Qualcomm 2008-2010 [Archive] - San Diego Region SCCA Forums

RandyC

04-23-2008, 01:57 PM

In case some may not know, the year 2008 is the final year of the San Diego Chargers contract. I have been posting and mentioning this for almost 10 years, and now it is here. What does this mean?

1. Without a major tenant (which is now the San Diego Chargers), the stadium will be bulldozed. The land will be turned into things that generate tax revenues and probably parkland. The large parking lot will be gone.

2. The Chargers are tied to playing in Qualcomm through 2008. After the 2008 season, they would be on a year-to-year basis. After 2008, they are also free to leave to another city.

3. The Chargers have said they will only stay, if the city tears down Qualcomm and builds a new stadium (which removes the parking lot anyway).

4. The Chargers have been looking at Chula Vista for an alternate site, but it is not known if they can get that done. Even if they do, they will leave Qualcomm and the lot will be gone.

There is no scenario being presented that includes the lot at Qualcomm Stadium not being changed. The only question at this point, is how much time do we have?

The best case is if the Chargers get an agreement with Chula Vista and then it will take 3 years to build the new Stadium. So then they move in 2011 or maybe even 2012. We would have 3 more years while they use Qualcomm.

The worst case scenario for us, is if the Chargers decide to leave at the end of the 2008 season. That could mean that as of December 2008, or just 8 months from now. They could announce their leaving to another city for 2009. At that point, the city of San Diego could decide to not keep paying for maintenance (over $1 million each month) on the stadium and bring in the bulldozers. The small fees paid to them for the lot use means nothing in the big picture. What this means to us, is the possibility that instead of being asked to a meeting in January to give all the car clubs the open dates, we could be told there are no dates in 2009.

That is just the worst case. So we have somewhere between 8 months and maybe 4 years of lot use left. It all depends on what the Chargers do.

RandyC

04-23-2008, 01:58 PM

L.A. might have Bolts magnet
UNION-TRIBUNE
April 22, 2008
Link (http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/canepa/20080422-9999-1s22canepa.html)

Should San Diego Chargers fans worry about Ed Roski Jr.? I'd say, yes, absolutely. He's not only a billionaire, he's not your everyday, nutty billionaire. Roski has a pedigree that does not include “rash.” He has a reputation of not doing things willy-nilly.

Last week, when Roski proposed building an $800 million NFL stadium on 600 acres of pre-zoned land he owns in the lovely City of Industry – about 20 miles east of L.A. – I wondered aloud: “What's in it for him?”

There could be something in it for him, even if it doesn't include ownership of the team – or even a smidgen. There could be plenty in it for him, no matter if every pie-in-the-sky stadium proposal that has come up since L.A. lost the NFL in 1994 has gone into the La Brea Tar Pits.

And, of course, the Chargers immediately came to mind, because they're looking for new digs and can take off following the 2008 season. Do not rule that out.

The team may be looking at a few sites in Chula Vista and Spanos ownership has spent around $10 million to secure a spot in San Diego County, but while this area may be first on their list, they want a new stadium, and if they don't get one in Chula Vista, there will be suitors.

Quite possibly from Roski, who has business ties to the Spanos family, and things can be put together that won't hurt him very much. Football stadiums traditionally aren't making money unless the tenants own the team and the facility, but Roski is different.

He already owns those 600 acres, which have been zoned, and an environmental impact report has been done. Think about it. The Qualcomm Stadium property is 166 acres. Granted, its ground has more prime to it than City of Industry, but Southern California is Southern California.

It isn't likely Roski would get a piece of the team. The Spanoses aren't selling. I can't believe they'd even sell a piece, because owner Alex has promised he won't. If he sells 1 percent, he has lied.

But Roski may not need a percent of anything. And here's why.

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones is building a new billion-dollar stadium and reportedly will get up to $600 million in personal seat licenses. Now, if Roski can get, as suggested, $450 million from PSLs, and then another $150 million from the NFL for building a new stadium, add it up.

That's $600 million, and there are plans to build around that new palace in lovely City of Industry. Some of it could be developed as warehouse space, where Roski has made zillions, and warehouses fit in nicely in the City of Industry. There would be mixed-use development. Malls. An entertainment complex. You know.

Roski realizes he can't stick a shovel into the ground – which he hopes to do this fall and finish by 2011 – without a secure tenant. But he could know if the Chargers are available by then. In fact, he will know.

So the Chargers, lame ducks, would play in the Coliseum or the Rose Bowl, until it's done. Do not laugh.

By summer, we all will know if Chula Vista is going to work. The clock is running. This team could have a place to go.

There are obvious problems in California. The three oldest – and worst NFL stadiums – are in this state. But, when billionaires start throwing land and stadiums around as if they're condiments, well, eyebrows should be raised.

“I don't want to get into his stadium at this point,” says Mark Fabiani, who has been the Chargers' point man on new stadium issues here for six years. “A football stadium, by itself, doesn't pencil out (as a profit-maker), never has. But property has been known to increase in value from a stadium being there.”

Roski is smart enough to know that.

As I was told yesterday: “Don't short-change Roski.”

I don't know if I'm getting good vibes out of Chula Vista, and that's the last option around here, in that San Diego's City Hall has the spine of an invertebrate.

A whole lot of San Diegans don't trust the Spanoses, even though the family has thrown millions into staying here and has done its fiscal best to keep its team among the most talented in football.

My guess is that Roski probably trusts the family.

But the Chula Vista vibes bother me. We're going to know soon.

“I would have hoped this could have been settled long ago,” Fabiani says. “We're down to our last option.”

It all depends on what happens with the Gaylord labor project fiasco in Chula Vista, which could be decided soon, and whether the Chargers can be allowed to build on the preferable power plant bay front site there, or far east, where there is Ponderosa land but little infrastructure.

When asked, if he were a gambling man, what might happen in Chula Vista, Fabiani says:

“There's not enough information to make a smart bet. We're still trying. We're still spending money. We're open to ideas. But, in California, there are no 11th-hour solutions.”

Unless the solution is Ed Roski Jr.

ULLLOSE

04-23-2008, 03:10 PM

I can see it now....

ChaseCam Stadium :rock2:

RandyC

04-23-2008, 03:21 PM

LOL

Part of the big plan. :)

RandyC

04-23-2008, 03:22 PM

If you build it, will they come? L.A. stadium plans unveiled

Associated Press



  Updated: April 17, 2008, 4:55 PM ET

Comment (http://myespn.go.com/conversation/story?id=3351752)
Email (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3351752#)
Print (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=3351752&type=story)
 LOS ANGELES -- Billionaire developer Edward P. Roski Jr. has made a commitment to build the kind of stadium an NFL team needs to thrive in Los Angeles. Now, he's hoping one will commit to play there.
[+] Enlarge (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3351752#)
http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2008/0417/nfl_a_roski_300.jpg (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3351752#)AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes
Developer Edward P. Roski Jr. unveiled plans Thursday for a 75,000-seat facility that could be finished in time for the 2011 season.

Roski, a part-owner of the Kings and Lakers who has spent years trying to lure the NFL back to this area, unveiled plans Thursday for a 75,000-seat facility in the City of Industry he said could be finished in time for the 2011 season.
"I intend to develop our stadium project that meets all of the NFL requirements, and more," Roski said at a Staples Center news conference, where stadium models and artist renditions were displayed. "Always the most important thing has been the certainty of doing this. A team is not going to commit to coming to Los Angeles without a stadium. We've taken this one point of uncertainty and made it a certainty. The stadium is a certainty and it will be built."
And, Roski added, without public money.
"Absolutely no taxpayer dollars," he said. "There's no taxpayer dollars to get."
The proposed 600-acre site, near the southern intersection of the 57 and 60 freeways about 20 miles east of Los Angeles, would be surrounded by a shopping mall and located on a vacant property that Roski already owns. Roski said around 12 million people live within 25 miles of the site.
"We are aware of it and are monitoring all stadium-related developments in Southern California," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said from his New York office.
Roski said the cost would be around $800 million, adding the stadium will be built into a hillside meaning far less steel will be required. And that, he said will result in a cost of about $400 million less than it might be otherwise.
Roski said the site is already zoned and an environmental impact report was approved in 2004.
"A supplemental EIR is currently in progress," he added, saying construction could begin as early as the final quarter of this year and parking requirements would be met. "We'll make it happen, just as we did here at Staples Center with the Lakers and Kings."
Roski and Philip Anschutz, the head of AEG, headed up construction of Staples Center. The Lakers, Kings and Arena Football League's Avengers play their home games at the facility, which opened in October 1999. AEG is not involved in this venture.
The one obvious obstacle standing in the way is a tenant for the new stadium. Possibilities might include the New Orleans Saints (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=nor), Jacksonville Jaguars (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=jac), Minnesota Vikings (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=min) and San Diego Chargers (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=sdg) because of their stadium uncertainties.
Roski made it clear construction will not begin until a team agreed to move, adding he did not expect an expansion team to be involved.
The NFL has said it has no plans to expand from its present 32 teams, and it's also clear Los Angeles is not a high priority with the league at this time. But that might not stop a team with stadium uncertainties to make the move.
"No team is going to say they're going to come here until we have this," Roski said of the stadium plan. "We have not talked to any teams. Now, we will start the second phase of it. We'll start talking to the NFL and the teams. We've got this out of the way. Now, we'll concentrate on getting a team."
With a smile, the 69-year-old chairman and CEO of Majestic Realty Co. added: "If I was sitting there, I would be waiting for my call. This is the top market. The team that decides to come to Los Angeles is financially going to be one of the top teams in the league, by far."
Los Angeles, the second-largest media market in the country, has been without an NFL team since 1995, when the Raiders moved back to Oakland after playing 13 years at the Los Angeles Coliseum and the Rams moved from Anaheim to St. Louis.
Proposals have been made for numerous stadium sites in the area over the years including the Coliseum and the Rose Bowl in Pasadena as well as in Irwindale, Inglewood, Carson and Anaheim.
But, as Roski pointed out, there were always uncertainties.
Should a team decide to make the move, he said it could play the 2009-10 seasons at either the Coliseum or the Rose Bowl while the new stadium was under construction.
Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press

froggy47

04-23-2008, 04:31 PM

SDR get some dates at El Toro, or is that too far to go for most people? It's about 75 mi up the fwy. It's not as hot/cold as Fontana & grip is, well you have to try it.

Slowdown in dev. may mean it'll be there for a few years. Plenty of other clubs are getting dates there.

Or SDR does nothing & becomes a footnote that is fondly toasted to by other regions at their events.

Then we have plan B, oh that's right we don't have a plan B.

:confused:

RandyC

04-23-2008, 08:38 PM

MX5bob

04-23-2008, 08:47 PM

Is the West Lot suitable for anything but a park? What about the oil plume that's supposedly under the property? And for that matter, can the Chargers really expect anyone to fund a new stadium in this economy? Maybe with Roski running that end of it, but city of SD doesn't have the credit rating to build a new stadium. The credit market, or lack there of, also is a huge obstacle to development of the Q site. Roski's plan would take some time also.

Bill51SDR

04-24-2008, 09:37 AM

What about Ream Field in Imperial Beach? Last time this was discussed it was my understanding that someone was going to look into this possibility and that the Navy might actually be enthusiastic about it. Any word?

RickRacer

04-24-2008, 12:35 PM

The problem (major one anyway) with El Toro is that we now draw about 160-170 entrants on your typical day. This is for a lot that is very central.

Now tell those same people that we are using a lot 90 miles north. How many would come? Half?

Now build in that the lot is twice the cost, so you need more people to break even. Perhaps we could negotiate a better rate?

While I agree is sucks for SD folks from a travel standpoint, you would certainly draw more CalClub members to events there than are currently willing to come to SD. And date scheduling might be easier so CSCC conflicts would be less likely.

Oh, and don't worry, if you end up with no place to play, CalClub would probably be happy to take the great trailer you guys made off your hands....at used car prices of course! :rolleyes:

froggy47

04-24-2008, 12:51 PM

I agree with RR. For every two sdr drops you would get 1 (or 1.5 or maybe more) cscc/oc additions.

Apparently autox (unlike road race/drags) is a VERY local activity. With the exception of the hard core, nobody is willing to drive more than about 30 miles for an event.

Let's start an Orange County autox club based around El Toro.

What's that big yellow thing with the shiny blade in front. D8 Catepillar?

:poke:

Tim_race_202

04-24-2008, 06:17 PM

Let's start an Orange County autox club based around El Toro.

Good luck with that but this is a SAN DIEGO forum so can we try to stick with what's best for SAN DIEGO drivers? It just sounds rather cold with people saying, screw the SD people because we can get people from OC or LA to make up the difference. :nono:

froggy47

04-24-2008, 07:13 PM

Good luck with that but this is a SAN DIEGO forum so can we try to stick with what's best for SAN DIEGO drivers? It just sounds rather cold with people saying, screw the SD people because we can get people from OC or LA to make up the difference. :nono:

Check the "Join" date Tim. I AM a San Diego driver. I have probably entered more San Diego ONLY events than YOU have entered in San Diego plus all other regions you have raced in in your LIFE.

