New stadium in LA

[richpjr]

Maybe that's because I'm the only 1 posting here that's bothered to do even 5 minutes of basic research on the topic before formulating and espousing an opinion? Don't take my word for it Rich, Google is your friend. Try search terms like "San Diego 2/3rds voter requirement" and some derivatives, and get back to us with the exact Local laws, statutes, ordinances, codes, mandates- whatever- that proves any public contribution towards a stadium project is subject to a 2/3 majority voter approval. Go ahead, knock yourself out ...

In Article XIII A, section 4 of Prop 13 that passed in 1978, it states "Cities, Counties and special districts, by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors of such district, may impose special taxes on such district . . . ."

In 1996, California voters enacted Proposition 218, which added article XIII C and article XIII D to the California Constitution in order to "close government-devised loopholes in Proposition 13." Article XIII C, section 2, subdivision (d) provides, "No local government may impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote."

[SDFan]

In Article XIII A, section 4 of Prop 13 that passed in 1978, it states "Cities, Counties and special districts, by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors of such district, may impose special taxes on such district . . . ."

In 1996, California voters enacted Proposition 218, which added article XIII C and article XIII D to the California Constitution in order to "close government-devised loopholes in Proposition 13." Article XIII C, section 2, subdivision (d) provides, "No local government may impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote."

right. exactly in line with my posts. only a SPECIAL TAX requires the 2/3rds majority. It does not apply to "any public contribution" as critics imply it does. You really think the Chargers and Faulkner are going to craft a ballot proposal that says "do you approve a Special Tax to raise $400 Million to build the Chargers a new stadium?". No way. They can completely avoid a special tax and use any number of creative land swaps, long term leases, development partnerships and other mechanisms to raise the funds for the debt. Don't forget they partnered with an investment group already too. Faulkner is outlining his vision in 2 days, stay tuned for the ride...

[sandiego17]

right. exactly in line with my posts. only a SPECIAL TAX requires the 2/3rds majority. It does not apply to "any public contribution" as critics imply it does. You really think the Chargers and Faulkner are going to craft a ballot proposal that says "do you approve a Special Tax to raise $400 Million to build the Chargers a new stadium?". No way. They can completely avoid a special tax and use any number of creative land swaps, long term leases, development partnerships and other mechanisms to raise the funds for the debt. Don't forget they partnered with an investment group already too. Faulkner is outlining his vision in 2 days, stay tuned for the ride...

Those behind the convention center expansion tried to get creative and that didn't work out well. Hopefully Faulconer and Fabiani are more creative than Hotel owners.

[richpjr]

right. exactly in line with my posts. only a SPECIAL TAX requires the 2/3rds majority. It does not apply to "any public contribution" as critics imply it does. You really think the Chargers and Faulkner are going to craft a ballot proposal that says "do you approve a Special Tax to raise $400 Million to build the Chargers a new stadium?". No way. They can completely avoid a special tax and use any number of creative land swaps, long term leases, development partnerships and other mechanisms to raise the funds for the debt. Don't forget they partnered with an investment group already too. Faulkner is outlining his vision in 2 days, stay tuned for the ride...

Only you seem to be coming to the conclusion that a stadium is not a special tax. It is and no magical wordsmithing will change that.

[SDFan]

Those behind the convention center expansion tried to get creative and that didn't work out well. Hopefully Faulconer and Fabiani are more creative than Hotel owners.

right, precisely because they did a special tax- and didn't put it up for a vote at all! The Hoteliers agreed amongst themselves to levy a special tax on room rates that was progressive in that the hotels closes to the center would pay the highest % tax and those farthest away the lowest %. They were sued for not putting it up to vote when was intended as a tax for specific thing only.

[TTK]

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/jan/12/faulconer-convention-center-chargers-stadium

Faulconer steps into stadium, convention debate

lori.weisberg@utsandiego.com

[SDFan]

Only you seem to be coming to the conclusion that a stadium is not a special tax. It is and no magical wordsmithing will change that.

only in your narrow inside the box thinking. who knows if the vetted proposal will ask a monetary contribution at all? The facts and that case law cited in my link make it pretty clear the ONLY time any vote will require a 2/3rds vote is if SPECIAL TAX strictly for the stated purpose of funding a stadium is balloted. Just because you can't envision how public public/private development deals are commonly structured doesn't mean a deal can't be worked out. None of your "arguments" have provided any substance a stadium must have 2/3rds majority approval by just San Diego city voters to get built which was the point of this particular debate. No problem, its a free country and you can choose to believe or not believe anyone or anything you want- no matter how wrong your position proves to be.

