Cory Briggs, a lawyer mostly known for fighting to stop the city of San Diego to stop it from raising hotel taxes to pay for an expanded convention center, now has a plan to raise hotel taxes to expand the convention center, plus build a new Chargers stadium. Which he says wouldn’t use any taxpayer money.
Yeah, I know. The difference between the new tax, which Briggs actually first proposed back in August with no mention of the Chargers, and the old one is apparently that the old one goes to a fund controlled by hotel owners, while the new one could be used by the city for anything. Like, say, a new convention center and football stadium. Or “basic city services such as infrastructure backlog, street, sidewalk, and pothole repairs, public safety, and beaches and lifeguards, parks, and libraries,” but Briggs didn’t get much press traction when he said that, so might as well try it this way now.
(I have no idea what the “no taxpayer money” thing is supposed to be about, except that it always sounds good when you say it.)
Briggs’s plan would require a vote of San Diego residents, if he can even get it on the ballot, which is an open question. It’s something else to throw into the NFL-to-L.A. move threat hopper, anyway, that’s at least no more ridiculous than the other rumors out there.
Briggs doesn’t give two shits about the Chargers or their stadium. His real goal is to prevent the expansion of the San Diego Convention Center. More accurately, the convention center expansion the center, the hotels and the major conventions including Comic-Con want. Namely the contiguous expansion of the existing center. His goal is really to block any development on the San Diego waterfront. His track record of frivolous money wasting lawsuits back this up.
Cory Briggs is a complete fraud, I exposed him lying about the contiguous convention center project on VOSD. He is always pushing for the JMI Reality project. JMI is owned by John Moores, former Padres owner who ripped us off on the PetCo Park stadium deal.
This tax increase would require 2/3rds majority approval, it might pass if their was a requirement that all of the revenue go towards our $10 Billion deferred maintenance hole. It will fail miserably as long as Briggs is part of the deal and it’s just a way for his special interests to take money away from the hoteliers.
Typical San Diego politics.
“JMI is owned by John Moores, former Padres owner who ripped us off on the PetCo Park stadium deal.”
How did JMI rip off the city on the Petco Park deal? Seems to me the city made out pretty good with that investment all things considered. About the only thing they didn’t deliver on was a winning on field product under Moores latter day ownership. And Moores divorce is as much to blame for that as anything else.
@ Dan
The taxpayers spend over $15 million a year subsidizing PetCo Park, read the audit.
sandiego.gov/fm/annual/pdf/fy15/vol2/v2petcopark.pdf
Moores made over $1 billion profit on the sale of the Padres and developing real estate surrounding the stadium while sticking the bill for the stadium on the taxpayers. Skimming $200 million off of the new TV deal was the final FU to San Diego. That’s how he screwed over San Diego taxpayers.
I can’t wait until the Chargers move to LA so we can be done with this stupid stadium BS.
David Benz, per the wording in the initiative, the tax money raised would go into the General Fund, meaning that only 50%+1 voter approval is required.
Of course, there’s so much discussion about tourist-related spending in the initiative, including a potential non-contiguous convention center expansion and new sports facilities, I would expect the eventual ballot measure to be challenged if it passed with less than a 2/3 majority. I wouldn’t like Briggs’ chances in court defending this measure as written.
@ Kathleen
A general fund tax increase can pass with a simple majority. The problem from what I’ve read is it’s not legal to have an unspecified general fund tax increase in one measure with a spending increase like a new stadium in another measure and claim the two are unrelated.
Regardless the hoteliers that run San Diego will spend so much money opposing this that it will lose. I’d support the tax increase if all of the revenue would go towards our real infrastructure needs like roads, sewer, and water and not Spanos’ stadium or the hoteliers’ convention center.
@David Benz
Maybe I’m reading that chart you linked to wrong, but it sure looks to me as if the Petco Park revenues for the city are about equal to the the stadium expenses each year. It definitely does not show a $15 million deficit each year.
2013 Total Expenditures: $16,166,331
2013 Total Revenue: $17,997,704
2014 Total Expenditures: $17,405,049
2013 Total Revenue: $16,494,163
So how is this a bad deal? Can you better explain your position? Are you just complaining about the expenses without noting the revenues?
*both years should read 2014 on the second entry
Persi: Though that document isn’t very clear, it looks like most of that “revenue” is actually tax money provided by the city to pay the stadium’s bills. So sure, if spending $15 million a year on construction bonds and operating expenses and then taking $15 million a year out of the tourism budget to pay it off is breaking even, then Petco is breaking even. That’s not what most humans mean by the term, though.
Google found a good rundown of the numbers in about 10 seconds:
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/land-use/city-promised-new-money-would-pay-for-ballpark-it-cant-prove-it-does/
You have to read the whole report Persi, look at the revenue statement. Almost all of the revenue is coming straight out of the general fund and other government funds. That’s money out of the taxpayers’ pockets, my pocket.
The Padres rent hardly makes a dent in the annual operating costs.
Thanks David and Neil for clearing that up for me. I had a feeling I was missing something. That chart is deceptive by calling the money from the General Fund revenues.