:thwack:

I'm just doing my quarterly rant on how THIS REGION is going to dry up and blow away unless WE get cracking on a new venue. Many, many, many suggestions have been made. OC club is just my new & latest & mostly a hypothetical. But it's probably not a bad idea.

:shift:

Over 65 San Diego Championship events entered since 2003, so I guess you could say I support the region. How many for you?

MX5bob

04-24-2008, 08:27 PM

Good luck with that but this is a SAN DIEGO forum so can we try to stick with what's best for SAN DIEGO drivers? It just sounds rather cold with people saying, screw the SD people because we can get people from OC or LA to make up the difference. :nono:

Try not to over react. :thwack: I didn't read anything that said screw SD. Keep in mind that "what's best for San Diego drivers" is to have some site to use. So far in the six seasons I've been competing in both regions, SDR has yet to find a viable alternative to Qualcomm. If you didn't want to come north to El Toro, you could always head out to Holtville. :rolleyes:

The reason El Toro might not work as alternative SDR location is that your turnout vs. the cost of the site. You would probably draw a lot of Cal Club folks because it's a great place race with lots of room and a very grippy surface. :rock2:

And you should keep in mind that there are several Cal Club members who hold SD Solo cards and want the region to have a site. Convenience to us isn't that important, but it's nice that Qualcomm is within 2 hours.

Mike

04-28-2008, 06:38 AM

Is there currently a commitee that is soley dedicated to finding a new place to run? Or is this one of the items that is covered in the monthly board meeting? I'm sure that the SCCA is aware of our dilema, or maybe not. The SDR region produces a few of the National Champs on a yearly basis, so would this help us in our case to get the SCCA involved? OR do we even want the SCCA involved? Man, you start into this subject and a lot of questions come into play. What if any locations have been SERIOUSLY looked at? I for one would much rather have a place to run and not wait for The "Q" to kick us out. I would even consider being part of a committee dedicated to finding a place. What kind of people would be the best for such a committee? Would other types of racers be willing to work with the SDR to develop another location? BMW club, Go-cart guys, drifiting guys, Porsche club, I think that we may be able to pull things together and possible buy and make our own place. Real estate prices are down on raw land. A new location may not be so close to the beach (nice and cool), but at least it would belong to a group of racers. OK, bring on the neigh sayers.:scared011:

RandyC

07-02-2008, 09:35 PM

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080701/news_1s1canepa.html

<story.date>July 1, 2008</story.date> <body.content> http://www.signonsandiego.com/images/mugshots/nick_canepa.gif
Imagine San Diego without the Chargers. It was easy enough to do 50 years ago, when the professional football team not only wasn't here, it didn't exist. But it does now, and there's a growing chance it will exist somewhere else very soon – perhaps as early as next year.

</body.content> The Chargers aren't firing this warning shot across our leaky bow. I am. The handwriting, man. It's the size of Texas.

 I never thought I'd say it. I've spent hours wracking what brain I have left wondering where they'd go after their Qualcomm Stadium agreement with our inspiring, visionary city, allows them to opt out in January.

I've wasted my time.

They can go somewhere, perhaps to a place that already has one NFL team on its premises. I'm not saying it will happen. The Spanos family has spent more than $10 million trying to find a way to keep its team in this area, and $10 million, no matter how silver your spoon, isn't stuff used to nourish poultry.

Nor is the $56 million in debt from Qualcomm's expansion the Chargers will owe the city should they choose to leave. But it's not enough to keep them in place if nothing can get done around here, not when ownership can make it up elsewhere.

And there are few options. “Few,” in fact, is the wrong word.
“We're down to one site for the stadium,” says Mark Fabiani, who handles new stadium issues for the club.

That would be the bayfront power plant property in Chula Vista, and until alternative power links can be provided – we could know more by late August, but litigation (of course) might delay things – that remains on hold.
The site in eastern Chula Vista has been ruled out for a stadium due to traffic concerns, Fabiani says, but could be the spot for the housing and businesses needed to finance a new venue.

“I can't be optimistic about things we have no control over,” Fabiani says. “I wish there was a magic solution.”

Chula Vista won't go ahead with the power plant idea until the controversial Gaylord project is resolved one way or the other. Several things must come together before that massive undertaking can be resolved, and the current economic climate isn't helping.

Billionaire Ed Roski, who has professional ties in development with the Spanos family's construction business, wants to build an NFL stadium on his own property in the City of Commerce. Problem is, he doesn't own a team, the Spanoses aren't anxious to part with even a smidgen of theirs, and there's no money in a football stadium unless you own a club.

“They always have said they aren't interested in selling the team and I'm sure that remains their position,” Fabiani says. “But I can't see the future. It's a business. And it's pretty clear you can't hope to compete forever in an old stadium. Maybe for a while, but not indefinitely.

“But I don't see anyone breaking ground on a new stadium until a team emerges.”

The last thing the Chargers want to be is a lame duck. L.A. has other places – the Coliseum and Rose Bowl – that can handle an NFL team while a new stadium is being built. Many cities already have facilities standing, some of them plenty good enough for a while if promises of a new stadium are kept.

San Diego has nothing, including promises. People at City Hall can't even give away U.S. Open tickets without tripping over themselves. Doesn't really matter. The Qualcomm site, once considered a no-brainer for a new stadium, won't work anymore, not the way it originally was planned.
“Four or five years ago, we were talking about building a $450 million stadium, with $250 million for infrastructure improvements,” Fabiani says. “Now, a project in the same place would be double that, at least $1.2 billion, because of the rising cost of steel and concrete. The new stadiums in New York and Dallas will cost at least $1.5 billion.

“We were talking about financing the stadium with 6,000 condos. The condo market is down. Even if it were to come back, how do we fund the $500 million to make up the difference in (construction) cost?”

Well, you don't.

It's hardly amazing that the Chargers are down to one option. Think of where they are. They can continue to play in Qualcomm, but how long can they compete there? A possible salary-cap-free season could be coming up, which means the big guys – the New Yorks, Washingtons, Dallases, New Englands, et al. – could go fiscally berserk. The Chargers can't.

“We've got major stars to re-sign and people expect them to be re-signed,” Fabiani says. “But we have to generate enough revenue. We're in a business where people expect us to win. How do we keep up? Salary caps for some teams could be increased by the tens of millions.

“There's a world for a team with an old stadium – a world where you're consistently behind. It's a world you see in baseball all the time.”
And this isn't baseball. It's reality.

Reality being what it is, this two-horse town could be back to one, and, at the moment, the one we have – the Padres – isn't Secretariat.

RandyC

07-02-2008, 09:53 PM

And again-
http://www.losangelesfootballstadium.com/

Anything can happen.. but one can read between the lines. In my opinion, Fabiani (Charger's spokesperson) is only at this point giving lip service.

Step 1. Create the situation that can't be solved. Assign a bad guy too. The stadium is not workable for a team. Stadium authority reacts to threats of leaving by reducing long term maintenance. Team points to lack of maintenance as proof that stadium is unworkable. Points finger at city. City has loud mouth city attorney that makes this pretty easy.

Tell everyone who will listen, over and over, that you have to leave. You have no choice. The stadium does not work.

Step 2. Seem like you are looking around. Spend a little on studies. Talk to the city and nearby communities. Find reasons why most places will not work. Remind everyone that you have to have a new stadium.

Step 3. Narrow it down to only one choice. Chula Vista Bayfront. An area with a lot of problems to get past if you want to develop. In other words, there is little chance of success. Tell everyone you just HAVE to have a new stadium and this is your only hope.

Step 4. Sadly announce that the bay front area of Chula Vista will not pencil out and you are moving to Los Angeles where they will build you a new stadium. While it is being built, you play in another LA place like the colliseum. Remind everyone you tried. You gave it the old college try and it was just not to be. Most fans will still follow you, after they quit grumbling. You know that. And you pick up new LA fans. Specailly in those pricey skyboxes.

Step 5. City tears down the stadium and digs up the parking lot. Sells off land and designates some for parks. Local autocross region has a few diehards that drive up to Fontana and El Toro. The sport dwindles in the region.

Yes a bit pessimistic, but how I expect it to shake out. We are at step 3 now. Step 4 can happy in early 2009. Step 5 may happen soon after. I truly hope I am wrong. But we are getting close to what I predicted (many years ago) would happen.

Doc Hawk

07-25-2008, 08:47 PM

...BMW club, Go-cart guys, drifiting guys, Porsche club, I think that we may be able to pull things together and possible buy and make our own place. Real estate prices are down on raw land. ...

Even if we could come up with the considerable cash to purchase and construct a venue, and could overcome the poltics and inter-group dynamics of the decisions that would entail, that would not be the biggest hurdle. I interact with the County on permitting issues involving land use and environmental regulations, and getting a new motorsports facility approved would be hard to do - especially one that is not going to have a wide economic impact (spectator draw). Additionally, after it is built it would have to be managed, which would be a considerable ongoing cost.

I think it sounds lovely, but without an angel benefactor doing it for personal fulfillment, I don't think it's going to happen.

RandyC

07-25-2008, 08:56 PM

Football preseason starts in a couple weeks. The season starts in a month. Then will wind down in 4-5 months after that. Then what happens?

Hard to say. On one hand, we could be running our final year at Qualcomm stadium right now and the lot gets pulled away in January. Or maybe it keeps hanging over our heads and we go on year to year or even month to month.

But the doomsday scenario is (worst case!) we have 5 months, or a handful of events left and then it is gone. I don't expect that... but we should be aware it is possible. At some point, Spanos will announce the Chargers are leaving. Then the question will be how long the city reacts and what they decide to do while waiting for the next step. We know they have said no Chargers, no stadium. But it takes a while to tear a stadium down. On the other hand, it probably would pencil out as costing more to keep the lot available to the public groups than to just lock it all up and close it down.

I guess the question is, do we as a region feel compelled to consider options or scenarios. For example, what if we get a phone call early January saying that the stadium authority is now only interested in razing and development, thanks it was fun. What do we do? Options?

73STS

07-26-2008, 08:02 AM

There was an article yesterday about the Aztecs being told they would have at least 5 years in the stadium if the Chargers were to leave.

Maybe the wrecking ball will be delayed for a few years and Chase Cam Motorsports Park can be built in time!:)

Willembop

07-26-2008, 11:10 AM

Randy, I think your 5-month doomsday scenario is very unlikely. Government agencies don't make decisions that quickly. Even if it is decided to bulldoze Qualcomm, it won't start for quite some time -- maybe 2 or 3 years. You probably need an EPA study before the bulldozer breaks ground, and you would need an agreed-upon development plan -- that could take even longer. So, while I agree with your pessimistic outlook (autocrossing in SD is probably doomed), I think the wheels of government turn very slowly, and we probably have at least a couple of years before the death knell.

Bill Schiller

RandyC

07-26-2008, 12:11 PM

Yep, I think that was what I tried to say, most likely nothing happens that quickly. And if I was betting my money, I would agree we have 2-3 years. Or at least 1.

BUT.. there is this other concern which I touched on. We have been told that keeping the stadium open for business alone costs millions per year. We are allowed access to the lots, because those millions are paid from the tenants. I can see this scenario (even if not that likely).

Spanos says they are leaving at end of season. Next year will practice in LA. Stadium is now empty for most days of the year. City decides to save $15 million dollars and lock the doors. No more rentals. They liquidate the stadium authority as part of the cost saving measures. Leave one person and the security team.

Now... even if they all know that the wheels of politics and permits turn slowly, will the lots be treated any different? Consider the small amount we are charged (relatively) and the minimal number of days. Total income is noise level. No pun intended. It would be sooo easy to not differentiate from NOT renting the stadium out and NOT renting anything out. And that means we lose.

As I posted, it is a lot easier as a politician to take that path. Close the place down. Let the other politicians fight out what to do. Like the airport, we could be discussing what should we do 20 years from now. My concern is that allowing the lots to be rented when nobody else is renting the Q may not pencil out.

Again, it is a worst case scenario, but to me, one that is possible, even if we all agree it is not probable. Now I would agree we don't have to worry about something that is just a small probability...let's say for talking points, it is a 1% chance. Fine... we deal with it when it happens. But if it was a 20% chance of occurrence, do we still ignore it? And in any case... SOMETHING most likely will happen and that day is coming closer and closer. Do we need a plan or do we all just walk away? If we truly reach and end game, that raises a lot of questions too about what we all do, and how we handle things.

I could find solace in knowing I can run at El Toro... but that is going away too.