:facepalm1:

[richpjr]

only in your narrow inside the box thinking. who knows if the vetted proposal will ask a monetary contribution at all? The facts and that case law cited in my link make it pretty clear the ONLY time any vote will require a 2/3rds vote is if SPECIAL TAX strictly for the stated purpose of funding a stadium is balloted. Just because you can't envision how public public/private development deals are commonly structured doesn't mean a deal can't be worked out. None of your "arguments" have provided any substance a stadium must have 2/3rds majority approval by just San Diego city voters to get built which was the point of this particular debate. No problem, its a free country and you can choose to believe or not believe anyone or anything you want- no matter how wrong your position proves to be.

:facepalm1:

A special tax to fund the stadium is what everyone (but you) is talking about because that is what is required to spend tax money on a stadium. It's not complicated.

[SDFan]

A special tax to fund the stadium is what everyone (but you) is talking about because that is what is required to spend tax money on a stadium. It's not complicated.

you're right that its not complicated, but sadly you're wrong that is "what everyone is talking about" and that a Special Tax is REQUIRED to fund a stadium. Flat out made up. Have you seen an actual proposal for a new stadium the Chargers could play in? Proposed ballot language? Of course not, so why are you swallowing the opposing position hook, line and sinker? How about the Chargers proposal for the Q site redevelopment in 2003, did they ask for any tax money? NO, they asked for land instead that they could develop to pay for the stadium costs (and of course make an obscene profit building the housing- but that's another story). Its also well known that developing the Q site and the Sports Arena site (both city owned) could generate hundreds of millions of dollars along with ongoing property and sales taxes forever. Is asking for rights to develop those sites by their development partner asking for taxes that constitute a Special Tax? Is a combination convention center annex with meeting space, concert venue and retail with stadium a special tax if a revenue neutral solution is proposed? You can bet 100% there will be opposition and probably lawsuits no matter WHAT is proposed because some people are just wired like that. They all have their projects they support with "public money" too like the $200 million for the downtown Library, new permanent 300 resident homeless shelter, Embarcadero water park and other projects many people can live without and don't want our $ spent on. Doesn't mean we need to write off a new stadium before plans are even revealed.

Again, wait for Faulkner's proposal to get a preview of the proposed project direction with stakeholder buyin- and the opposition response.

[MakoShark]

While hoteliers have no issue with a downtown stadium, they say it makes no sense for them to support a dual purpose facility when convention planners would not use it.

“A separate facility for a stadium and concerts, that’s fine,” said Tuni Kyi, general manager of the Marriott Marquis San Diego. “But meeting planners aren’t going to use it. We can spin it how we want to but they’re not going to see it that way.”

Why does this guy say this? Why wouldn't a multi-use facility in downtown, in proximity to the convention center be desirable, especially if its a retractable roof design? For super large events you have the combined space of the convention center and a new stadium, for large events you have the stadium and for small events or simple meetings you have the convention center. Combining the resources of the two facilities seems like a smart and cost effective move to me.

[6025]

Why does this guy say this? Why wouldn't a multi-use facility in downtown, in proximity to the convention center be desirable, especially if its a retractable roof design? For super large events you have the combined space of the convention center and a new stadium, for large events you have the stadium and for small events or simple meetings you have the convention center. Combining the resources of the two facilities seems like a smart and cost effective move to me.

He's saying convention planners have no use for a stadium. They'd rather have an extension of the convention center with more traditional meeting rooms.

[KNSD]

Contiguous expansion sounds feasible. Let's see if there's space.

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7052161,-117.158527,1561m/data=!3m1!1e3

Goodbye Embarcadero Marina Park South (and Marina)! (or maybe the new Hilton)

Maybe fill in the Marina and take that parking lot out. Parking may or may not be a bitch since there's only one way in, BUT there's Convention Center parking along with the Hilton, and parking at Petco.