Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OT: the proposed MLS stadium

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by 6025 View Post
    That's not my understanding of the Goal SD initiative.
    FWIW, Nick Stone said yesterday on 1360 that if the MLS denies a team to San Diego, Soccer City doesn't happen.

    Comment


    • This author says that Major League Soccer isn't part of the initiative, only a "sports league."

      Things like this make hastily put together 1000 page initiatives very suspect.

      Originally posted by KNSD View Post
      http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topic...ccercity-plan/

      By Theresa Quiroz | March 24, 2017
      SoccerCity signature-gatherers are all over town telling people that the Qualcomm development deal will add a stadium for San Diego State University and bring a Major League Soccer team to San Diego.

      The team of private investors behind the deal have been constantly hitting the news and social media with their message. They say San Diegans can be assured there will be no public subsidies. They are telling us it will create tens of thousands of jobs and bring in an estimated $2.8 billion. Residents are being asked to come up with the names for the soccer team.

      These are bright and shiny baubles being waved in front of us right now. But just like any good magician, as one hand draws attention to the shiny objects, the other hand is manipulating the part of the trick that no-one is supposed to see.

      The actual language of the SoccerCity ballot initiative is very long and dull, so people might be tempted to take these private investors at their word.

      I did read the initiative, though, and to me the text does raise some concerns.

      There is the promise that no public monies will be permitted in the deal.

      The initiative essentially says the mayor is allowed to ignore any of the rules or requirements if the professional sports team doesn’t like them. I’m sure the professional sports team won’t like that there are no public subsidies. Think the team will like paying for infrastructure for the project, or mitigating for the traffic impacts? How about indemnifying the city?

      The reference to a “sports league” is interesting. The language doesn’t say a soccer league – just a sports league.


      Just in case the mayor wants an NFL team instead of a soccer team, the initiative says space is to be reserved so that he can accomplish that goal. If he chooses to bring in an NFL team, he can override any of the rules and regulations.

      Putting it simply, the initiative makes it possible – even easy – for the mayor to bring in an NFL team and provide them whatever terms are needed to satisfy them in either their lease or purchase of the land. The deal could include public subsidies.

      Regarding the river park mentioned in the title of the initiative, the proposal says the developer is required to pay $40 million for the construction of the park. If their lease is not signed, sealed and delivered by Dec. 31 of this year, just nine months from now, and one month from the election where this will be decided by the voters, then that amount goes down to $20 million. We must assume that the cost to build the river park will be around $40 million, so how will the park be built if they only have to pay $20 million? The initiative doesn’t answer that.

      But even more important is the fact that if the lease isn’t signed, sealed and delivered by December of this year, there will be no requirement as to when the park will be constructed. The obligation of the entity will no longer be subject to any deadlines for the park’s construction. This would be a 99-year lease. It seems to say the developer could put off building the park until the 98th year of the lease. That would be the year 2116.

      There is another big caveat when it comes to the river park. The initiative says that whoever signs the lease agreement, will construct the park using either the $40 million or the $20 million as was described earlier, but only if all permits from the state and federal governments are finalized within 18 months of the signing of the lease. If they don’t receive the permits by then, they don’t have to build the park. They just have to deposit the money into a city fund. The city can then choose to use that money for the river park or not.

      Also in the initiative is the lease or sale of the former Chargers Practice Facility in Kearny Mesa. The Kearny Mesa community plan has a very sensible restriction on construction in the area around MCAS Miramar and Montgomery Field that ensures development is compatible with the use of those airports. But the initiative changes that community plan to say that hotels built at the former practice field won’t need to be compatible with the use of MCAS Miramar and Montgomery Field airports. I find that regulation to be strange. It would be unfortunate if this plan allowed for the disruption of activities at those two important areas of our city.

      This is how I read the fine print in the initiative that is hiding behind the shiny objects being waved around in front of the public. There needs to be much more thought put into the initiative, many more public discussions and the voters need to be fully aware of what they are giving away with this fast-tracked project.

      Theresa Quiroz is a planning commissioner and former redistricting commissioner for the city of San Diego. Quiroz’s commentary has been edited for style and clarity. See anything in there we should fact check? Tell us what to check out here
      Prediction:
      Correct: Chargers CI fails miserably.
      Fail: Team stays in San Diego until their lease runs out in 2020. (without getting new deal done by then) .
      Sig Bet WIN: The Chargers will file for relocation on January 15.

      Comment


      • It's becoming more and more obvious to me the only solution to getting new stadiums in SD is uniting everyone behind an Olympics bid. That would require 2-3 brand new stadiums and a bunch of infrastructure improvements, but it would all be for a noble cause instead of "giving away" public assets or treasure to greedy rich people.

        Once the Unicorn Contiguous Convention Center gets funded and they build out the rest of the Embarcadero - what else would the politicians have to do with their time and public money but Legacy building?
        Chagras Got no barg!!!!!!!

        Comment


        • Wow Olympics??

          I think an informal poll of SD residents would look like this:

          16% For. 75% Against. 9% WTF?
          Forget it Donny you're out of your element

          Shut the fuck up Donny

          Comment


          • Originally posted by bonehead View Post
            Wow Olympics??