MX5bob

07-27-2008, 11:19 AM

The remaining lifespan of Qualcomm and El Toro rests with a resurgence of money to invest in real estate. That is most likely 2-3 years off, maybe longer depending how deep the damage really runs. Right now the government is propping up Wall St. and holding its economic tentacles in hopes of preventing further declines in home prices and consumer spending, while trying to keep inflation at bay. The existing home market will need to heat up for money to start flowing into new residential projects. Commercial and retail march to a different drummer, but the money flow on those is choked down right now. Takes a lot longer for ROI to happen with comm/retail than housing.

The one thing that might speed things up at El Toro is some kind of white knight funding to pay for the park. Right now the park is supposed to be paid by the new homes/owners, probably through a Melo-Roos. But Orange Countians aren't patient and one of those congressmen would probably love to get an earmark through on a funding bill that would accelerate construction of the park. It'll be pitched as some kind of loan that will be paid back through the Melo-Roos and it's needed to spark the local economy. All for the greater good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUpbOliTHJY

Don't watch if you haven't seen "Hot Fuzz"

Bimota Guy

07-27-2008, 11:22 AM

While the income from lot rental is in the noise level compared to renting the stadium, it is easy to make an argument to still rent the lots. I think the car sales, etc. pay more than we do (anyone know how much?), but just using $2k/day/lot, if you rent 2 lots on average per weekend for 50 weekends, that is $200k. That pays for about 1.25 man-years of a guard (assuming a bill rate of $18/hr.) I don't know how many guards they have on duty at any one time, but I would think that is enough to make the argument. The level of effort to get that $200k is just about none.

RandyC

07-27-2008, 12:40 PM

Bob, the one difference I see from El Toro to Qualcomm, is that Qualcomm is a building surrounded by a lot. El Toro is a lot that may happen to have some buildings on it. El Toro is waiting to be developed. Qualcomm, that is not the issue. It may end up being mainly park land. The city will want to raze it in either case (development, park, or both).

The estimated cost to keep the building (stadium) open and available is over $15mil per year.

Steve, that does make sense. But then you consider other factors. Rent out the lot and you need administration of that. Accounting. Someone to do the draws. That means someone in an administrative position. The Stadium Authority. Even if they pull $50k/year... with overhead you are looking at more than that.

Will they still supply portapotties? Do they keep the electrical lights on? Water? Something to move k-rails?

Does their insurance and liability change if they keep the lot open for public use and access, vs closing the whole thing?

Do they get complaints about the use? Hassles?

My point is, it will not take much for a politician to think it is not worth it. As individuals, we can easily justify the business of making $150k or more. For a politician dealing with millions and bleeding red everywhere, with bigger problems... maybe not so. If the amount of money is not that big, they can take the easy way out. If we assume that the San Diego politicians will sit down with calculators and do the best financial thing... I think history shows us that they often do not.

One positive for us, is that they have to keep some access for now for the fire department.

RandyC

07-27-2008, 12:49 PM

AGAIN.. in case one forgets, this is the doomsday scenario. I am not betting or thinking it will happen. It is however possible and I tend to consider many scenarios in business and consider alternative reactions to them. Seems prudent to do so.

We can focus too much on the different scenarios and if we have 5 months, or if we have one year. Or two years. But then that becomes a bit of re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic right? In the end, the outcome is the same. But if it happens earlier, it catches most people off guard.**

My silly hope is that people get a bit more of a sense of urgency, and then some miracle happens.:scared011:

Oh well... that is where I am actually an optimist. :)

** better to plan when you have an organization, time, and motivated people.

Bimota Guy

07-27-2008, 09:43 PM

The City simply can't treat the Stadium like an abandoned facility. There will be some "management" of it while it stands.

BTW, where is Joni Mitchell when you need her? "They paved paradise and put up a parking lot." :rotflmao:

Mazda_Gremlyn

07-28-2008, 08:24 AM

I have to agree with Randy here, and it seems most people are missing his clearly stated point. Regardless of when or what happens with Qualcomm Stadium, we will need a new place to autox.

I think of it like looking for a new job. You don't normally quit the job you have before you find another one to take it's place.

MX5bob

07-28-2008, 09:14 AM

ULLLOSE

07-28-2008, 10:00 AM

Anyone that thinks Randy's doom and gloom theory cant happen needs to look no further than Pikes Peak Raceway. ISC wanted the Nascar race date the track had, so they bought the track and shut the doors. The track sat abandon and unused from that point on.

btw this track was only a few years old when this happen. :(

Steve35

07-28-2008, 10:59 AM

I betting the incompetents that are running the city will delay and screw up any process. Remember the Petco Park build? We had a silly lawsuit in the middle of the construction that slowed the building of the ball park and just cost us money.

We can still autocross’s in SD, just on very small lots. We used to run Monte Vista High School, El Cajon’s Parkway Plaza next to May Co. K-Mart’s lot in Spring Valley, Brown Field, the old Sears lot off of Valley Parkway in Escondido, and HP in Rancho Bernardo.
Run these lots and you’ll love yesterdays course. :rotflmao:

RandyC

07-28-2008, 01:09 PM

SD MR2

07-28-2008, 01:22 PM

. . . HP in Rancho Bernardo.
Run these lots and you’ll love yesterdays course. :rotflmao:

I've been using the HP lot to teach my son how to drive my (our?) MR2! Perhaps I should bring some cones out there!

-Andy

Steve35

07-28-2008, 02:52 PM

Hey Steve,

When was the last time we used one of those local lots? When I started running in 1990, we were only at Qualcomm and a few times at NTC and of course Soak City.

I wonder if the availability of lots like those is different today than it was back then.

If we end up running on small lots like that, I am getting a new kart.

I guess I'm really showing my age. We ran all over the county to avoid the outragious fee of $500.00 the city charged us for the stadium. We paid $50.00 for the Convair lot when I started.

I’d like to think we could get Brown Field or Del Mar Fairgrounds again. Maybe DCCSD will have Hot ‘n Harry at Holtville soon.

We just need a smooth talker to see some of these people, know any?

rtomlinson

07-28-2008, 06:15 PM

Bimota Guy

07-28-2008, 06:51 PM

I have to agree with Randy here, and it seems most people are missing his clearly stated point.
No, we are just arguing the short term situation.

Regardless of when or what happens with Qualcomm Stadium, we will need a new place to autox.
Everyone understands that. And people are pursuing some options.

I think of it like looking for a new job. You don't normally quit the job you have before you find another one to take it's place.
We don't want a new "job" because all the other "jobs" available do not pay nearly as much. Hence we are not quitting. This is a " mass layoff" that has been threatened for years. Most people do not quit a job for one that pays much less because you may lose your job due to a mass layoff.

Frank S

07-28-2008, 08:15 PM

The attached pictures are from lots we used to run. Granite Hills would not meet minimum obsticle distance requirements. Tecate is out of the country and GD is now a bunch of wonderful buisnesses. HP I have not seen, it is hard to find a lot that meets our requirements and also the current building codes because of the landscaping requirements. Soak City is questionable to any logical Solo Safety Steward.
Maybe some landowner that is waiting to sell might be interested in a long term lease, but how does a diverse group like us come up with the money.
I recognized Tecate
http://home.san.rr.com/fsheff/mg06.htm
and Convair. But Granite Hills was marginal when it was in use; Santana High, the same. When I was event chairman and course designer for the Monte Vista lot, I made the course in the shape of an outline of the famous Disney rodent's head. All I remember about the HP lot is I got cited for noisy Elan stock exhaust, the first time the rule was invoked. We ran on two different Cubic Corp lots, both small, but that didn't shrink the entry list. Convair was the most-used lot, if I recall correctly. We ran at Southwestern College, nice courses. Del Mar in the 70s was almost an off-road event, some pavement, lots of gravel. We must have been desperate, eh?

Worst of all was at the college on Point Loma (don't remember its name then, nor now): "Little Monaco" they called it. Three or four narrow parking lots terraced up the side of a hill. Wiggle-wiggle, u-turn, wiggle-wiggle, u-turn, ad nauseum. I mentioned to one of the student sponsors who had set up a folding chair to stand on while he was photographing his pals, that his location was in the runoff line for one of the u-turns. Sure enough, a Corvette slid in the sand and went off the end of a lot, hung up half in the air; on his way there, he knocked the photographer tail-over-teakettle and into the hospital. The kid's family sued the college, the Corvette owner, the ASEBRING Association, and the weatherman, to no avail. Seems someone had told him to move, and he said he knew what he was doing. I guess he wanted broken legs and head.

The Corvette driver had a big piece of land along the river next to Main Street in Chula Vista. He offered to build a race track there, if the County would give him permission. Nope. These days the City of Chula Vista is trying to Eminent Domain his family and their Victorian Era home out of there to put in more shopping centers. Government is a ass.

The only entities I can think of that have land (quite a bit of it conveniently paved with asphalt) and money are Casinos. Most of them can do without all that autocross space, from what I've seen.

Anyone have Native American or gambling concession contacts?

RandyC

07-28-2008, 08:41 PM

No, we are just arguing the short term situation.

Everyone understands that. And people are pursuing some options.

We don't want a new "job" because all the other "jobs" available do not pay nearly as much. Hence we are not quitting. This is a " mass layoff" that has been threatened for years. Most people do not quit a job for one that pays much less because you may lose your job due to a mass layoff.

Agreed in principal, but I feel the job analogy is a bit tortured. I am not advocating we leave the Q at all. Nope. Not until they drag us out. :) And it is not like there has been a fuzzy layoff time. There have been specific dates since many years ago. As of 2008, the Chargers can talk to other cities. As of 2009, they can leave.

But as you yourself mentioned, things like this can take time. And if we develop a plan, it may take some time to make it work. Proof being the military angle that has been worked on now for years and years.

And perhaps also... that we need to see thr goal here. If we walk around blind to what might get removed from us, we are like that employee that does not read the handwriting on the wall. Stay alert was always my motto. Keep your resume up to date. Be ready. :) If we have some focus on the issue and the goal, I think it means we see things a little differently. Opportunities may arise we did not recognize. Example being raised today was the new Pala Racetrack. Anyone contacting them about what kind of parking lot they are putting in?

What does it take to strike a deal with Pala, if they are going to build a lot anyway, to make it autocross friendly? What if Corvette, BMW, PCA, Lotus, and SCCA all got together and talked with them? Worst scenario here is nobody talks to them, they build a huge lot, with parking berms. And trees every 20 feet.

Or maybe the answer lies elsewhere. I have NO idea.

I just no that large groups of people tend to do nothing, because they think someone else is doing it. And in the end, nothing happens.
:scared011:

RandyC

07-28-2008, 08:42 PM

By the way old timers (good thing I am so young) :)... I love the history and pictures. I would like to see some of that memory captured here.

Bimota Guy

07-29-2008, 07:25 PM

Agreed in principal, but I feel the job analogy is a bit tortured. I am not advocating we leave the Q at all. Nope. Not until they drag us out. :) And it is not like there has been a fuzzy layoff time. There have been specific dates since many years ago. As of 2008, the Chargers can talk to other cities. As of 2009, they can leave.

I did not start the (silly) job analysis, I just tried to make it more accurate. And there is NO layoff date, just a "there might be a layoff some time after 2009" warning. Right? Anyway...

As you yourself have said (re: Soak City), if we make a deal with another lot and do not use them, they will not be happy and we will probably lose it. So, on the one hand you say you will not leave the Q until they make us leave, but we don't know when that really is. All we know is when it is possible for the Chargers to leave. And someone claimed the Aztecs were promised use for several more years if the Chargers leave. So, if we contact Pala and they want a commitment and their lot will not be nearly as "good" as the West lot of the Q, do we commit to them and leave the Q?

Randy, I know you really care about this, so please don't take this to be simply a set of contrary statements. As you are painfully aware, there is no simple solution, even if we can find a lot to use.

Best,
-Steve

RandyC

07-29-2008, 07:33 PM

I was always an advocate of continuing to use Soak City exactly for this reason. I have said so at the board meetings. But that is a bigger picture and most clubs did not want to. Kudos to SCAT when I was with them... they did. If we had something like that now, I would certainly expect that the board could convince the clubs to periodically use the other facility, without dumping Qualcomm. We have our off times. Just like we used NTC. It is not a case of having to choose.

To be clear, the layoff can happen right now. Or at the end of the season for the Chargers. Now looks doubtful since the season is starting for the Chargers. That moves it to after this season. So anytime in 2009. Or yes, 2010. Or 2011. Who knows? We agree that there is no firm date. As I have said a few times, I am discussing an unlikely scenario. :)

I am not nor ever suggested there is an easy solution. I think the opposite. Which is why the concern. If it was easy, then wait. Fix it when we need to.

Pala will take YEARS to complete. When should we talk to them?

New developments about a new group pushing for a stadium south of the convention center (where the cargo docks are). That would take years also and would be for the short term a good thing for us.

