New stadium in LA

[spoonman]

Someone posed this in the official Chargers message board. It is a supposed tweet about SDSU helping. Hasn't made the news yet, but I believe it to be realistic, as SDSU met with the task force today. Possible good sign.

"Bernie Wilson @berniewilson 22m22 minutes ago El Cajon, CA Uh-oh, a STATEMENT: #SDSU says it expressed its "eagerness to participate fully in a stadium partnership." Of course, no details."

[6025]

The Chargers could always go to St. Louis.

[Faded blues]

Inglewood approves stadium

Process now on fast track

[TTK]

Here's the article Beerman referenced in the rally and support thread. Finally some promising news:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb/24/chargers-county-loan-qualcomm/

County loan suggested for stadium

A county "bridge loan" might be the way to finance a new Chargers stadium, Supervisor Ron Roberts told Mayor Kevin Faulconer's stadium task force Tuesday.

In an hour-long, closed-door session, Roberts told the nine-member panel that the county could front the public share of the project, projected at $1 billion or more, until surrounding development begins generating cash flow.

San Diego State University President Elliott Hirshman followed Roberts and afterward expressed his "eagerness" to participate in planning for a new stadium, as well as looking out for SDSU's athletic and academic interests.

Roberts said his finance concept probably works better at the existing Qualcomm Stadium site in Mission Valley than a proposed location downtown.

"As you look at how you might develop, more Qualcomm than downtown, the staging of that development and when that cash flow starts to occur, that's an issue," Roberts said, summarizing his presentation in an interview with U-T San Diego. "That could be a bridge loan that the county could make to get us through the earlier years until revenue starts to flow from leases that would be signed."

His remarks, on behalf of a supervisors committee that includes Supervisor Dianne Jacob, were the first to outline what exactly the county's financial role in the project might be.

Supervisors Chairman Bill Horn earlier this month had spoken of a revenue bond that might be sold by the county but no payback source was suggested -- though he said there would need to be one.

Roberts said a new stadium -- or vastly renovated Qualcomm -- could be surrounded by residential and commercial development that would "kick off a lot of new taxes."

Normally, any development at the Qualcomm site would generate property taxes that flow to the county and city general funds, as well as schools, and the city would collect sales taxes and hotel room taxes. But Roberts suggested if the county and city revenues are somehow applied to paying back any stadium construction bonds, that could go far to underwrite overall costs.

Roberts did not speak of how much in public funds for the stadium might total but did say other revenue sources that the Chargers have said they would like to retain, such as naming rights and personal seat licenses, "have to be brought into play, no question."

"We've got to do a quick analysis of the sites and try to get down to one site," Roberts said, "and then we've got to put everything on the table. Everything means everything."

He told the task force that a two-thirds vote to raise taxes for the project would be "very, very difficult."

But he said there are new financial tools available, such as an infrastructure district, that would require just 55 percent voter approval. He also said the city and county could lobby in Sacramento for special legislation to expedite environmental review of the final plan, just as Los Angeles obtained for one of its stadium concepts.

"I think there's a way to get this done and I think with the city and county partnership, just as the city and county were (partnered) when the original stadium was built (in the 1960s)," he said.

The county is sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars in reserve funds and also is collecting tax funds previously diverted to various redevelopment agencies in the region, which have been disbanded.

"My colleagues are interested in participating," Roberts said, "but that doesn't mean we just give anybody a blank check. We want to make sure to protect our credit rating at the end of the day."

He said his final message to the task force was "to hurry, get a site selected, focus on that."

SDSU's Hirshman followed Roberts and issued a statement that read in part:

"Today, we expressed our eagerness to participate fully in a stadium partnership that will retain the Chargers in San Diego and advance our region."

Before the meeting task force officials said they had expected Hirshman to talk about the needs of the Aztecs football team, which currently plays at Qualcomm, and possibly what the campus might do if all or part of the Qualcomm site became available as an annex for student and faculty housing and academic buildings -- an idea floated last week by Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego, whose district includes SDSU.