            I think an informal poll of SD residents would look like this:

            16% For. 75% Against. 9% WTF?
            Yep. A local group along partners in Tijuana submitted a bid last time but didn't make the 1st cut. You can bet they will try again.
            Chagras Got no barg!!!!!!!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bolt-O View Post
              IIRC, the city didn't even want to come to the table to talk, because of the financial situation it was in (pension crisis), but the real idiots back then were Aguirre and Frye. As always there were agendas, and obstructions. In the end, it would have been a lot cheaper to do the stadium back then, but there was no one in the city willing to pick up the gauntlet.
              Had they done a deal back then, they would be looking for a new sweetheart deal at least by 2025. It was too early back then. The right time to ask for a new deal was right about now, when the last expansion and lease were set to expire soon. Building things will always be retroactively cheaper because of inflation. But since the NFL seems to need a new stadium about every 20 - 25 years, it's actually cheaper to stall as long as possible for whichever municipality has to carry the burden.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wheels View Post
                Had they done a deal back then, they would be looking for a new sweetheart deal at least by 2025. It was too early back then. The right time to ask for a new deal was right about now, when the last expansion and lease were set to expire soon. Building things will always be retroactively cheaper because of inflation. But since the NFL seems to need a new stadium about every 20 - 25 years, it's actually cheaper to stall as long as possible for whichever municipality has to carry the burden.
                Yep.

                Comment


                • The thing that killed that deal was the propety's status as a "Redevelopment Zone". California yanked the piug on that and they lost a big tax break.

                  Comment


                  • I see where SDSU has left 1090 because they felt the radio station was too "pro-MLS stadium". They stated they were distancing themselves from the proposal. Saw this in an Instagram account called "Public Land, Public Vote".

                    Comment


                    • It sounds like SDSU has broken off negotiations with the FS Investors group. I guess that's not good for Aztec Football in Mission Valley. Frankly, I don't care anymore.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Bolt-O View Post
                        It sounds like SDSU has broken off negotiations with the FS Investors group. I guess that's not good for Aztec Football in Mission Valley. Frankly, I don't care anymore.
                        Good, That soccer stadium is a land grabbing boondoggle.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 6025 View Post
                          Good, That soccer stadium is a land grabbing boondoggle.
                          Deja Vu all over again.

                          Spanos/FS claimed to "save" Comicon/SDSU Football in their initiative. Unfortunately for them Comicon/SDSU Football aren't interesting in being "saved" by them.
                          Prediction:
                          Correct: Chargers CI fails miserably.
                          Fail: Team stays in San Diego until their lease runs out in 2020. (without getting new deal done by then) .
                          Sig Bet WIN: The Chargers will file for relocation on January 15.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 6025 View Post
                            Good, That soccer stadium is a land grabbing boondoggle.
                            I agree. And what I don't get is why FS was so fucking stingy that they couldn't put 10,000 more seats into the stadium to get the most important stakeholder on board. They stand to make like a billion dollars from this, but 10,000 seats is too much to ask. SDSU is the biggest economic contributor to our local economy of all parties involved. Make them happy, and you make San Diego happy.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wheels View Post
                              I agree. And what I don't get is why FS was so fucking stingy that they couldn't put 10,000 more seats into the stadium to get the most important stakeholder on board. They stand to make like a billion dollars from this, but 10,000 seats is too much to ask. SDSU is the biggest economic contributor to our local economy of all parties involved. Make them happy, and you make San Diego happy.
                              Because they don't care, nor expect, to land a soccer team, which gets them off the hook for building a stadium.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 6025 View Post
                                Because they don't care, nor expect, to land a soccer team, which gets them off the hook for building a stadium.
                                If they don't care, and don't plan on building a stadium, then why not agree to more seats. Are you implying that they didn't want a deal with SDSU because I guess would bind them to having to build a stadium?

                                Comment


                                • The interview yesterday was interesting. JD Wicker (?) said that the proposed stadium had office buildings in each end zone that the university could not monetize, and that the roof made it expensive to expand the stadium because it would need to be removed before adding seats.

                                  Real issue, however, is probably university expansion. FS probably can't get enough of a profit out of the project for their liking if the university is given land for expansion.

                                  A formal RFP process is how this should be done - not through an initiative that cuts away all potential options and competition.
                                  Prediction:
                                  Correct: Chargers CI fails miserably.
                                  Fail: Team stays in San Diego until their lease runs out in 2020. (without getting new deal done by then) .
                                  Sig Bet WIN: The Chargers will file for relocation on January 15.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by Wheels View Post
                                    If they don't care, and don't plan on building a stadium, then why not agree to more seats. Are you implying that they didn't want a deal with SDSU because I guess would bind them to having to build a stadium?
                                    I'm implying the soccer stadium is a "golden carrot" to get voters to back the proposal. There is no guarantee MLS will award a franchise to SD, and if they don't they can develop the land as they see fit.

                                    Comment


                                    • Right, so why not throw in the extra seating capacity, since in the end it won't be happening anyway.

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by Wheels View Post
                                        Right, so why not throw in the extra seating capacity, since in the end it won't be happening anyway.
                                        Well, in case it does they have a viable plan to attach more buildings to the stadium. If SDSU has their way, the development that GoalSD has in mind will be significantly altered.

                                        Comment


                                        • http://1360sports.iheart.com/onair/l...1617-15836565/
                                          Prediction:
                                          Correct: Chargers CI fails miserably.
                                          Fail: Team stays in San Diego until their lease runs out in 2020. (without getting new deal done by then) .
                                          Sig Bet WIN: The Chargers will file for relocation on January 15.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X