L.A. talk should be concern for Bolts fans

[KNSD]

So, our Gov't hasn't subsidized the "for profit" airlines with bailouts? How about the "for profit" auto industry? Wall Street? Fannie and Freddie Mae? I realize those are all on the Federal level, but it still doesn't change the point that the Gov't (Fed, State or local) can and will subsidize private ventures if the ROI is palatable. In the case of a new MULTI USE stadium future revenues and job creation would be the benefit that the local economy would receive.

Are the Chargers close to bankruptcy? Nope. And I think that means the first part of your argument is invalid.

Second part: Allowing those who benefit from a multi use stadium to pay for it (like hotels, restaurants, etc..) by issuing a stadium tax is a great idea. Why haven't we heard from these entities about their willingness to be taxed more to pay for a new stadium?

NFL has the money to get this done. They should invest directly and be done with it.

[thelightningwill]

KNSD is right. Public money and land shouldn't have anything to do with the building of football stadiums. But I've already argued this out before and will end my argument right here.

Now back to football. The San Diego Chargers rule. Let's kick the Oakland Raiders' publicly-funded asses.

[MakoShark]

Are the Chargers close to bankruptcy? Nope. And I think that means the first part of your argument is invalid.

Second part: Allowing those who benefit from a multi use stadium to pay for it (like hotels, restaurants, etc..) by issuing a stadium tax is a great idea. Why haven't we heard from these entities about their willingness to be taxed more to pay for a new stadium?

NFL has the money to get this done. They should invest directly and be done with it.

So the Gov't should just stand back when a revenue opportunity knocks, rather than be pro-active? Got it. Wait until both of Bowl committees have had enough of the Q. Then ComicCon decides it's outgrown the SD facilities and SD gets the reputation for not being "Convention Friendly". Wait until the local coffers are even dryer than they are now and the economic impact is felt all the way down to the last citizen. After your homeowners insurance doubles because your Fire Dept is now a Volunteer Fire Dept, don't go screaming to the city. Scream at the voter in the mirror.

Sure, raise the taxes on local business to pay for a stadium. They'll just pass that tax along to the consumer. It won't affect them a bit.

Let the NFL invest? Have they invested in any other team to the tune of a stadium? If the NFL is involved why would they keep the team in SD, when they are the pro-active cause that's trying to tap the huge market in LA?

[KNSD]

Myself, I'm against all subsidies. But insofar as it's a fact of life, I would argue that this subsidy is at least as worthy as some of the foolish things the city subsidizes. I realize that taxes in CA are very high and the cost of living is very high. But look in the mirror on that one. Mismanagement, underfunded public pensions and a decaying public university system that used to be the envy of the world? Look in the mirror. You've got to spend money to make money. Unfortunately, there a lot of free rider mentality in CA and I hate to admit it, a lack of vision and leadership in SD.

1. Poor performance in one area is no excuse for poorly performing in another.

2. If it's "spend money to make money" then there's much better investments than a stadium.

3. I personally have no problem with paying taxes. Net Federal spending in California is negative. California has a budget surplus right now. http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-5-be...ve-resurgence/

Not only are we paying more than our fair share to the nation, we're paying down our debt as well. Not bad for a bunch of "overspending liberal free loaders."

[sandiego17]

Are the Chargers close to bankruptcy? Nope. And I think that means the first part of your argument is invalid.

Nah, the argument isn't invalid, not all industries that receive subsidies (in many forms) are close to bankruptcy. Microsoft? Amazon? Where is the outrage?!?

Second part: Allowing those who benefit from a multi use stadium to pay for it (like hotels, restaurants, etc..) by issuing a stadium tax is a great idea. Why haven't we heard from these entities about their willingness to be taxed more to pay for a new stadium?

I don't think its them being taxed more. They would collect the tax from their customer, who would be taxed more.

