New Stadium Developments...hmmmm

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

Give it to rich people.

No offense, but you're one of those people we were talking about earlier in the thread.

Rich people like the construction workers who would be employed to build the stadium and the surrounding development? Rich people like all of the people that would be employed to staff and maintain the stadium? Rich people like all of the people who would be employed by the stores, restaurants and bars in the surrounding development? Has PETCO Park simply lined the pockets of the rich? Does anyone else benefit from that civic asset? Do only "the rich" benefit from the redevelopment of the Gaslamp District?

You don't think a cash-strapped city could benefit from retiring a declining asset that has been extremely costly for the city? San Diego is spending $15M a year to maintain the Q and the Sports Arena per the Trotter article on cnnsi.com (http://mmqb.si.com/2013/08/16/qualcomm-stadium/) from August. They have deferred $70M in maintenance on the Q. Over the next 7 years that combines to amount to $175M. Half of what is being sought from taxpayers to fund the new stadium. And this is just on the cost side.

What about re-negotiated lease rates on the land? Or revenues from a sale? What about sales tax revenue generated by the sale of every ticket, every beer, every fish taco, every bag of Skittles? What about sales tax revenue generated by every plate of ribs, tshirt, vodka tonic sold in the surrounding development (a la Gaslamp?) What about rental car and hotel revenue (sales taxes) generated by increased tourism to individual games and big events like Super Bowls? Hey, get really creative and do what Jerry Jones and Bob McNair are doing. They're hosting non-traditional college games and other events to enhance revenue. Just a couple weeks ago, Dallas hosted ASU-Notre Dame. It also hosts the Kickoff Classic and has hosted the Big 12 Championship. Reliant hosts the Houston Rodeo, Texas Bowl and has its own kickoff game (this year it was Ole Miss vs Ok St). And again, every bag of peanuts, every Coke, security person, parking attendant, vendor, etc.

Intangible benefits like branding of the city? Having an improved civic asset? Retaining the Chargers (who many or most want to remain in SD)? How would San Diego replace all this (http://www.chargers.com/community/index.html) if the Chargers leave? Moving from two franchises to one would definitely be a blow to San Diego's status as a "major league" city, which believe it or not has all kinds of knock-on effects like conventions and relocations of companies to the area. Ask Oklahoma City what having an NBA team has done for it in that respect. Why were Oakland, Cleveland and Baltimore so eager to get teams back in town?

And I'm sure I'm missing some things. But point is, this doesn't just help the rich. It helps the city as a whole. And we're not talking about replacing the Kingdome after a few years. This is now the second oldest stadium in the league, IIRC. It's been there for 50 years, it's falling apart and the city is not keeping it up. It's an eyesore. It's clearly sub-standard. And now San Diego is not getting Super Bowls anymore.

But if you want to talk about helping rich people...how about helping the Chargers. Look at this math from Trotter:

For instance, if they sell all 113 of their suites at Qualcomm, at an average of $125,000 per suite, that totals just over $14 million. If Dallas sells out its 300 suites, at an average of $250,000, that’s $75 million for the Cowboys. In other words, suite sales alone amount to an advantage of more than $60 million in local revenue. Such differences affect how teams spend on their coaches and how they structure contracts for cash flow.

"Local revenue" is league-speak for revenue that is generated by the local team that is not contributed to revenue sharing. What teams make from the sale of the boxes, they get to keep. Sure they can pocket it. They can also invest it in players, coaches, philanthropy and community programs. Want to see your Chargers get better? You have to think that at least some portion of that $60M would be invested in the team. And hey, what's so bad about being on an equal (or nearly equal) footing with your competitors? Hey, who knows? Maybe Spanos would have used those monies to retain Phillips, Bigby, Williams, Jammer, Cason and Franklin. And we'd be Super Bowl bound!

