This place is a dump

[Den60]

Forget the stadium. If we have $300 million to waste, let's buy a bunch of weed and get the whole city high on Sundays.

You can go ahead without me. I'd rather spend money on something good myself.

[thelightningwill]

There are no other viable sites being discussed. In fact, I had to add staying at Qualcomm as one of the options.

The thing with Petco is that they house 82+ events a year. The Chargers and Aztecs only would utilize the venue 15 times per year. You can add 2 for bowl games and then add the occasional Charger playoff game to that. So comparing Petco to a Football stadium isn't apples to apples. You have to look deeper and take into account increased tourism based on the greater exposure the NFL generates for those cities that have teams on a national level. The problem is that is hard to quantify.

Look what building a stadium and getting a Super Bowl has done for Detroit. I heard that city is the place to be.

The Chargers and Padres have been in San Diego for decades. Is the city really a better place because of those teams? I doubt it.

I'm addicted to the Chargers and still care about the Padres. But, damn. Spending public money on either team is just wrong.

[Beerman]

Look what building a stadium and getting a Super Bowl has done for Detroit. I heard that city is the place to be.

The Chargers and Padres have been in San Diego for decades. Is the city really a better place because of those teams? I doubt it.

I'm addicted to the Chargers and still care about the Padres. But, damn. Spending public money on either team is just wrong.

That's short sighted thinking. The reason to spend on the team is because its an investment. If they would have pulled the trigger on the plan about a decade ago, they would already be making hand over foot.

I would love to know how much the city makes yearly from the whole redevelopment of downtown since Petco opened. Gotta be a ton in taxes.

The city currently loses about 10-15 million on Qualcomm yearly. It could be making that amount instead. Well run stadiums are cash cows. Cowboy stadium likely pays itself off in 10 years. It makes about 70 million from the sales of luxury boxes alone yearly.

[RobH]

That's short sighted thinking. The reason to spend on the team is because its an investment. If they would have pulled the trigger on the plan about a decade ago, they would already be making hand over foot.

I would love to know how much the city makes yearly from the whole redevelopment of downtown since Petco opened. Gotta be a ton in taxes.

The city currently loses about 10-15 million on Qualcomm yearly. It could be making that amount instead. Well run stadiums are cash cows. Cowboy stadium likely pays itself off in 10 years. It makes about 70 million from the sales of luxury boxes alone yearly.

Here's an article from 2010 that may help:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/Jul/14/ballparks-76-return-tops-forecasts/

[Den60]

Look what building a stadium and getting a Super Bowl has done for Detroit. I heard that city is the place to be.

The Chargers and Padres have been in San Diego for decades. Is the city really a better place because of those teams? I doubt it.

I'm addicted to the Chargers and still care about the Padres. But, damn. Spending public money on either team is just wrong.

I think Miami would be a better example. Detroit got the SB once, for building the new stadium. Maybe Detroit is a destination you would consider as a vacation spot but most don't think of it that way. I'd spend the time to educate you but I just don't feel like wasting my time. I can tell when someone is a lost cause.

[thelightningwill]

I disagree as to taxpayers making money if they had paid for a new Chargers stadium 10 years ago. Again, look at Detroit. That stadium is about 10 years old, and the city is bankrupt.
Cowboys stadium might make a lot of money for people who don't need it, but the average resident of Arlington isn't going to see that money. The average taxpayer in Arlington saw his sales tax go up so that rich people could make more money.
I can't argue your point on the money being lost due to Qualcomm. I don't see how building a new stadium the taxpayers would have to take care of would make that situation better though.

http://www.10news.com/news/who-pays-the-bills-for-petco-park-

Above is an old article from 10 News about how much money taxpayers pay and receive due to Petco Park. The pro-stadium people tried to fudge the numbers to make it seem like Petco was a revenue generator for the city. But the article points out their b.s.

[thelightningwill]

I think Miami would be a better example. Detroit got the SB once, for building the new stadium. Maybe Detroit is a destination you would consider as a vacation spot but most don't think of it that way. I'd spend the time to educate you but I just don't feel like wasting my time. I can tell when someone is a lost cause.

The NFL says it will stop having Super Bowls in Miami if taxpayers don't pay hundreds of millions to put a roof on the stadium.

Building the Chargers a new stadium will not guarantee annual Super Bowls in the city. Besides, hosting a Super Bowl doesn't really help the average resident of a city.