The only reason to not actively look for another place is if any of us thinks we have a good shot at not losing the lot.

Mazda_Gremlyn

07-30-2008, 12:54 AM

So, if we contact Pala and they want a commitment and their lot will not be nearly as "good" as the West lot of the Q, do we commit to them and leave the Q?

We won't know unless we ask. If our community can have any kind of influence in how the lot may be constructed, then wouldn't it be reasonable to think it would be everything we've ever wanted the Q's lots to be?

rtomlinson

07-30-2008, 09:16 AM

Am I missing something here? AS I remember an event at Soak City, we were running on a rather small lot and were going between curbs that were less than 50 feet apart. Our requirements are at least 25 feet to a solid object minimum; add track width and 50 feet does not fly. Yes a 4 inch curb is a solid object, a tripping hazard to an automobile. Ask Erin.
Our lot requirements are more than just smooth and relatively flat.
Having more than one lot to choose from would be Ideal, but they must be usable.

RandyC

07-30-2008, 10:02 AM

There was one point going out and one coming back that went between planters. In reality it was not much of an issue on a slow straight, but your point is well taken. Nobody is saying we should be running at Soak City now. It was just an example.

I have run my shifter kart at the lot next door at Coors (just north of the Soak City lot). That was a little bigger.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=32.586747,-117.00848&spn=0.001878,0.003119&t=h&z=19

Hard to find a perfect lot... but this one would be AWESOME-
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=32.5647,-117.112584&spn=0.015028,0.024955&t=h&z=16

MILES of concrete. Next to the ocean (always cool). Next to people used to noise.

rtomlinson

07-30-2008, 03:46 PM

Randy

What is the area just to the East of the Soak City lot?
From the satellite shot it looks to be unpaved overflow parking. Maybe talk to the owners about paving in such a way that it could be optimized for autocross as well as overflow. Stressing the point that it could generate some revenue for the owners in the Soak City off times.

Steve35

07-30-2008, 03:53 PM

rtomlinson

07-30-2008, 03:55 PM

Frank S

07-30-2008, 04:04 PM

"Hard to find a perfect lot... but this one would be AWESOME-
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie...24955&t=h&z=16

MILES of concrete. Next to the ocean (always cool). Next to people used to noise."

I know Navy's IB helicopter airstrip. We need a congressman that is also an auto-crosser. Even if we could get permission to run there, I would probably have to go thru a strip search in order to pass thru the gate. Every so often commands change and the new guy will have to be convinced that his predecessor was right in letting us use the site.

The first two times I went to the Coronado Speed Fest (OK, OK) I walked in as a paying customer, had my camera bags inspected and put the contents of my pockets in a baking pan while passing through the electronic frisker; third time I went as a Mustang Club Corral Member, and got nothing but nods and waves. The searches don't have to happen. Not that it'll likely become a concern for slaloms. If we could just get Steve Earle on our side ...

rtomlinson

07-30-2008, 04:28 PM

Steve Earle? We'll never get on board the base.

RandyC

07-30-2008, 05:16 PM

Robbie would love that lot. He's on street just north of the fence.

A couple of "Navy" types told me that base is closed on weekends (as much as you can close a base) they felt it wouldn't be a big deal to use it if you knew the base commander.
Now we just need to know where he plays golf.:)

I grew up a couple hundred feet away from Robbie's house. My mother and sister both own homes within that block. I think it would be awesome too.

Bimota Guy

07-30-2008, 07:08 PM

I grew up
Debatable. :rotflmao:

rtomlinson

07-30-2008, 08:48 PM

I let him slide on that one.:)

RandyC

08-10-2008, 06:57 PM

Interesting comment on the Chargers site-

But, what up with the parking lot? They need to pave it, there are some serious potholes, and chunks of asphalt all over the place. I was watching cars getting WORKED today at the game.I wonder if anyone else in the city or Chargers ever connects the pot holes and chunks with our sport. Right or wrong, that could be bad. As noted by Michael Contour at the last e-board meeting, all of us need to work extra hard to take care of this lot. This is one more reason.

RandyC

08-10-2008, 07:08 PM

San Diego Is Chargers' Problem

By Don Bauder (http://www.sandiegoreader.com/staff/don-bauder/) | Published Wednesday, Aug. 6, 2008

http://media.sdreader.com/img/news/tease/2008/08/06/citylights1_tease_t245.jpg?688c1433a91d85c33fc0ac9 386a082be1c98381b

The Chargers say they have a problem: Qualcomm Stadium is antiquated.

Sorry. The Chargers’ problem is much broader and deeper than that. The Chargers have a problem with San Diego. Period. It’s not big enough or rich enough to satisfy the financial ambitions of the ownership.
I recently had an email colloquy with Mark Fabiani, the team’s special counsel. His answers to my questions were revealing. He says the team is sedulously working to remain in San Diego. But I suspect he realizes that that is impossible, given the management’s monetary desires. I have thought for years that the team wanted the rich Los Angeles market. Economic and political conditions may prevent that for a while — perhaps a very long while. But unfortunately, the horrible City/Chargers contract inked in 2004 permits the team to walk off without saying a word beforehand. Therefore, the Chargers don’t have to move to L.A. and play in the Rose Bowl or Coliseum until a new stadium is finished. The Chargers can stay mum until a stadium is completed and suddenly move.

Other teams, however, want that juicy Los Angeles market. So the Chargers don’t have a sure thing. If they continue playing at Qualcomm, they will make plenty of money — just not as much as they could make in Los Angeles or a handful of other markets.

Says Fabiani, “Simply put, our stadium does not allow the Chargers to remain financially competitive with the top teams in the NFL (all of which are playing in, or about to begin playing in, new taxpayer-subsidized facilities). Qualcomm Stadium’s luxury boxes and club seats do not have the amenities for which customers in other markets are willing to pay top dollar.” He is talking about “luxury boxes, club seats, and electronic signage/sponsorship opportunities” that “create a huge and growing financial chasm between the Chargers and the top teams in the NFL.” (Because of so much revenue sharing, I don’t think there is any “huge” chasm, but that’s another subject.)
Fabiani goes on to say that luxury boxes and club seats were “both virtually sold out last season.”

That’s a mouthful. The Chargers virtually sold out the luxury boxes and club seats, but that’s not good enough. Let’s face facts: only a big, rich market could create the income stream that the Chargers’ management covets. San Diego cannot provide this. First, the business mix in San Diego does not lend itself to providing whopping revenues from super-luxury boxes. San Diego is filled with capital-intensive, cerebrally oriented companies (biotechs, telecoms) that can’t afford to entertain in luxury boxes and really aren’t suited to doing business at football games anyway. The real estate companies used to throw money around, but now they are struggling to survive. The big hotel owners still have money to burn, but there aren’t enough of them. Similarly, the average San Diegan is squeezed: the cost of living is 50 percent above the nation’s, but incomes are only 20 percent higher.

Bottom line: even if the Chargers built a new stadium, they would find that they couldn’t get that much more revenue from the corporations, superrich, and average fan. San Diegans, including most companies, live on psychic income. That won’t satisfy the Chargers. A new stadium would cost well over a billion dollars. The team could not recover those extra costs, even with a large government subsidy.

And that brings us to today’s macroeconomic situation. Governments at all levels are ailing. The City of San Diego is one of the worst off in the nation. Chula Vista, with which the team is now having discussions, is hurting. The recession will inhibit consumers for probably two more years. Building costs have soared. All around the country, housing markets are in desperate shape; teams’ hopes of financing stadiums with revenue from condos are, frankly, shot. The credit crunch is likely to last into 2010. The National Football League could have a strike or lockout in 2011; that prospect could cool off the building of new stadiums.

“Tax revenues are falling, governments are struggling,” says Dennis Coates, economist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. With real estate in the Dumpster, the always-specious argument that stadiums spur development is a tougher sell.

Rodney Fort, professor of sports management at the University of Michigan, agrees with Coates: in the near future, the private sector will have to put up more of the money. “Governments are less willing to foot the bill,” he says, so the teams will have to come up with more scratch. The NFL itself might put more into new stadium deals; it has always wanted desperately to return to Los Angeles, and in that 2004 contract, San Diego promises not to sue the league, which was already talking with L.A. at the time of the negotiations.

Fabiani admits that “Today, there is no chance that the Mission Valley project could be financed.” The housing market has “declined dramatically,” while stadium construction costs have skyrocketed. In my judgment, that deal was a fairy tale back in 2002 when the Chargers proposed it.
Fabiani believes a deal can still be worked out in Chula Vista. But 60 to 70 percent of the houses for sale in Chula Vista are distress sales. Fabiani hopes there could be a “consortium of universities” on the east side that could produce “a mix of development… that would include more than housing.” Sorry. “A consortium of universities” is not going to spring out of the ground in eastern Chula Vista. It might get a branch of a community college or of San Diego State, but that would be a long time away, and modest at best. Eastern Chula Vista is one of the messiest housing markets in the county. Fabiani admits, “We are a long, long way from moving forward” in Chula Vista.

He sums up, “The credit crunch, skyrocketing raw material costs, and [the] housing-market collapse are huge issues, and that is why completing our project in San Diego County becomes more difficult by the day.”

That is another mouthful. He is telling San Diegans to be ready for a departure, although he is not that blunt about it.

A billionaire developer named Ed Roski says he will build a privately funded football stadium in the City of Industry, 25 miles east of Los Angeles. He says he can start construction in October and claims he has financing. (He is a known dreamer/huckster, so eyebrows are always cocked at his pronouncements.)

In telling me that the Chargers are not likely to keep their plans secret from San Diegans, as the contract permits, Fabiani says, “When Ed Roski announced his City of Industry stadium proposal, we proactively told the media and our fans of the long friendship between the Roski and Spanos families and about the fact that Ed Roski and Dean Spanos [have] talked about Mr. Roski’s plans for a stadium in the Los Angeles area.” But the main focus is on San Diego, Fabiani insists.

But his statement should not be comforting to Charger fans. On the other hand, NFL owners are said to be talking about cities with “stadium issues” — that is, teams that reside in cities that won’t or can’t come up with gigantic subsidies or might even think there are better uses for public funds than supporting pro teams owned by billionaires. Teams considered the best candidates for departure are the Minnesota Vikings, Oakland Raiders, Chargers, and San Francisco 49ers. In the second tier are the Jacksonville Jaguars, New Orleans Saints, Buffalo Bills, and St. Louis Rams. (The Raiders and Rams were both domiciled in Los Angeles at one time.)

My guess is the Chargers are Roski’s lead candidate. The Chargers would have to pay a penalty of more than $50 million to leave between now and 2010, but the sum drops to $26 million in 2011 and keeps declining. In that 2004 contract, the City gave the Chargers every incentive to scram. They would like to do so. The year 2012, the year following a possible players’ strike or owners’ lockout, and possibly in a better economic/financial environment, seems logical.

Every entrepreneur wants to make more money. In the world of pro sports, there is no such thing as community loyalty, especially when such loyalty is spelled S-U-B-S-I-D-Y and the government is broke.

RandyC

08-18-2008, 12:23 PM

http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/chargers/20080817-9999-1m17chargers.html

No guarantees after '08, but Chula Vista in hunt

By Ronald W. Powell
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
August 17, 2008
 The Chargers are gearing up for a new season that could – but probably won't – be their last at Qualcomm Stadium. After it ends, the team will be eligible to pack up its footballs, uniforms and cleats and move to a city that is willing to provide them with a new stadium. All they have to do is give the city written notice, then fork over a termination fee of $56.2 million.

But the Chargers won't, said Mark Fabiani, the team's general counsel.
 “The Chargers hope to still be working on options here in San Diego County during the spring of 2009 – particularly in Chula Vista,” Fabiani said. “Having said that, we have been at this for more than six years now, and my prediction is that we are much closer to the end of the process than we are to the beginning.”

That means the team is committed to playing at Qualcomm Stadium this season, but is offering no guarantees beyond that.
“As for what happens after the spring of 2009, I am not a fortune teller,” Fabiani said. “But my own personal view is that we will need to have demonstrated some significant progress in San Diego County by that time.”

The search has narrowed to the Chula Vista bayfront, where the South Bay Power Plant currently operates. The team is conducting a financial analysis of what it would cost to build a stadium there, as well as freeway ramps and costs associated with a new trolley stop.

But obtaining the site – or even determining when it may be available – is daunting.

The power plant is owned by the San Diego Unified Port District, which had plans to tear it down in 2010. But the plant is under “must-run” status by state power managers.

Dynegy operates the plant under a lease with the port, but a company spokesman said Dynegy does not know what will happen after its contract with state power regulators runs out in early 2009.
Chula Vista City Councilman John McCann, a champion of building the stadium, said he and other city officials are pushing to have the state lift the must-run designation.

“We're putting together a road map to get the power plant site for development,” McCann said.