Look, I get the argument. It's been chewed over quite a bit and a lot of the naysayers have cited studies that question the value of both franchises and Super Bowls to communities and taxpayers. But there are counter-studies, as well. In the specific situation of San Diego, I don't think there is any question that a stadium would be a net economic benefit particularly given the bad money being spent today on the Q. Moreover, the public good that comes from having the Chargers in San Diego and a deeply embedded part of the fabric of the city is both intangible and unquestioned. I just don't really see how this is about the rich. This is about the whole community.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

How does the Super Bowl help the majority of San Diegans? Miami has the Super Bowl more than anybody. And it has the Orange Bowl. It probably has more tourism than San Diego, but it's a shittier city. That tourism isn't doing shit to bring down the crime rate in Miami. It isn't making life for the Average Miamian any better.

Didn't Detroit host a Super Bowl not that long ago? What happened afterward. The city declared effing bankruptcy.

Miami is also closer to New York, Boston, Philly and DC and Europe. Why do you think that might have an impact on Miami tourism? Miami's problems (like Detroit's) have to do with a lot of factors that aren't controllable through something like stadiums. But where would the city be without the teams, stadiums and events? That's the question you need to ask. Using that logic, why should SD build parks? That's not doing "shit" to bring down the crime rate.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

I would probably prefer to invest in modern manufacturing.

Might be a preferable economic driver, but the environmentalists have made it very difficult to attract or retain manufacturing in California.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

I just was pointing out the Super Bowl didn't help Miami and it didn't help Detroit.

This is baseless.

[MakoShark]

You don't think a cash-strapped city could benefit from retiring a declining asset that has been extremely costly for the city? San Diego is spending $15M a year to maintain the Q and the Sports Arena per the Trotter article on cnnsi.com (http://mmqb.si.com/2013/08/16/qualcomm-stadium/) from August. They have deferred $70M in maintenance on the Q. Over the next 7 years that combines to amount to $175M. Half of what is being sought from taxpayers to fund the new stadium. And this is just on the cost side.

This right here is just amazing and justifies a new stadium in my book. Do you still want to be paying these expenses, with tax payer money, after the team moves out? These expenses don't go away just because the Chargers move out. If the stadium is still to be used in any way the maintenance expenses will remain. Or, do you pay some company to come in and tear it down? Thats not free. Tear it down and redevelop the site for someting else you say? Who pays for that? Redevelop into what? Oh...I don't know...maybe build a huge revenue generating STADIUM!

Didn't the Chargers, at one point, just ask the city for the land in mission valley and they would take care of the rest? Was it that cut and dry or was there a catch?

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

This right here is just amazing and justifies a new stadium in my book. Do you still want to be paying these expenses, with tax payer money, after the team moves out? These expenses don't go away just because the Chargers move out. If the stadium is still to be used in any way the maintenance expenses will remain. Or, do you pay some company to come in and tear it down? Thats not free. Tear it down and redevelop the site for someting else you say? Who pays for that? Redevelop into what? Oh...I don't know...maybe build a huge revenue generating STADIUM!

Didn't the Chargers, at one point, just ask the city for the land in mission valley and they would take care of the rest? Was it that cut and dry or was there a catch?

So when the Chargers leave, you're paying $15M a year in a declining asset and keep pushing out $70M every year (of course, that $70M becomes more every year) to house....SDSU. If you tear down the Q to "save" those dollars....there is a cost associated with that. Houston is stuck with the Astrodome because its too expensive to refurbish it and too expensive to demolish it. And if you do tear the stadium down, where does SDSU play? What does that do to SDSU's investment in its athletics and football programs?

I'm not sure I would be on board with simply "giving" the Chargers the land. IMO that's going a little overboard b/c thats prime Cali real estate and if for some reason the Bolts split or leave the site SD is left holding the bag. The City should lease it so that it has more revenue stream than just the tax revs.

But here's the thing about public financing. Basically the Bolts want to do a 70/30 split on investment, shouldering most of the burden themselves. If you agree that the Chargers are indeed a public asset why wouldn't you want this to be a public/private partnership? That's how you assure that the city benefits economically and that the Chargers remain in SD.

[TTK]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR again.