Here's an article that explains that.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/0204/Super-Bowl-cities-Is-hosting-a-boon-or-a-bust

Your point about vacation spots seems to support my argument, not yours. San Diego doesn't need the Chargers or a new stadium to bring in tourists. The weather and the beaches do that.

Spending money on a stadium didn't save Detroit. The city probably should have used that money on something else (or, better yet, should have just kept the money).

Thanks for the insult at the end of your message.

[thelightningwill]

Here's an article from 2010 that may help:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/...ops-forecasts/

Any numbers regarding Petco that come from the Economic Development Corporation or the Union Tribune can't be taken seriously. Here's an opinion piece in the Reader trashing the U-T as a propaganda machine for rich people.

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/news-ticker/2012/jun/02/another-honest-journalist-canned-by-ut/

I know an opinion piece in the Reader isn't exactly to be believed 100%. But I've seen articles from more reputable sources saying the same thing.

[richpjr]

I know an opinion piece in the Reader isn't exactly to be believed 100%.

Understatement of the year.

The truth is somewhere in the middle of the "help build a stadium and money flows everywhere" and the just as silly "corporate welfare for greedy owners" argument.

The ones sweating the stadium the most are SDSU because if the Chargers leave, they'll have no where to play and as the stadium crumbles, will likely lose their D1 status in football.

[Panamamike]

The NFL says it will stop having Super Bowls in Miami if taxpayers don't pay hundreds of millions to put a roof on the stadium.

Building the Chargers a new stadium will not guarantee annual Super Bowls in the city. Besides, hosting a Super Bowl doesn't really help the average resident of a city.

Here's an article that explains that.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/0204/Super-Bowl-cities-Is-hosting-a-boon-or-a-bust

Your point about vacation spots seems to support my argument, not yours. San Diego doesn't need the Chargers or a new stadium to bring in tourists. The weather and the beaches do that.

Spending money on a stadium didn't save Detroit. The city probably should have used that money on something else (or, better yet, should have just kept the money).

Thanks for the insult at the end of your message.

Comparing SD to Detroit.....hmmmmmm. Detroit has the highest unemployment of any metropolitan city in the USA. Car manufacturers and feeder companies have been decimated in the last 5 years. There are many reasons for this including ridiculous defined benefit health plans, outdated offerings, the great recession etc. however, the problem started long before with the shift to the burbs and the urban decay of the city. The tax base moved out. They are trying to revitalize the downtown core in much the way Pittsburgh and Cleveland have done to large success. The difference though is the timing of the revitalization. they started their urban redevelopment at the worst possible time, but that is easy to say in hindsight.

[Den60]

The NFL says it will stop having Super Bowls in Miami if taxpayers don't pay hundreds of millions to put a roof on the stadium.

Building the Chargers a new stadium will not guarantee annual Super Bowls in the city. Besides, hosting a Super Bowl doesn't really help the average resident of a city.

Here's an article that explains that.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/0204/Super-Bowl-cities-Is-hosting-a-boon-or-a-bust

Your point about vacation spots seems to support my argument, not yours. San Diego doesn't need the Chargers or a new stadium to bring in tourists. The weather and the beaches do that.

Spending money on a stadium didn't save Detroit. The city probably should have used that money on something else (or, better yet, should have just kept the money).

Thanks for the insult at the end of your message.

I don't think putting a roof on the stadium is a deal breaker for Miami and future SBs. The stadium is not as new as some others (one of which is in Florida) and the league has had a recent history of rewarding cities where new stadiums have been built with Superbowls. If you look at the history of the game you will see that an overwhelming percentage of of the games have been played in either Miami, TB, LA or San Diego (24 of 47). Only New Orleans, America's "party city", comes close to being competitive with locations in Florida or Southern California (when we have a viable stadium option). Arizona has been awarded two SBs since building a new stadium but Phoenix isn't a great destination city.

I'd think we would see at least 5-6 SBs should we build a new stadium. There is more competition because more cities feel they can compete for SBs nowadays. Dallas weather issues during the lead up to their last SB caused some concern from the league. The game in NY could be a disaster for them. If it is, look for them to become a lot more conservative in selecting sites in the future. Miami has had 5 so far in their current stadium (built in 1987) and they were one of the three finalists for the 50th SB.

[thelightningwill]

Okay. I guess most everybody else on here thinks the patricians have the plebeians' interest at heart and that building stadiums with public money is a good idea. I disagree. This will be my last message on the topic because I came here to clown around and talk about my favorite team. If somebody starts a politics board on this site, I'll probably chime in.