While the path to a Chargers stadium in Chula Vista has more question marks than answers, McCann said he is optimistic.

“I still think it's a great opportunity and we're making progress,” he said. “Until we determine it can't happen, we'll continue to push forward.”
A second local possibility recently emerged when a private development team qualified an initiative for the Nov. 4 ballot that asks voters to approve construction of a massive deck over the port's Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal in downtown San Diego.

Business partners Richard Chase and Frank Gallagher say a football stadium is among several options for uses atop the deck.
The Port District opposes the idea, saying it would ruin business at the niche terminal, which is east of the San Diego Convention Center. The port has filed a lawsuit trying to block the initiative.

Fabiani met with Chase and Gallagher on July 22 at their request. He said the team will not campaign in support of the plan, but will see what possibilities there are if voters approve it.

Sports business experts say the team has few options outside of the county, but one possibility is a move to Los Angeles.
Developer Ed Roski has announced plans to build a stadium in the City of Industry outside Los Angeles and would need a team to play in it. The Roski family is longtime friends with Alex and Dean Spanos, who own and operate the Chargers, and Fabiani said they have discussed Ed Roski's plan.
Fabiani said Dean Spanos told Roski that the Chargers are committed to working out a deal in San Diego County, where the team has played and built its brand for more than 40 years.

Don Hinchey of the Dean Bonham Group, a Denver-based sports and entertainment marketing firm, said the National Football League wants a team in Los Angeles, the country's second-biggest market, but it doesn't want an existing team to move there.
“The NFL covets the L.A. market, but it doesn't want to get there at the expense of a divorce – that means the Chargers splitting on San Diego,” Hinchey said. “The owners like having a stable environment in which teams have a relationship with their fan base. They don't want teams jumping around.”

The Chargers say they need the additional revenue of new luxury boxes, club seats, sponsorships and advertising to keep pace with other teams, such as Dallas and the New York Jets and Giants, who will soon be playing in new stadiums.

“The Chargers have a case,” Hinchey said. “If you want to compete at an elite level, you need a revenue stream to support that.”
Another possible relocation site is San Antonio, where the New Orleans Saints played to sellout crowds at the indoor Alamodome when they were forced out of their Louisiana Superdome home after Hurricane Katrina.
Next year, and every year until the Chargers' lease with the city expires in 2020, the team will have a window from Feb. 1 until May 1 to notify the city of its intent to relocate. After each May 1, they cannot contractually give notice until the next February.

The cost of leaving goes down for the team in each succeeding year. Next year it will be $56.2 million and in 2010 it will be $54.6 million – in both cases covering what the city owes for the 1997 expansion of Qualcomm Stadium.

But because of a deal cut the last time the Chargers renegotiated their city lease, the exit fee dips in 2011 to $25.8 million – which would leave the city with nearly $30 million in debt on stadium expansion bonds.

While the team can't or won't say what its exit strategy may be, it is clear that its search for a stadium in the county is not open-ended.
“There's only so much money and time you can spend,” Fabiani said. “At a certain point you've got to bring it to a conclusion.”

MX5bob

08-18-2008, 04:50 PM

I wouldn't count on anything Ed Roski says until serious construction begins, and even then I'd want to see that an actual stadium was being built and not something else.

RandyC

08-24-2008, 08:45 AM

RandyC

08-28-2008, 05:15 PM

ROSKI’S PARTNER THINKS A TEAM WILL BE IN L.A. BY 2009 (http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/08/28/roskis-partner-thinks-a-team-will-be-in-la-by-2009/)

Posted by Mike Florio on August 28, 2008, 12:02 p.m.

Ed Roski has promised to build a new stadium in Los Angeles if an NFL (http://www.profootballtalk.com/category/rumor-mill/#) team will play in it. And now one of Roski’s business partners believes a team will be in L.A. even before the new digs are ready.

“We are going to have a team here next September (http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_10320589),” John Semcken recently told the San Gabriel Valley Tribune. Semcken is Vice President of Majestic Realty. Roski is the company’s Chairman and CEO.

Semcken also said that Roski has a “handshake deal” with the Rose Bowl to allow the team to play there for two seasons, until Roski’s venue is ready. (A spokesman for the Rose Bowl Operating Company denied that a “handshake deal” has been reached; the Rose Bowl’s General Manager characterized the talks as “very preliminary.”)

And it seems to be that Roski still has designs on owning a team, which would mean that Roski would have to divest himself of any interests in casino gambling (http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/united-states-california-metro-areas/586581-1.html).

Here’s another twist: two teams could end up in Los Angeles. Semcken explained that, under this scenario, one team would be owned by Roski and the other one would be a tenant.

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said that the league has long regarded L.A. as a two-team market, even though for the past decade-and-a-half it’s been a zero-team market. “It doesn’t mean that we will have two teams there next season, but we have looked at an option that would provide flexibility so that should we have a team there someday. The site could also accommodate another team,” McCarthy said.

Semcken said that seven teams are interested in relocating to Los Angeles, but he would name none of them. “Every owner I have talked to is interested in coming,” Semcken said. “The idea of moving here is like Nirvana to them.”

It might very well be that the first team that comes to town does so as the tenant, and that the second L.A. team is the one Roski eventually buys. And if Semcken is confident that a team is going to play in L.A. as soon as next year, the obvious candidate for a move is the Chargers, whose lease in San Diego expires after the 2008 season.

Earlier this year, Roski named the Chargers, Saints, Bills, Jaguars (http://www.profootballtalk.com/category/rumor-mill/#), Vikings, Raiders, and 49ers are possible teams that would move to Los Angeles. And since Semcken says seven teams are interested and that list of teams in the prior sentences add up to seven and if every owner they’ve spoken with is interested, it sounds like those seven teams make up the universe from which two of them eventually could be plucked.

MX5bob

08-29-2008, 09:13 AM

That's Ed Roski. "Handshake deal" that nobody will confirm.

RandyC

09-05-2008, 12:43 PM

http://www.cbs8.com/stories/story.139512.html

Port Stadium Proposal To Remain On The Ballot
Watch Video (http://www.cbs8.com/stories/story.139512.html#) http://www.cbs8.com/images/global/video_icon.gif (http://www.cbs8.com/stories/story.139512.html#) Last Updated:
09-04-08 at 5:53PM
A measure that could pave the way for a stadium atop the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal will be on the November ballot, a judge ruled today.

A private group that includes developers Richard Chase and Frank Gallagher came up with more than 34,000 valid signatures supporting the referendum.

The Port District agreed last month to place the initiative on the ballot, then filed a lawsuit to stop it.

Today, Judge Ronald Styn said he could find no "clear and compelling" reason for removing the measure from the ballot.

The Port District contends the plan to allow a sports arena, hotel or other development on a 40-foot deck over the cargo terminal could endanger 42,000 jobs and nearly $8 billion in economic impact flowing from the terminal.

Port officials say the plan -- which would cost the port $435,000 -- is illegal and violates the state's intent to have the Port District be a unified body of five cities, and have those cities decide as a group what should be developed on their waterfronts.

Port District Attorney Duane Bennett said the Port would appeal Styn's decision to the 4th District Court of Appeal.

Gallagher said he was pleased with Styn's decision.

"We have written that initiative to be in compliance with the (state) Coastal Commission, with the Port Act and also the state Lands Commission," Gallagher said. "We will do everything 100 percent in compliance with all those doctrines.

"We're very pleased that the voters will be able to decide what happens on public land ... by initiative."

An attorney for the San Diego Chargers, Mark Fabiani, said last month that the team would not support the ballot measure but would be interested in what happens.

The Chargers are exploring a site for a new stadium in Chula Vista.

Bimota Guy

09-05-2008, 01:27 PM

A private group that includes developers Richard Chase and Frank Gallagher came up with more than 34,000 valid signatures supporting the referendum.

You just know this guy is trouble! :p :D

RandyC

09-05-2008, 10:22 PM

Note, prediction is for Chargers to be gone after 2008.

http://stations.espn.go.com/stations/710espn/blog?id=3520856&post=3570914&sort=oldest

HOW ABOUT THIS SCENARIO? CHARGERS WIN SUPER BOWL, THEN MOVE TO L.A. (http://stations.espn.go.com/stations/710espn/blog?id=3520856&post=3570914)
September 5, 2008, 9:06 AM

This is a big year for the Chargers. The year we find out if they're good enough to win the Super Bowl and loyal and/or patient enough to stay in San Diego.

My best guess at this point is yes. And no.

General Manager A.J. Smith has accumulated the most talented roster in the NFL. Now it's time for it to pay off before several of these gifted guys play out their options and move on.

The Chargers are clearly the best team in their division and despite a travel-challenged schedule that has them schlepping to London, of all places, in late October, they should cruise into the playoffs and finally be ready to take on their dreaded nemesis from New England.

Quarterback Phillp Rivers is 25-7 as a starter, but in the pressure of a conference title game, is he good enough to beat Tom Brady? I'm not sure, although the one thing the Giants proved last year is that if your pass rush is powerful enough, even Brady can look mortal.

Brady has had a sore foot all summer, and the Patriots, weakened in the offensive line and defensive backfield, haven't looked like their old, intimidating selves. But Randy Moss, Wes Welker and Co. are still around, and the schedule is the softest in the league. Improving Jacksonville looks like another team that might be good enough to supplant the Pats, but somehow, you have to think Bill Belichick, his scowl and his ugly hoodie will still be there come showdown time.

As for the Chargers staying in San Diego, I think they'd like to. I just don't believe they know where. With their lease about to run out in outdated Qualcomm Stadium, they've searched everywhere in the area, and apparently, they're down to Chula Vista as the last-shot location to build a new stadium and remain in the area. Hey, I don't really want to knock the nice people who live there. But have you ever been to Chula Vista? It just doesn't strike you as a site for a big-time NFL franchise.

So if not there, where? Well, L.A. continues to lurk quietly in the background. Most league officials won't say it, but they realize the colossal blunder that allowed the nation's second largest market to be left without an NFL team. They'd love to correct that mistake, and if all it takes is the Chargers moving 90 miles up the freeway, so be it.

Would I empathize with San Diego fans who'd be crushed if their team departed? Absolutely. The town fills the stadium every week and adores the Chargers. But those of us who watched both the Rams and Raiders leave Southern California understand that it's all about business.
Trust me. Owners care about the fans. But they care a lot more about money.

Do not be surprised if the defending Super Bowl champion Chargers are back in L.A. (where they started, by the way) next season, maybe playing in the Rose Bowl for a year or two until some rich entrepreneur builds a new stadium.

Yes, Alex Spanos will be to San Diego what Art Modell once was to Cleveland. He'll be the ultimate villain. But hey, look at it this way Chargers fans:

At least you'd have the option of making the 11/2 hour drive to see your old team play every Sunday. That's more than the bitter Browns, Rams and Raiders fans could say.
Ah, yes, the warm, fuzzy NFL. There's nothing like it, right?

<center>*</center> On the eve of a new season, it's almost required to make your predictions. So here are mine: NFC title game: Cowboys over Saints.
AFC title game: Chargers over Patriots.
MVP Drew Brees, Saints.
Offensive Rookie of the Year: Jonathan Stewart, Jaguars.
Defensive Rookie of the Year: Sedrick Ellis, Saints.
Coach of the Year: Sean Payton, Saints.
Super Bowl: Chargers over Cowboys.

Roostie

09-07-2008, 11:18 PM

All this Chargers and Pat's talk suddenly seems a bit premature, doesn't it?

The list of billionaire men of mystery who would build an NFL stadium has certainly gotten shorter in light of the greatly increased cost of concrete, steel and other building materials. The materials costs have really shot up in the last few years. It might take about a billion to build an NFL stadium.

Even if the Chargers don't move and they keep playing at Qualcomm, in a few years we won't be able to run at in the Qualcomm lot anyway. Not unless we are going to start running rallycross in the then partially paved lot. That is quickly where the lot is heading at its current rate of deterioration.

RandyC

01-05-2009, 11:14 AM

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dwyre30-2008dec30,0,7751424.column

Somewhere on Sunday, Ed Roski was watching and drooling.

He knew that what he was seeing, on a super Sunday of NFL competition, was what he wants for his city of Los Angeles.

All but a handful of the games had a bearing on the playoffs. There were more permutations than a slot machine. If you were a Philadelphia Eagles fan, you lived and died with what was happening in Tampa and Minneapolis. If you were a New England Patriots fan, your heart pounded fast for the New York Jets over Miami.

This was Chapter One of the book on sports marketing. Almost everything that was happening mattered. You can engage fans with luxury suites in shiny new stadiums, and leggy cheerleaders in sexy outfits. But you can't turn them on with the same passion as you will with games that count and drip with drama.

Somewhere on Sunday, while Roski drooled, the architect of this all, the late NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle was up there smiling.

