San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer has set December 15 as the date for a public vote on a Chargers stadium deal — not that he and the Chargers owners have agreed on one, but once they do, there’s going to be a public vote on December 15, by gum!
This may sound a little weird — not only because nobody knows yet what if anything there will be to vote on, but because what elected official calls for a referendum when it’s not required? — but it’s not so much when you consider all the factors. First off, this would be “a majority vote of the people,” in Faulconer’s words — i.e., not the vote requiring a two-thirds majority that the Chargers are afraid of, and which would be needed to pass a tax increase for stadium funding. Holding a vote this year would head off a later referendum challenge, thanks to some wrinkle of California election law that I’m not even going to pretend to understand. And finally, by announcing it now, the mayor both sends a message to the NFL that he’s serious (whatever that means) about building a stadium for the Chargers, and sends a message to voters that he’s not going to move ahead with anything that he can’t get 50.1% of them to agree on.
Chargers owners the Spanos family, meanwhile, seem less than excited about all this: They’ve expressed skepticism that a vote can be pulled off this year, that a stadium deal based on the mayor’s task force’s plans, and really on just about everything about a new stadium in San Diego — all of which is only to be expected, as expressing enthusiasm about an offer is no way to get the party across the table to up their ante. So this could all be part of negotiating tactics, or it could be Faulconer gearing up to say, “Hey, I tried.” Or both! It could always be both.
This is a time honored bait and switch trick San Diego pols have used before. The football stadium “improvements” were voted on back in the ’90’s but when time to act came around and someone pointed out there were changes inserted into the “deal” that were not part of the original approved vote, the old “the vote has been cast” trope was trotted out. Since that worked, the baseball stadium changes also fell to the “vote has been cast” category. The only thing that held up the baseball stadium was Wall Street financiers who didn’t like the deal. Seems in San Diego, if you can get a “vote” on something, that’s the go-ahead for whatever comes next. Just sign here, we’ll work out the details later.
You are right; on first look it looks like an idiot’s plan. But it has a reasoning which is embedded in the stadium lease agreement and team agreement the city has signed for the use of the Qualcomm stadium. In them there is a provision that prohibits the team to look elsewhere (such as the pseudo-relocation scenarios the owner is engaged in presently for everyone’s entertainment) for as long as the city has put on a table a reasonable proposal for stadium renovation (mind you and not the absurd notion about a new stadium). The NFL guidelines for relocation of course dare not include a new stadium requirement for existing host cities. Therefore in doing all this exasperated reflexivity the mayor is simply telegraphing the world that the team is hostage to SD for the time being.
As far as the special election, provided the owner pays for the cost of it and not the city we can have it anytime the owner wants to write a check for it.
The rest is pure nonsense having to do with the NFL’s own deception of pretending to have a relocation option in LA at the same time when all financially semi-sophisticated people know that there is not even an iota of a chance for financing a $2.5 Bil. new stadium in LA (after relocation fees are included) as part of a private deal. Such mechanisms have not been invented yet. Financing an $1.1 Bil. stadium is still possible but a 100% $2.5 Bil. artificial construct would use up all the revenue streams the team and stadium depend on to justify feasibility. This scheme is only possible if the NFL has decided to enter the stadium slavery business; a model whereby the NFL slaves off after the economics of stadia instead of other having to assume such burden.
Isn’t there an old(e) proverb about never saying “whoa,that’s enough!” when some halfwit is sitting across from you piling his cash (or someone else’s, in this case) on the table for your amusement?
If not, maybe there should be….
Probably not a coincidence that they’d have a vote in mid-December, when football is really front and center on the sports calendar. Ridiculously, the success of the Chargers’ season (which has nothing to do this the finances of the deal) will likely have an effect on the polls.
That said, lots of pressure for the Chargers to win @Chiefs on 12/13!