[KNSD]

So the Gov't should just stand back when a revenue opportunity knocks, rather than be pro-active? Got it. Wait until both of Bowl committees have had enough of the Q. Then ComicCon decides it's outgrown the SD facilities and SD gets the reputation for not being "Convention Friendly". Wait until the local coffers are even dryer than they are now and the economic impact is felt all the way down to the last citizen. After your homeowners insurance doubles because your Fire Dept is now a Volunteer Fire Dept, don't go screaming to the city. Scream at the voter in the mirror.

Sure, raise the taxes on local business to pay for a stadium. They'll just pass that tax along to the consumer. It won't affect them a bit.

Let the NFL invest? Have they invested in any other team to the tune of a stadium? If the NFL is involved why would they keep the team in SD, when they are the pro-active cause that's trying to tap the huge market in LA?

I guess somebody needs to show us it's a real revenue opportunity, don't they? Where are the numbers?

Comicon is still in San Diego, and "Volunteer Fire Department" is a red herring argument.

If the NFL, with a real need to invest profits somewhere, doesn't feel the need to invest in a revenue making operation.... what does that say?

[KNSD]

Nah, the argument isn't invalid, not all industries that receive subsidies (in many forms) are close to bankruptcy. Microsoft? Amazon? Where is the outrage?!?

We aren't in Seattle, and those companies directly create well paying jobs for thousands of people. Stadiums create minimum wage jobs.

I don't think its them being taxed more. They would collect the tax from their customer, who would be taxed more.

Exactly, what's the hold up? They should be "all in" on this.

[SDFan]

[QUOTE=KNSD;126359]1. Poor performance in one area is no excuse for poorly performing in another.

2. If it's "spend money to make money" then there's much better investments than a stadium.

3. I personally have no problem with paying taxes. Net Federal spending in California is negative. California has a budget surplus right now. http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-5-be...ve-resurgence/

Not only are we paying more than our fair share to the nation, we're paying down our debt as well. Not bad for a bunch of "overspending liberal free loaders."[/ QUOTE]

WOW, hook, line and sinker dude! There's NO "budget surplus"- there is temporarily more tax revenue coming in due to a "temporary" sales tax hike that is due to end in another 18 months- but of course the powers that be are talking about extending it to keep the good times rolling. We're NOT paying down our debt either when you include the public employees and teachers unions pension deficits which are ticking time bombs.

[KNSD]

Currently a surplus. And yes I read later that the unfunded pensions push it to negative. But still much better than at the end of the Republican Governor's term. (At some point the pensions are going to be renegotiated down like they have been everywhere else in this country)

The powers that be SHOULD extend the tax. The worst thing we can do is cut taxes and go into more debt. That's what Republicans do.

Edit: Anyways back to the stadium. The Mayor SHOULD help the Chargers negotiate with interested parties to find the revenue to build a stadium (like increasing hotel taxes, etc...). The interested parties who stand to make money off a new stadium should be more than willing to invest in that stadium. The mayor SHOULD help the whoever is interested in building a stadium get through red tape, etc.... The city should NOT put public land/money into a deal unless it makes financial sense (net positive income).

[sandiego17]

We aren't in Seattle, and those companies directly create well paying jobs for thousands of people. Stadiums create minimum wage jobs.

The subsidies aren't limited to Seattle and they also create a lot of low paying jobs. I'm not against either company, just wondering where it becomes a matter of principal. The cutoff? High paying jobs? Can those companies not afford the employees without the subsidies? Really? So if the stadium created lots of well paying jobs, its a go with the naysayers? Do construction jobs count?

Exactly, what's the hold up? They should be "all in" on this.

Wish it were that simple.

[sandiego17]

The powers that be SHOULD extend the tax. The worst thing we can do is cut taxes and go into more debt. That's what Republicans do.

Yes, because lower taxes mean less revenue. And its taxes that cause debt. Right. That makes sense. What about if lowering (or eliminating) certain taxes created high paying jobs? Seems to pass the test.

[KNSD]

http://www.sandiego.gov/iba/pdf/reports/2014/14_15_140428.pdf

Hey look at that, proposed budget surpluses in the upcoming years for the city. Man, those dudes are f*** ups.