Roski wants to make Los Angeles part of this again. He wants occasional grand finale games of seasons -- such as Sunday night's Chargers victory over the Broncos, with the virtuoso voice of Al Michaels describing it all -- to be taking place about 100 miles north of Qualcomm Stadium.

Yes, after nearly 15 years of having his city jerked around like a Yorkshire terrier on a leash and lied to like a jury at a Mafia murder trial, Ed Roski wants to try again. He has land, the financial wherewithal, an entrepreneurial spirit and a plan that is hard to ignore. He even seems to have the NFL's ear these days, but then, with them, it is hard to know which face to talk to.

Roski, president of Majestic Realty in the City of Industry, wants to build a stadium for an NFL team on land near the intersection of the 57 and 60 freeways. He also wants to own whatever team plays there, or at least a major portion of it.

You haven't heard a lot about this for several reasons. Most members of the media -- and readers, listeners and viewers they serve -- have been down this path with the NFL so many times that their minds click off to the words "NFL team in L.A." The old phrase "fool me once . . . " doesn't quite make it. With L.A. and the NFL, it is more like "fool me forever. . . . "

Another reason this is not a daily update news story is because Roski is a quiet man who does things mostly behind the scenes and has been through this NFL shell game, sort of as a bit player, several times before. Roski would rather climb Mt. Kilimanjaro (he has) or walk the wilds of an African jungle (he has) than see his picture in the paper every day.

Few know that he remains a part owner of the Kings and Lakers or that because of Roski's various business dealings years ago with a billionaire developer from Denver, Phil Anschutz was introduced to the Los Angeles scene. All you have to do to understand the import of that is to drive past Staples Center these days and look around at all the new high-rise buildings up, or going up.

Roski has quietly gone about the due diligence it takes to get something the size and significance of a pro football stadium from drawing board to ground breaking. There is some local resistance coming out of the neighboring municipality of Walnut, and there will always be local concern about traffic and infrastructure needs.

But Roski and his aides are chipping away, and a day such as the NFL had Sunday has to make all the work seem worthwhile. Say what you want about the NFL and its ownership club of 32 kings riding on high horses, it has a product that is hard to beat. It televises perfectly, is a game of speed, strength and strategy and has a free feeder system worth billions of dollars called college football.

The thought that Los Angeles is so angry about the way it has been danced around by the NFL since the Rams and Raiders left in 1994 that it won't support an NFL team is silly. Getting 70,000 people to as many as 10 games a year from a population area the size of Los Angeles would be a cinch. Getting Los Angeles a team so it could get back into the Super Bowl rotation is a win for both the NFL and the city.

Still, the same roadblocks remain. The NFL is a 32-team league -- perfect symmetry for scheduling, little likelihood of expansion. So that puts Roski in a position of having to steal a team from another city.

It is at this point, in the city fearing loss of its team, that the weeping and gnashing of teeth begins, followed by lots of speeches by local politicians. That is followed soon thereafter with the improvements in facilities or lease that the local owner was using to justify his possible departure to Los Angeles.

Is it worth going through all this again? If you paid any attention to what happened around the NFL on Sunday, the answer is yes. There is simply no sports product quite like the NFL.

Is there anything Roski should remember as he ventures forth?

Only that he should keep his day job, and his hand on his wallet.

frosty

01-05-2009, 11:45 AM

I haven't been paying too close attention to this, but how are we on contingency plans? Do we need to start begging the Marines to let us borrow part of Miramar on the weekends or something?

RandyC

01-21-2009, 04:51 PM

Industry voters approve $500 million bond 60-1

Posted: 01/20/2009 06:12:25 PM PST

INDUSTRY - Voters in this 777-person city overwhelmingly approved a measure to allow the city to borrow $500 million for infrastructure improvements.
The measure passed 60-1 in preliminary results, according to City Clerk Jodi Scrivens. It needed a two-thirds approval to pass.
The city has 82 registered voters, all of whom vote by mail, according to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk's Office.
Industry will use the funds to build bridges, roads, a new fire station and other projects throughout the city, officials said.
The $500 million would be repaid through property taxes, although the tax rate would not be determined until the city sold bonds to borrow money, City Manager Kevin Radecki said.
About a third of the money would go toward improvements around a proposed National Football League stadium slated to be built on 600 hilly acres near the 57/60 freeway intersection, according to Mayor Dave Perez.
"Right now, we've got $160 million worth of improvements we need done over on the east side," said Perez. "At least that was the estimate when the economy was better. Maybe we could get a little bit better deal now, but I'm not sure."
A stadium/retail center was proposed by billionaire developer Ed Roski Jr., part owner of the Staples Center, the L.A. Live entertainment complex, the Los Angeles Kings and the Los Angeles Lakers.
He owns Majestic Realty Co., which has developed many of the warehouse parks in Industry. The stadium site was originally slated for a commercial center, but Roski decided in the spring he would rather build a football stadium. He still needs to buy part of a team to move to the site.

A 75,000-seat NFL stadium could be built as soon as 2012, according to officials from Majestic.
Even if Roski stuck with plans to build the commercial center, the city still would have borrowed the $500 million, Perez said.
The city typically funds improvements through bonds, Perez said.
"We did the same thing in 1978," he said. "I think we took out about $250 million to be paid back over 30 years."
The land for the stadium project is owned by Industry, and the city agreed to perform all infrastructure work surrounding the development, according to a city contract.
Roski is being allowed to use the land for 65 years. In return, he will split half the profits from the development with Industry, according to the city contract.
Voters also passed all five other measures proposed on Tuesday's ballot.
Two create taxes on tickets and parking for entertainment venues.
Another establishes Industry as a utility provider in part of the city, Radecki said.
Another gives the council the power to award contracts without going to bid.
Finally, another law would make it so only people living in residences could vote, which would exclude transients or people living in commercial areas or hotels.
All those were passed unanimously except the measure regarding public works, which passed 63-1.

RandyC

01-21-2009, 04:53 PM

That is the stadium rumored to be being built for a transplanted NFL team that is not named. That stadium will be done in 2012. At that time, the Chargers will also be able to leave with a much lower fee to the city (as of 2011 or next year). Now they would owe the city $55mil if they opt out this year.

The Chargers can announce they are leaving as of Feb 1st I think. 10 days from now. The Rose Bowl has offered to temporarily house an NFL team while the stadium in the City of Industry is being constructed.

They could also wait until next year.

Nobody but insiders really know what is going to happen. Me, I just keep reading between the lines and seeing what seems probable. What is probable is that Spanos has been setting the table for a move to makes billions more in LA than in SD. He could move next month or next year. The possible scenario that was discussed amongst the solo crowd almost 10 years ago is upon us.

Reality is, we could be out of a site this year.

Or not.

RandyC

01-26-2009, 06:13 PM

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-spw-chargers27-2009jan27,0,4654161.story

Chargers sign deal to market in L.A., Orange County

With its stadium situation still an issue in San Diego, the team wants to expand its reach. Could this lead to a move north?

Reporting from Tampa, Fla. -- The San Diego Chargers signed a deal today to market the team in Los Angeles and Orange County, a development that could be viewed as an initial step toward an ultimate relocation.

The Chargers, whose current lease agreement allows them to leave San Diego without the threat of lawsuit, have hired L.A.-based Wasserman Media Group to expand the club's marketing reach into the nation's second-largest market. The L.A. area has been without an NFL team since the Raiders and Rams left after the 1994 season.

"The bottom line is Los Angeles and Orange County are two of the most lucrative markets in the world," said Mark Fabiani, the team's point man on stadium issues. "There's no NFL team in those markets, and there's no reason the Chargers can't pursue those areas in these difficult economic times."

For the last seven years, the Chargers have sought a stadium solution in the San Diego area, Fabiani said, at a cost of about $10 million. None of those options has been successful.

As it stands, about 30% of the team's premium products -- luxury suites and club seats -- are purchased by individuals and companies in L.A. and Orange County.

Notably, L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa attended the team's first-round playoff victory over the Indianapolis Colts in San Diego earlier this month. He was a guest of the team.

RandyC

01-26-2009, 06:19 PM

Interesting interview today with Chargers spokesman Mark Fabiani-

Good News
Scott and BR asked Fabiani point blank if the Chargers would be using their trigger clause to get out of their agreement with the City of San Diego in 10 days. He stated that they would continue exploring options in the San Diego region and would not be paying out the $56M to open up the possibility of relocating.

He also said that the Sunrise Power Link's approval opens up the Duke Power Plant land near the Bay for a possible stadium. He also mentioned the spot where the Gaylord Hotel deal just fell through (right next to it) as another very positive development. He said that the current City Council and attorney are committed to helping the team get something done in San Diego.

Bad News
He said that the Los Angeles stadium deal is very likely to work and that Dean Spanos and Ed Roski are friends. He said that although many initiatives in the area have failed, this one would likely go through and should be taken VERY seriously (whatever that means).Reading between the lines... the Chargers are not leaving this spring 2009, but may in spring 2010. Or most likely, 2011. Which means we have two years.

Beginning next month, the team can leave San Diego by paying the city $56.2 million, according to the Union-Tribune, which reported that the amount stems from the 1997 expansion of Qualcomm. The exit amount goes down to $54.6 million next year and to $25.8 million in 2011.

chapmanr

01-26-2009, 10:12 PM

Not to say it can't or won't happen, but issuing any kind of revenue bond in the current credit market is a stretch. Better finance market + EIRs + engineering + building > 3 years off. If they're not happy with Qualcom's facilities, they certainly would be not happy with the Rose Bowl. We may have found the autocrossers silver lining to the credit crunch.

RandyC

01-27-2009, 04:00 PM

But....they have already voted in the city of Industry (there are 84 registered voters!) to go ahead. Spend $500mil. The EIRs are done I read. Roski can afford to finish this. Someone even said that they have started grading on the site.

It is looking like Chula Vista as an option is dead, not that I held much hope for this. Everything has gone down as I expected it would, thinking that the CHargers want to move and will make it seem like they are being forced to by the bad city council, bad attorney Aguire, bad stadium that is falling apart. Their hands are tied. What else could they do?

So they wait until 2011 when they save $30mil in payment to the city to leave. They play at Qualcomm for 2009 and most likely 2010. That gives Roski 3 years to build a new stadium with many expensive box seats. That means MILLIONS in dollars each year to the team owner.

And you start by hiring a marketing firm to develop Orange County and Los Angeles as your markets. You invite the mayor of LA to the next playoff game. You are good friends with Roski. It all falls into place.

RandyC

01-27-2009, 04:02 PM

Nothing is for sure, but enjoy running at the Q while you can. Appreciate it for how cool a site it is and how fortunate we have been to run there.

And maybe more urgency on finding a replacement site.

woodrufj

01-27-2009, 05:03 PM

Voters in this 777-person city overwhelmingly approved a measure to allow the city to borrow $500 million for infrastructure improvements.So much for 'tight lending'. I think the Sate of California has trouble getting loans like that.

Jay W

chapmanr

01-27-2009, 05:15 PM

The throngs of City of Industry voters may want to borrow the money, but there aren't many lenders out there. Muni bond money that is out there has a huge spread over treasuries at the moment. I have no doubt that the Spanos' could fund the project internally, but your average NFL owner views the use of public money for their palaces as an inalienable right and I don't see them digging that deep.

If I was a bettin' man, I would say that they will get serious about it in 2011. The exit fee drops. The bond market should be normal. A public company that wants to buy a skybox may be able to avoid having its board lynched by its shareholders and/or the government. Better TV ad market.

But, NFL economics aside, Randy's point is entirely on the mark and we should have more sites. Share any ideas/leads with the club reps or board members. If you don't know any of those happy folks, just contact me and I'll provide the introduction.

RandyC

01-27-2009, 09:31 PM

http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl/la-sp-super-bowl-raiders27-2009jan27,0,7182676.column

chapmanr

01-28-2009, 09:12 AM

LA hasn't had a team for ages, they may want to move there, and they are just now hiring a marketing firm to build the brand up there?

Geniuses!

In the interest of full disclosure, I've had a chip on my shoulder over the Chargers since they let Junior go.

woodrufj

01-28-2009, 09:45 AM

The Chargers and City of Industry are a buzz on LA area sports radios too.

Jay W

RandyC

01-28-2009, 11:42 AM

What was a remote possibility, seems to be turning into a probability.

And what does that mean to us, which is after all the real point of this. It means we should be able to autocross at Qualcomm for 2 more years. Should.

But after that, it is looking doubtful. So we have the entire 2009 and 2010 season... but 2011 might be the end. When in 2011, don't know. The Chargers could elect to announce they are leaving Feb 1st, 2011. The stadium authority could react immediately to cut expenses and stop the car clubs from renting the lot. Or it could take another year to start the bulldozing process.

There is still a possibility this could happen this year or next too. But less likely I think. Earliest is 4 days from today.

frosty

01-28-2009, 12:43 PM

What are places with enough tarmac for us to race in San Diego?