Task force chairman Adam Day issued a statement after the meeting saying the sessions was "good" and the group looks forward to its first public meeting to be held at Qualcomm at 6 p.m. Monday.

"All of us want the Chargers to remain in San Diego and that's our focus -- finding a solution that works for everyone," Day said. "We're going to put the best plan forward."

[Coachmarkos]

Just asking for the locals thoughts on this...

How big do you think the "new" stadium would need to be?

Qualcomm holds 70,561.

Now, looking at the attendence capabilities of some other NFL Teams.. LINK

About HALF (15 by my count) have capacity in the 60's.

There are 2 in the 50's... the Vikings (currently playing at the U of M facility...their "new" stadium will seat 65,000), and the Raiders.

My thoughts, again as an outsider. San Diego is a smaller community than most NFL franchises...New York, Chicago, Miami, Phoenix, etc, etc...

Why not build a smaller, better, more of a "niche" stadium, instead of building one in the high 60, or 70,000 range for attendence.

We all complain about watching the Chargers at home late in the season, and seeing all the opposing fans (like the Patriots last year).

Well, let's cut down on the number of seats available to them.

Build a 50-55,000 seat stadium. Make it small, but beautiful, and perfect. Have all the modern amenities. What's the point of having a 70,000 seat stadium that isn't going to sell out, and is going to host tons of fans for the other team.

I'd have to believe making the stadium 20,000 seats smaller would significantly reduce the amount of cost... just in building materials, and time.

That's my "guy out in the boonies" thought.

[QSmokey]

Just asking for the locals thoughts on this...

How big do you think the "new" stadium would need to be?

Qualcomm holds 70,561.

Now, looking at the attendence capabilities of some other NFL Teams.. LINK

About HALF (15 by my count) have capacity in the 60's.

There are 2 in the 50's... the Vikings (currently playing at the U of M facility...their "new" stadium will seat 65,000), and the Raiders.

My thoughts, again as an outsider. San Diego is a smaller community than most NFL franchises...New York, Chicago, Miami, Phoenix, etc, etc...

Why not build a smaller, better, more of a "niche" stadium, instead of building one in the high 60, or 70,000 range for attendence.

We all complain about watching the Chargers at home late in the season, and seeing all the opposing fans (like the Patriots last year).

Well, let's cut down on the number of seats available to them.

Build a 50-55,000 seat stadium. Make it small, but beautiful, and perfect. Have all the modern amenities. What's the point of having a 70,000 seat stadium that isn't going to sell out, and is going to host tons of fans for the other team.

I'd have to believe making the stadium 20,000 seats smaller would significantly reduce the amount of cost... just in building materials, and time.

That's my "guy out in the boonies" thought.

Doesn't the NFL have a rule, of sorts, which says that in order to host a SB the stadium capacity must be at least 70K?

[6025]

Just asking for the locals thoughts on this...

How big do you think the "new" stadium would need to be?

Qualcomm holds 70,561.

Now, looking at the attendence capabilities of some other NFL Teams.. LINK

About HALF (15 by my count) have capacity in the 60's.

There are 2 in the 50's... the Vikings (currently playing at the U of M facility...their "new" stadium will seat 65,000), and the Raiders.

My thoughts, again as an outsider. San Diego is a smaller community than most NFL franchises...New York, Chicago, Miami, Phoenix, etc, etc...

Why not build a smaller, better, more of a "niche" stadium, instead of building one in the high 60, or 70,000 range for attendence.

We all complain about watching the Chargers at home late in the season, and seeing all the opposing fans (like the Patriots last year).

Well, let's cut down on the number of seats available to them.

Build a 50-55,000 seat stadium. Make it small, but beautiful, and perfect. Have all the modern amenities. What's the point of having a 70,000 seat stadium that isn't going to sell out, and is going to host tons of fans for the other team.

I'd have to believe making the stadium 20,000 seats smaller would significantly reduce the amount of cost... just in building materials, and time.

That's my "guy out in the boonies" thought.