[KNSD]

. More money made by local business means more jobs and more money spent by these businesses from other businesses. It also means an increase in tax revenue for the city when this money is being spent. It trickles down to many levels. The other thing is the number of jobs that the construction of a new stadium will generate, further leading to more spending. On the opposite end of the spectrum, if the city sits on their ass and does nothing and the team leaves, the economy will lose jobs and money.

1. It is not the responsibility of the city to use its funds to create jobs. It's the city's responsibility to get projects done. The city is not a "make work" organization.
2. If the benefits to those who are likely to receive these so-called funds are greater than the costs, then something should get done. The businesses should be screaming for a self-tax increase to pay for the new stadium (if that were the case).
3. The city could re-direct these funds elsewhere to contribute much more to the overall health of the local economy than a professional football team.
4. Its a PROFESSIONAL (for profit) football team. It should be self-supporting.

[sandiego17]

1. It is not the responsibility of the city to use its funds to create jobs. It's the city's responsibility to get projects done. The city is not a "make work" organization.
2. If the benefits to those who are likely to receive these so-called funds are greater than the costs, then something should get done. The businesses should be screaming for a self-tax increase to pay for the new stadium (if that were the case).
3. The city could re-direct these funds elsewhere to contribute much more to the overall health of the local economy than a professional football team.
4. Its a PROFESSIONAL (for profit) football team. It should be self-supporting.

Narrow view. Cities engage in public/private financing all the time to create jobs, whether its tax breaks or other mechanisms. I do think "creating jobs" should be an important consideration at all times.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

1. It is not the responsibility of the city to use its funds to create jobs. It's the city's responsibility to get projects done. The city is not a "make work" organization.
2. If the benefits to those who are likely to receive these so-called funds are greater than the costs, then something should get done. The businesses should be screaming for a self-tax increase to pay for the new stadium (if that were the case).
3. The city could re-direct these funds elsewhere to contribute much more to the overall health of the local economy than a professional football team.
4. Its a PROFESSIONAL (for profit) football team. It should be self-supporting.

1. It is the city's responsibility to get projects done. How does it do that without revenue? What impact does employing people have on tax revenue? What impacts do sales tax receipts (inside stadium = direct, outside stadium = indirect) have on tax revenue? What impacts do increased tourism through events (SB's, World Cups, etc) and enhanced branding have on sales taxes and net spending increases? What impacts do professional sports franchises have on quality of life and concomitant recruiting of companies and employment have on economic activity and tax revenues? What impacts does leasing property have on revenues? What impact do franchises have on usage of public transportation and city revenues? How did San Diego get Sony Electronics to relocate there from NJ? What's the benefit of that?

2. The local hotels and rental car agencies will be doing just that. I have a feeling they are behind a new stadium.

3. That's possible. What projects did you have in mind? How does the ROI compare? What impact does no pro team have on the city? Have you quantified that? Should the city stop building parks, bike trails, community swimming pools, public art installations, libraries, convention centers, etc because there are alternative uses?

4. Yes, it is a for-profit enterprise. It is also a public asset that is part of the community. Poll San Diegans and find out how many of them want the Bolts to stay. It's as much a part of the landscape as the Hotel Del. That's an intangible benefit. How do you quantify that? Like parks, its something that contributes to the quality of life.

[QSmokey]

4. Yes, it is a for-profit enterprise. It is also a public asset that is part of the community. Poll San Diegans and find out how many of them want the Bolts to stay. It's as much a part of the landscape as the Hotel Del. That's an intangible benefit. How do you quantify that? Like parks, its something that contributes to the quality of life.

How would that poll question be phrased?

I would imagine you would get significantly different results from these two questions:

- "Would you like to see the Chargers remain in San Diego?"

- "Would you like to see the Chargers remain in San Diego if that requires building a new stadium, and the city (i.e. taxpayers) are on the hook for 30% of the cost)?"

[SDFan]

How would that poll question be phrased?

I would imagine you would get significantly different results from these two questions:

- "Would you like to see the Chargers remain in San Diego?"

- "Would you like to see the Chargers remain in San Diego if that requires building a new stadium, and the city (i.e. taxpayers) are on the hook for 30% of the cost)?"

all I know is they should NOT let Stinky create the pole for htem