I've heard people talk about Soak City, but when I was down there for the Rallyx it looks like barely an option as our only site. Del Mar has a large lot, but is it big enough (and we wouldn't be able to use it for about 3 months out of the year). Miramar and North Island both have large pieces of tarmac, but are the unobstructed (I seem to remember tripping over things at one of the air shows), will the military let a large number of civies come on a regular basis, would we be getting in the way of their training and operations, and what's in it for them? Pendleton has some pretty large spaces. Are there smaller airports that aren't being fully used on the weekend (such as Brown field)? I know people wouldn't care for driving up to Ramona, but that place gets so little traffic they don't staff the tower: it's up to the pilots to coordinate with any pilots who might be in the area.

Or does the region re-invent itself (again) and focus on Rallyx?

RandyC

01-28-2009, 02:49 PM

We have been down that path a number of times. At one point, the region did not have a large place like Qualcomm to run at and they ran at community college parking lots or Del Mar/Carlsbad.

What do we have now? As you mentioned, we can run at Soak City, but only in their off season. When it is warm, they are open for business. And yes, the lot is very small. Not really suitable for a final solution.

The only other local areas with large flat lots are the military bases and that avenue has been and is continuing to be explored. But it is not an easy path to convince a base commander that he should allow us to run on the base. He has to be convinced why this is good for them. Like a benefit for the enlisted, or a donation to a charity, or both. SO far, it has not worked out.

So, ask yourself what the road racers here did when they no longer have a track? They run an event up in LA each year and call it a San Diego region event I understand. And they still meet once a month to discuss things. And now they have rallycross. I guess we would be similar. Probably have the core group meeting and schedule the annual event at El Toro.

Me... I would get a kart and take it to the track. I have zero interest in first gear autocrossing.

Bimota Guy

01-28-2009, 09:26 PM

Me... I would get a kart
Speaking of which...

DSG Envy

04-13-2009, 04:54 PM

You guys see this link yet?

DIAMOND BAR - The City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved a $20 million settlement with neighboring Industry over a proposed NFL stadium and entertainment complex.
http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_12094640

oinojo

04-13-2009, 06:24 PM

You guys see this link yet?

http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_12094640

it better have a badass concrete parking lot:o

RickRacer

06-04-2009, 06:34 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4229406&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines

RandyC

07-15-2009, 01:21 PM

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/jul/13/stadium-costing-san-diego-millions/

SAN DIEGO — San Diego’s auditor says the operation of Qualcomm Stadium presents a number of challenges for the city. KPBS reporter Katie Orr says the auditor will present them at today’s city council meeting.

Auditor Eduardo Luna says San Diego doesn’t have a business plan for Qualcomm Stadium, and says oversight of the stadium is lacking.
“What we found was that the stadium operations were not self sustaining, that the stadium required a subsidy of over $10.8 million annually to sustain its operations,” he says.

Luna says the report also found the city’s agreement with San Diego State University to let its football team use Qualcomm is not financially beneficial to the city. And if the Chargers decide to leave the stadium before 2020 San Diego will be left with a $21.4 million bond debt obligation. The auditor is recommending the city develop a business plan for the stadium and look for ways to resolve the operating losses Qualcomm incurs. Luna also recommends the city keep better records so vendors are properly billed and overdue payments are collected.

RandyC

07-15-2009, 01:23 PM

Billionaire Ed Roski Wants Your NFL Team in Los Angeles

Posted Jul 14, 2009 11:38AM By Nancy Gay (http://www.fanhouse.com/bloggers/nancy-gay/) (RSS feed (http://www.fanhouse.com/bloggers/nancy-gay/rss.xml))
Filed Under: NFL Fans (http://nfl.fanhouse.com/category/nfl-fans/), FanHouse Exclusive (http://nfl.fanhouse.com/category/fanhouse-exclusive/)

LOS ANGELES -- Ed Roski (http://www.fanhouse.com/tag/Ed+Roski/) wants your NFL team.

The billionaire real estate developer from Southern California (http://www.fanhouse.com/news/main/lakers-parade-on-despite-frets-over-cost/526651) is closely tracking the stadium and hometown dysfunction that plagues the three California franchises in San Francisco (http://www.fanhouse.com/news/main/santa-clara-city-council-approves/512647), Oakland (http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2007/10/23/shooting-in-parking-lot-following-raider-game/) and San Diego (http://www.fanhouse.com/news/main/schwarzenegger-joins-us-bid-committee/510371). He knows where fans are weary, where facilities are second-rate.

He's got bull's-eyes centered on Buffalo (http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2007/06/17/will-bills-move-when-ralph-wilson-dies/), Jacksonville (http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/07/10/jacksonville-jaguars-for-sale/), Minnesota (http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/02/12/vikings-official-rips-minnesota-governor-over-stadium-situation/) and St. Louis (http://www.fanhouse.com/news/main/blues-owner-wants-to-buy-rams/510249), too.

Give Roski your poor, your tired, your NFL huddles and masses longing for a state-of-the-art outdoor facility. Bring them to the City of Industry in the San Gabriel Valley, where he is convinced the fruitful Los Angeles market will welcome you.

Yes, that L.A. market. The same sprawling, Kobe Bryant-obsessed region that seems to have forgotten the ghosts of the Los Angeles Raiders and Rams and has embraced USC and UCLA football on Saturdays, and its choice of 32 teams on television come Sunday.

"There are NFL franchises out there that want a world-class facility, that want this huge market, and I'm ready to give that to them,'' says Roski (above), chairman and CEO of Majestic Realty Co., a key developer of the privately financed Staples Center and a co-owner of the L.A. Lakers and Kings.

Roski's an unassuming guy. "I did the Staples Center (http://www.fanhouse.com/news/main/fans-flood-lakers-party-drenched-in/530627),'' he says casually. Well, he and fellow billionaire Phillip Anschutz did the Staples Center. On their dime. So Roski knows about getting stadiums and arenas built in the Golden State despite the notorious, choking loops of California development red tape that have stalled NFL stadium efforts across the state.

Yeah, you've heard this before. Dead Los Angeles NFL stadium projects -- buried everywhere from Irwindale to Irvine to Carson to Hollywood Park -- are as ubiquitous to Southern California as a Sig alert on the Santa Monica freeway.

So when Roski, 70, shows off that spectacular architectural model of his proposed $800 million, 75,000-seat NFL stadium as part of a shopping and entertainment complex he'll plant near the 57 and 60 Freeways in Industry, east of downtown Los Angeles, he's not kidding.

"Full-steam ahead,'' Roski says. All he needs are at least one -- ideally, two -- hungry NFL franchises to commit to relocating to his planned NFL palace and he'll turn the shovel on this thing.

"They'll play in the Coliseum and the Rose Bowl for two years while we're under contruction,'' Roski envisions, "and we plan to open by 2013." And play host to a Super Bowl in Los Angeles in 2016.

So how does Roski figure pull this off? Well, he's wealthy -- worth an estimated $2.5 billion and ranked No. 163 on The Forbes 400 list of richest Americans in 2008. He's got the financial chops to say the heck with buying up land, waiting out costly environmental impact reports or haggling with local cities for bond money.

The City of Industry isn't just the latest doomed site. From a developer's standpoint, it's a dream come true. Industry charges no business taxes, encourages retail establishments and factories to operate 24 hours a day and takes in tax revenue from those facilities.

No wonder Roski's Majestic Realty Co. is headquartered there.

In January, a majority of Industry voters -- all 82 of them -- passed a measure 60-1 to allow the sale of $150 million in bonds to push along Roski's stadium project.

"I've got the land, the right location, and public money isn't an issue,'' he says. "I'll be outdoor, and I'll build it into the side of a hill, so the stadium costs will be low."

For 14 years, Roski has labored to bring the NFL back to Los Angeles. His efforts to refurbish the historic Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum for an NFL team faded when Houston (http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/09/18/astros-offer-their-stadium-to-texans/) got the last expansion franchise in 2002.

"All these years we've established a real good relationship with the NFL, understood what they want in a stadium -- what works, what doesn't work,'' Roski says. "And we were able to put together a project that meets all those requirements.

In L.A.? Where NFL stadiums go to die?

"The NFL really wants to come back to Los Angeles,'' emphasizes Roski, who was honored Monday night by the L.A. Sports & Entertainment Commission as "Sportsman of the Year" at the seventh annual NFL 101/201 event at the L.A. Coliseum. "But they want to make sure they do it in the right way."

The NFL isn't actively or publicly encouraging Roski's efforts to lure an underperforming franchise to the Los Angeles market. Nor will Roski name names when asked for an ideal tenant.

He leaves that to his right-hand man, John Semcken (http://www.fanhouse.com/tag/John+Semcken/).

"Jacksonville, Buffalo, Minnesota, New Orleans, St. Louis and the three California teams. Now New Orleans just signed a lease for 25 more years, so they're out. But the other seven are still in," says John Semcken, Roski's vice president at Majestic Reality.

In Semcken's eyes, Jacksonville and Buffalo are terrible markets for the NFL, and the other franchises are unable or unwilling to maintain stadiums up to current league standards. So they're fair game.

"You know what I think? I think the Raiders and the 49ers are eventually going to share a building in Northern California,'' Semcken says, "and two other teams are going to share a building in Southern California.

"Two teams. Then we'll have 25 weeks of NFL here. Ten preseason and regular season per team -- that's 20. Both teams will be so rich that they'll make the playoffs, that's 22. Then they'll win the second round, that's 24. Then we'll have the Super Bowl, that's 25!"

From an environmental perspective, Roski's people had to plan for 25 games a year in a facility. "To show you how crazy California is, that's how we've had to analyze it,'' Semcken says.

"We've got one lawsuit from one city (Walnut, which neighbors Industry) -- there are 88 cities in L.A. County. We've got one little city extorting us for money, plain and simple.

"When that's done, we're ready to go. Ed can go buy a team, partner with a team to come here, whatever they want."

Roski isn't courting any specific franchise. "No, we don't talk to any of them,'' he says. "We'll do our job first and the NFL will make its decision who comes here."

But will Angelenos care?

"Of course. Those teams (the Rams and Raiders) left not because of the fans. Not at all,'' Roski says emphatically. "They left because they couldn't get the revenue sources out of the Coliseum they needed to be competitive.

"These are great NFL fans. You've got 19 million people here. And they'll come out. You watch. I know they will."

RandyC

07-15-2009, 01:44 PM

The team can leave San Diego by paying the city $56.2 million, according to the Union-Tribune, which reported that the amount stems from the 1997 expansion of Qualcomm.

The exit amount goes down to $54.6 million in 2010 and to $25.8 million in 2011.

That is not a small amount, so if the Chargers leave, I would think they would wait until 2011, 1 year and a half from now.

Note also the new contract the city signed with SDSU which says they lose the stadium if the Chargers leave, BUT it says they have 5 years to find alternate lodgings. That is a good thing if it holds up since it means the city will maintain the stadium for 5 years! So we could have a stadium until 2016 even if the Chargers leave... and with more dates since there will not be NFL games there.

woodrufj

07-15-2009, 03:11 PM

The exit amount goes down to $54.6 million in 2010 and to $25.8 million in 2011.

That is not a small amount, so if the Chargers leave, I would think they would wait until 2011, 1 year and a half from now.Might not be that much in the perspective of professional sports profits (just look at player saleries). Especially if you have a billionaire coveting you.

Jay W

Steve35

07-15-2009, 03:40 PM

So we could have a stadium until 2016 even if the Chargers leave... and with more dates since there will not be NFL games there.

Argh, with no Charger's $$ the lot won't be kept up at all. :(

RandyC

07-15-2009, 04:04 PM

My thinking is that with the knowledge that it costs over $10mil a year to keep the stadium open, once the Chargers leave, there is almost no revenue coming in. The SDSU contract is silly for the city and the 14 people that pay to attend don't buy that much beer and hotdogs.

The city will find a way to get out of the SDSU contract.

RandyC

07-15-2009, 04:04 PM

Argh, with no Charger's $$ the lot won't be kept up at all. :(

They are maintaining it now???

Quote from previous Stadium Manager "with the constant threat of the Chargers leaving, and knowing that if they leave, we are tearing this building down... we are choosing to not invest any money into the stadium"

Steve35

07-15-2009, 04:57 PM

They have a half hearted attempt now. They did patch the the SW lot a little. The gates have been painted. Just minor things. But there will be a no attempt if the Chargers leave.

woodrufj

07-16-2009, 11:08 AM

My thinking is...
The city will find a way to get out of the SDSU contract.

Probably with some of the $50+ million that will come from the chargers.

Jay W

MX5bob

07-16-2009, 12:02 PM

Probably with some of the $50+ million that will come from the chargers.

