U-T San Diego, self-proclaimed (well, publisher-proclaimed) Chargers stadium “cheerleader,” ran down the list of ideas for funding an NFL stadium on Saturday. Are they any more specific than the last set of ideas, you ask? Enh:
- Create an “infrastructure district” to kick back the increase in property taxes from a redeveloped area to help pay off construction costs. Yes, this is a TIF. No, it’s not really any different from the “redevelopment districts” that California abolished a few years back. No, infrastructure districts are not supposed to be used to build stadiums. This would require a 55% public vote, and could generate enough to pay off maybe $150 million in costs.
- Borrow against new stadium revenues from seat licenses, naming rights, and such, which the Chargers wouldn’t like because that money is the whole reason they want a new stadium.
- Find a developer willing to build a stadium without public money, as is being attempted in Carson and Inglewood. Nobody’s offered to do this in San Diego, but hey, can’t hurt to ask, right?
- Get around the two-thirds requirement for a stadium tax increase by holding two votes, one to raise taxes (which would require a two-thirds vote) and one to spend the money on a stadium (which would require a simple majority). Chargers stadium chief Mark Fabiani has disparaged this idea, saying (not in so many words) that San Diego voters aren’t complete idiots.
- Get local hotel owners to agree to raise taxes on themselves without going to voters, which would be illegal.
The problem here — as economist Erik Bruvold, who I gave a bit of short shrift to last week based on his initial public comments, has since tried to make clearer — is that there really isn’t enough money in a new NFL stadium in San Diego to make it worth anyone’s while. (Whether there’s enough money in a new NFL stadium in L.A., given the nearly $2 billion price tag, remains an open question.) U-T San Diego didn’t include “just scrape up whatever money the city can find an offer to hand it to the Chargers to boost their profits instead of going through all this rigamarole about a stadium” in its options list, but maybe that wasn’t considered cheerleadery enough for a major newspaper to consider.
Everybody has known about this problem for quite a while and its still baffling to me that these people haven’t come up with or presented any good ideas on how to fund this stadium. it’s been up to the people who heavily involved not only to come up with a plan that makes sense to everyone, but also to make the pitch to the community in order to get this ball moving. i understand that not everyone has a way with words or even good in interpersonal relationships but if these are the people running the show then San Diego is screwed. I’ll miss the excitement that having a NFL franchise brought to this city, but nothing lasts forever(ask carmella soprano) from a business standpoint the Chargers should just leave and do whats best for them.
My exact point was that coming up with “a plan that makes sense to everyone” is probably impossible. The scenario that maximizes revenue for all involved is to build nothing.
Now there’s an idea………. Let’s just all hold hands and do absolutely nothing. Now, that’s what I call progress.
Like my grand pappy used to say, “son, no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try to make things right, you’re never going to make everybody happy”…….. Boy, isn’t that the truth…….
Just use parking revenues. What’s the problem?
Am I still bitter? Yup.
The “infrastructure bridge loan” is not for stadium construction which is not allowed under the new Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District legislation. The bridge loan from the City and County is to front the cost of the site development costs and site improvements, so the stadium site can be developed and the developable portions of the site land can be ground leased to developers at “fair market value” as entitled and improved development sites not as an un-entitled and unimproved parking lot. This approach maximizes the value of the land to the highest price through market bidding and the cost of the infrastructure is repaid through the property taxes paid to the Joint Powers Authority EIFD-TIF as the the project is developed over time. Otherwise, the developers would have to pay for the cost of infrastructure through CFD Mello-Roos bonds which reduces the amount of ground rent they could pay and hence lowers the net proceeds from the ground rent.
There’s a factor in the PSL discussion that has not been addressed. According to the Chargers, 30% of their home game ticket buyers and sky box renters are from OC and points north. Given that LA WILL end up with one or more NFL teams, how likely is it that these LA area folks will spend $10,000 to $45,000 for the right to buy San Diego Charger seats in the future? Not many will, I bet.
Our LA fan loyalty is likely dependent on the LACK of an LA team rather than enthusiasm for the Chargers. That loyalty will likely transfer to an LA team, once it is operational.
Of course, this strange LA area fan base further calls into question the very idea of building a new stadium in San Diego. Where’s the demand for the higher priced seats (not to mention the PSLs) going to come from, once LA has its team? Are we not heading for permanent Charger game blackouts and an embarrassingly low-populated stadium?
Sadly, it’s time for us to say “goodbye and good luck” to the Chargers. As far As I can tell, there is NO WAY that it makes economic sense for us to have the Chargers remain — for EITHER San Diegans OR the Chargers.
Taxpayers coughing up an absurd $800 million or more for the new stadium is only PART of the cost we would have to incur. The purpose of the new stadium is to charge the fans more — a LOT more.
Assuming the Chargers make $50 million more annually from the new stadium (their figure!), that means that each home game they’ll pocket $6.25 million extra (the exhibition games can’t raise prices — no one would show up!). Assuming 62,500 fans average per game, that means that the average extra profit PER FAN would have to be $100 — including sky box attendance.
That’s not charging $100 per ticket. That’s $100 MORE per ticket than fans now pay!
Moreover, given that LA WILL have at least one NFL team in the next three years, the Chargers’ paid fan base is about to take a major hit. 30% of their tickets and sky boxes are now sold to LA area customers. Most of these fair weather fans will stop traveling to San Diego for NFL games, once they get their own football team. So who is going to pay such outrageous ticket and sky box prices is a mystery.
Oh, one other “unintended consequence” of the $100 ticket price increase — the Chargers will seldom meet the “blackout” criteria. San Diegans viewing home games on their HD TV’s will become a thing of the past.
If there is some other market that will pay such outrageous prices and provide such huge stadium subsidies, the Chargers should go there. We can’t, and we won’t.
Richard, just a quick correct/elaboration. Would likely mean $100 PER ATTENDEE. Now that can be made up through tix prices, increase food prices/consumption and more in bowl advertising revenue. Tix prices will go up but I am not sure a full 100.
I actually am hearing useful sounds. I doubt that there will not be SOME public subsidy proposed but they are also talking about asking the Chargers for 15 million a YEAR in rent – so far above what others are paying as to make head spin – so they minimize the risk on the ancillary development. My guess is that what we get in May is a so-so deal (in other words, many on this site will hate it but it won’t be laughably bad) but the chargers will reject. Then we will see how “real” carson is. Chargers have burned bridges with some this past 3 months – I am not sure they are going to be able to negotiate much off what is proposed on May 20th and the taskforce has too much personal stake (and not enough charger-focused stake) to come up with a totally sweetheart deal