San Diego wants to get in the Super Bowl rotation.

[Coachmarkos]

Doesn't the NFL have a rule, of sorts, which says that in order to host a SB the stadium capacity must be at least 70K?

Probably.

[Faded blues]

60k would be perfect but the NFL requires 70 and have to beleive to be safe 80k would be a good number to keep in the rotation.

Black out rules will be gone soon anyway.

[spoonman]

Just asking for the locals thoughts on this...

How big do you think the "new" stadium would need to be?

Qualcomm holds 70,561.

Now, looking at the attendence capabilities of some other NFL Teams.. LINK

About HALF (15 by my count) have capacity in the 60's.

There are 2 in the 50's... the Vikings (currently playing at the U of M facility...their "new" stadium will seat 65,000), and the Raiders.

My thoughts, again as an outsider. San Diego is a smaller community than most NFL franchises...New York, Chicago, Miami, Phoenix, etc, etc...

Why not build a smaller, better, more of a "niche" stadium, instead of building one in the high 60, or 70,000 range for attendence.

Build a 50-55,000 seat stadium. Make it small, but beautiful, and perfect. Have all the modern amenities. What's the point of having a 70,000 seat stadium that isn't going to sell out, and is going to host tons of fans for the other team.

I'd have to believe making the stadium 20,000 seats smaller would significantly reduce the amount of cost... just in building materials, and time.

That's my "guy out in the boonies" thought.

Not sure how "small" you think SD is. The SD metro is close to 3.5 million, which is about the same size as Seattle and Minneapolis and larger than Denver, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, etc. The "small market" talk makes people think SD sound like Santa Barbara. SD is a very large metro area, but unfortunately doesn't have hundreds of miles of catchment area to pull fans like smaller cities (Denver, Buffalo, Pitts, Cleveland, etc) due to our geography (LA, Mexico, Ocean, Mountains).

[TTK]

The stadium has to seat 70k to host a Super Bowl. I wonder if they could do what some other stadiums do (Patriots I think?) and have some standing room only tickets that could count towards the number to avoid blackouts. Of course, I doubt Dean would go for something like that.

[TTK]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000473936/article/council-oks-los-angeles-stadium-backed-by-rams-kroenke

Council OKs Los Angeles stadium backed by Rams' Kroenke

INGLEWOOD, Calif. -- The Inglewood City Council late Tuesday night approved plans to build a football stadium that includes St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke as a partner, clearing a path for a return to the Los Angeles area of the NFL for the first time in two decades.

The council approved the $2 billion plan with a 5-0 vote after a meeting with several hours of public comment and many vocal Rams fans wearing jerseys in attendance.

The vote adopts a new redevelopment plan without calling a public vote, effectively kickstarting construction and sidestepping lengthy environmental review of issues such as noise, traffic and air pollution.

It adds the 80,000 seat, 60-acre stadium to an existing 2009 plan to redevelop the former Hollywood Park racetrack site with homes, offices, stores, parks and open space and a hotel.

Kroenke is part of the Hollywood Park Land Co. development group that is promoting the project.

New urgency came to the issue last week with the announcement that the Oakland Raiders and the San Diego Chargers are planning a shared stadium in suburban Carson if they don't get their current hometowns to cough up enough money to replace their aging stadiums. Another stadium plan remains alive for downtown Los Angeles, but has no team attached.

Stadium proponents said it is important to approve the concept as soon as possible to avoid delays in the redevelopment that already is underway. They would like construction to start by year's end to have a venue ready for the 2018 football season.

A Feb. 20 consultants' report to the city manager backing the stadium notes that the developer, not the public, would pay the cost of building the stadium and says the plan would allow the city -- once home to the Los Angeles Lakers and Los Angeles Kings before they moved to Los Angeles -- "to continue its legacy of providing the region with world-class sports and entertainment."

The consultants also conclude that no new environmental impact reports -- which are costly and often take months or even years -- would be necessary.

The review also said the stadium would bring the city more than 10,000 jobs and tens of millions of dollars a year in new tax revenue.