!!
Roger C, so I guess the the very profit-minded NFL has put of making money for the past 18 years in regards to the L.A. situation. Why did “The League” select Houston over Los Angeles in the last expansion derby? Heck, they couldn’t return to Cleveland fast enough. Houston and Cleveland (smaller markets than L.A.) offered significant public monies in their stadium proposals, which L.A. did not and will not do. In Goodell’s world, a privately-financed stadium incurs significant debt, which cuts into a team’s profits. Plus, the NFL has used the L.A. vacancy to scare locales such as Indianapolis, Arizona, Seattle and Minnesota to build new stadia. L.A. is a more legitimate threat than the Salt Lake Citys, Portlands, and Birminghams of the world as is Seattle than Sacramento for the NBA. It may make more sense financially for the league to have mostly publicly-funded stadia in markets smaller than L.A., where the team and NFL will have to bear the entire costs. And as Neil has said time and again, a team in tiny Green Bay, Wisc. receives the same TV check amount as a hypothetical SoCal team. This article by Jason Cole (http://alturl.com/3je9q) goes into great detail about the problems of stadium-building in the L.A. area.
DW, want to try that link to the Cole article again? I’m getting a 404.
@ Dan – The voters of San Diego will not approve public funds for the Chargers, their only hope was to tag a stadium onto the convention center. They’ll never get 2/3rds approval, we’ve been screwed over enough.
Neil:
Here is the website address: http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Exclusive-Hollywood-Park-attracts-interest-from-NFLagain.html
John, we’ll see. If Spanos publicly puts up his share and the team starts winning again I can see the Chargers riding a wave similar to the Pads 10 years ago. And mind you the bolts are definitely the more popular team around here. If Spanos earns it the people will vote for it.
A stadium in L.A. is easy-peazy, my friends. You just need 1.5 billion to build it, maybe 800-900 mil to buy a team, and another 400-500 mil to pay off us NFL poobahs. You don’t think we’re giving away that market without wetting our beaks, do you? Cuz it’s not like having a team there is gonna change our t.v. revenue one iota.
And t.v. is our gravy train if you hadn’t bothered to notice. 19 years as our favorite false flag has been sweet, but sure, we’d give it up for a price. So who’s got 3 billion to become a member of the club of 32? We’ll let you on the orgy barge, err, next executive cruise, haha.
@Roger C:
Actually, Roger Goodell has been nowhere near as hell-bent on getting a team in LA as his predecessor was. If he was he’d be trying to negotiate better terms with Anschutz on THAT stadium deal as opposed to telling them “Nope, come see us again when you’re serious.”
@DW:
Almost everyone who’s sober realizes the problems with LA and football. Among them is a certain level of apathy among LA residents. Cleveland NEEDS football. Baltimore NEEDS football. Houston, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Green Bay — no offense to anyone but certain cities need their sports franchises (especially the NFL) in order to have some sort of identity. Hence, the terrorist tactics used by some franchises owners to shake down city and state coffers.
Los Angeles does not need the NFL . 41 million people vacationed in LA last year. They’re doing just fine.
@DW
FWIW, the NFL actually did choose LA over Houston on the condition that they get a stadium deal done within a 6 month period. They didn’t, hence the reason why we have the Houston Texans.