Jay W

From the city's perspective, the Chargers leaving sooner is better. Enough money to service the bond debt and plan for something that generates revenue. Getting out of the SDSU contract won't be that hard.

turbo6

07-19-2009, 03:47 PM

I know its a super long stretch, but what about finding people/companies to sponsor us as it might give them a chance to advertise as well. I mean its not the best or most political per se, but what choices do we have to keep motorsports in SD. And hey maybe it might bring in other forms of racing and help autocross become more well known.

Doc Hawk

07-21-2009, 08:08 PM

It's not that big of a stretch. SDRev.com is doing this right now with pretty good success with the Grassroots Motorsports San Diego Grand Challenge. We have brought in two dozen brand-new autocrossers, and from what I am hearing, about a half dozen of them are already hooked after one event, and they will be bringing their own (additional) cars to the next SCCA/Grand Challenge autocross.

The series is fully sponsored, and it drew enough attention to not lose money in its very first year. I know that "we didn't lose money" sounds lackluster to the uninitiated, but for those of you in the know, it's a pretty good start in this town, in this economy, in this industry. The SCCA in general, and several key people in particular, have been exceptionally helpful and gracious in partnering with us to bring new people to the track. I hope that we can continue to build on these sorts of things, and contribute to the sustainable growth of racing in the San Diego area.

Having said all that, there is ultimately a line that must be observed. Since the SCCA operates as a non-profit organization, I believe there are limits on commercial involvement. If we go too far in creating a market and marketable product, we may "success" ourselves right out of our own bylaws. Region Board members would have better insight into this than I do.

mcontour

07-28-2009, 08:26 PM

Came in on the tail end of a news story.....something about the Aztecs signing a multi year deal with the stadium.....

Anyone have details??

cpasti

07-28-2009, 08:47 PM

It's in the paper today, 10 year deal (although that may have been a 2007 start as it seems they've been negotiating since then). The city and staium get about $30-$40K more per game. Can be canceled by either party with 5 years notice. Hopeful.

SVTfocus

08-01-2009, 11:58 AM

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/aug/01/1n1qualcomm22273-sdsu-might-expand-campus-stadium-/?education&zIndex=142239

By Craig Gustafson

STAFF WRITER
2:00 a.m. August 1, 2009

-
DETAILS
San Diego State University: Founded in 1897, the roughly 300-acre campus is the largest university in the county, serving about 35,000 students.

Qualcomm Stadium: Built in 1967, the 71,500-seat stadium is surrounded by 120 acres of parking lots and an adjacent practice field.

San Diego State University would expand its campus three trolley stops away in Mission Valley under a plan being discussed by school and city officials.

Where exactly? At the 166-acre Qualcomm Stadium site.

The proposal, which is preliminary but quickly gaining support, would not affect the stadium where the Chargers and Aztecs play football. It does, however, call for displacing some of the 18,000 parking spaces to make way for student and faculty housing, research facilities and a riverfront park.

Mayor Jerry Sanders and SDSU President Stephen Weber have begun discussions in recent weeks on the possibility of the university using the land as a solution to significant problems at the city and the university.

Since the Padres left for Petco Park, Qualcomm Stadium has been a drag on the city's bottom line, losing $12.5 million last year. A lease or sale to the university could reverse those numbers as the city faces perpetual budget woes.

The university has wanted to expand for years but is landlocked on its 300 acres south of Interstate 8, about two miles east of the stadium. The trolley connects the stadium and the campus, partly alleviating concerns about traffic.

“As we're looking at some options for different things, I think this one makes some sense,” Sanders said. “There's some beauty to it in some ways where we've got the biggest parking lot west of the Mississippi and we could have the front door to San Diego State there.”

The proposal isn't without problems. Parking spaces would be replaced with structures. And no construction could begin until the city resolves contamination issues beneath the city-owned stadium.

The city has sued Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, owners of a fuel tank farm that has seeped petroleum into the ground beneath the stadium and its parking lot, to speed the removal of the contamination. The cleanup has been bogged down in regulatory and court hearings for 17 years.

Sandy Goodkin, a real estate consultant and analyst, said a campus expansion is one of the more interesting proposals he's heard for future use of the site. But Goodkin said he doesn't see where the money would come from or how the university could overcome critics of its previous development efforts.

The stadium site “is something that I think the people think belongs to them, and they're going to be very finicky about who would come in and take it over,” said Goodkin, who recently served as a board member for the SDSU Research Foundation, a nonprofit auxiliary.

Murray Galinson, a former California State University trustee and chairman of the board of San Diego National Bank, is credited with bringing the proposal from the water cooler to the negotiating table by getting Sanders and Weber together.

“San Diego State needs to expand, the city has a piece of property that is losing millions upon millions a year, and it seems like a good opportunity for two governmental entities to work together in very tough times,” Galinson said. “And taxpayers are going to win because of this.”

Sanders has tapped Galinson to lead an advisory group of about a dozen community leaders to flesh out details of how a campus expansion would work at Qualcomm Stadium.

The mayor said he is open to discussing any possibility that will save money for city taxpayers.

Weber said the university has several capital projects, including a new residence hall, scheduled for construction over the next five years. Those buildings could end up at the stadium site if things progress fast enough, though he cautioned that discussions are at an early stage.

“Any time we have the possibility of acquiring more land and thereby the ability to serve future students and serve the future growth of San Diego, we're interested in that,” Weber said.

The university cannot use state funds to build or lease research facilities, so it relies on federal funds and money raised by its foundation to pay for such projects, Weber said.

None of those involved in the discussion could say how much the California State University system, which oversees SDSU and 22 other campuses, would invest in the proposed expansion, though it would likely cost tens of millions of dollars to buy just a small piece of the site.

Any plan would need to be approved by CSU trustees and the City Council.

Councilwoman Donna Frye, who represents Mission Valley, said she is open to the proposal but would insist on creating a 75-acre park along the San Diego River, which runs along the south end of the site. She questioned whether additional housing in the area is a good idea.

“I'm not sure how Mission Valley can take much more traffic,” Frye said.

Gail Thompson, a member of the Mission Valley Unified Planning Group, said he would support any proposal that takes advantage of the underutilized stadium site as long as the city cleans up the contaminated soil and eases potential traffic concerns.

“More should be done with it. . . . It's a big drain on the city right now,” Thompson said.

Mark Fabiani, a spokesman for the Chargers' stadium efforts, said the team is continuing to look for a new stadium site elsewhere in the county and supports the city's efforts to maximize the Qualcomm property's value.

“We wish the city and the state of California all the best in their discussions,” Fabiani said.

The team will play at Qualcomm Stadium next season, but it can explore a relocation deal with other cities between Feb. 1 and May 1 each year until its lease with the city expires after the 2020 season. The Chargers are currently eyeing the site of a defunct drive-in theater on state Route 76 in Oceanside.

cpasti

08-01-2009, 12:27 PM

Puts the 10 year lease in perspective.

Bimota Guy

08-01-2009, 03:38 PM

Mark Fabiani, a spokesman for the Chargers' stadium efforts, said the team is continuing to look for a new stadium site elsewhere in the county and supports the city's efforts to maximize the Qualcomm property's value.

“We wish the city and the state of California all the best in their discussions,” Fabiani said.

The team will play at Qualcomm Stadium next season, but it can explore a relocation deal with other cities between Feb. 1 and May 1 each year until its lease with the city expires after the 2020 season. The Chargers are currently eyeing the site of a defunct drive-in theater on state Route 76 in Oceanside.
What a disingenuous dirtbag.

MX5bob

08-03-2009, 08:32 AM

“There's some beauty to it in some ways where we've got the biggest parking lot west of the Mississippi and we could have the front door to San Diego State there.”

There's an unsubstantiated statement of fact I wouldn't be too quick to believe. :rolleyes:

RandyC

08-03-2009, 08:40 AM

Based on my personal experience, I don't believe ANYTHING said by the spokespeople from SDSU.

In the end, it is all about the money for both SDSU and the Chargers. The losers will be the people that use the lot.

RandyC

08-03-2009, 08:41 AM

What a disingenuous dirtbag.

My assessment is not as harsh... but he is saying what he is paid to say. :)

Most people buy the spin. So it works.

MX5bob

08-03-2009, 02:45 PM

My assessment is not as harsh... but he is saying what he is paid to say. :)

Most people buy the spin. So it works.

It's more polite than no comment and worth just as much.

The key part of the story is the ongoing legal battle over the tank farm's pollution. Already at 17 years, it could easily go another decade. Do they even know how far the plume extends?

RandyC

09-24-2009, 11:13 AM

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/sep/24/anxiety-over-bolts-future-home-reality/

The football stadium proposed for the City of Industry is still more of a theoretical threat to San Diego than an encroaching danger. It is still more of a developer's dream than a Chargers fan's nightmare.

Yet an out-of-court settlement reached Tuesday night with the city of Walnut has cleared another roadblock and created a new wave of anxiety.

Doubts are dwindling. Fears are growing. Majestic Realty's Ed Roski has yet to stick a ceremonial shovel in the ground up there, but his maneuvers are making those people paying attention mighty nervous down here.

“The business of football is business,” said Geoff Patnoe, a government relations consultant who served on former Mayor Dick Murphy's Citizens Task Force on Chargers Issues. “This (settlement) could certainly be a sign that the final minutes for Chargers football in San Diego could be on the horizon.”

Chargers spokesman Mark Fabiani said yesterday that there was nothing new on the Roski front and that the team's stadium efforts remain focused on San Diego County. Nonetheless, both San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders and California Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher have seen poaching potential in bill ABX3 81, a measure designed to grant the City of Industry an exemption to state environmental building regulations.

The bill sailed through the Assembly earlier this month and likely spurred the city of Walnut to settle its lawsuit. It has certainly contributed to the level of friction between San Diego's political leadership and its football franchise.

“We were very disappointed that San Diego politicians, such as Jerry Sanders and Nathan Fletcher, reflexively (and as it turns out, irrationally) moved to block Roski's attempt in Sacramento to secure an EIR exemption,” Fabiani wrote in response to an e-mail question. “To us, this was typical of San Diego politics: Instead of trying to find solutions, the focus always seems to be on blocking someone else from doing something.

“So, instead of saying, ‘Roski deserves his EIR exemption — and so do we, here in San Diego,’ the San Diego politicians declared open war on the L.A. legislative delegation that was supporting Roski. The end result, of course, is that if we ever try for such an exemption here in San Diego (and not just for the Chargers, but for any business that might need one to locate in San Diego), the L.A. delegation will retaliate and block us.”

Another interpretation would be that because strapped local governments lack the funds to compete with billionaire entrepreneurs on stadium projects, they have little choice but to play legislative defense to protect their interests.

If you can't outspend the competition, you had better be able to outflank them. With the Chargers' window to entertain out-of-town offers due to reopen on Feb. 1, the city may be running low on flanking maneuvers.

“The mayor has been very clear he wants to keep the Chargers in the San Diego region,” said Sanders spokesman Darren Pudgil. “And based on what the Chargers have told us, they want to remain here. Therefore, we were surprised by the tone of Mr. Fabiani's statement.

“We are sincere in our interest to keep the team here and have supported their efforts in Chula Vista and more recently in Escondido. We have and will continue to work with the team to find a solution that keeps them in San Diego County. Dean Spanos and the mayor have had a good dialogue, which the mayor hopes to continue. He values the Chargers and their contribution and commitment to our community.”

Andrew Kiefer, Fletcher's chief of staff, called Fabiani's comments “baffling and misleading,” and said, “he clearly has no grasp of the facts.”

“Angry rhetoric and name-calling doesn't help the situation,” Kiefer said, “but we remain committed to finding a solution that keeps the Chargers in San Diego.”

Prizing the Chargers, though, does not mean playing doormat for them. If San Diego is to lose the team, no politician will want to be seen as complicit. If San Diego is to keep the Chargers, political leaders should be vigilant about initiatives that could help facilitate their exit, such as ABX3 81.

To that end, Fletcher proposed extending the bill to cover all California cities or amending it to prevent the exemption from being used to “cannibalize” existing California franchises. Those flanking maneuvers failed.

Beyond its implications for professional football, whether a stadium warrants an environmental shortcut unavailable to other projects is a fair question. That the Chargers are rooting for Roski is beyond question.

Even if Team Spanos is as reluctant to move as Fabiani has steadfastly insisted, stadium projects generate more traction when citizens perceive a realistic threat of their franchise relocating. Thus Ed Roski need not be the Chargers' landlord in order to give them leverage.

His project — intended, ultimately, to house two NFL teams — serves to make stadium matters more urgent in both San Diego and Minnesota, underscores the market shortcomings of both Buffalo and Jacksonville and supplies the St. Louis (nee Los Angeles) Rams with a homecoming scenario.

Not all of these teams can move to the City of Industry, of course, but all of them can be expected to exploit the idea of sharing a stadium as the New York Giants and Jets do in New Jersey. “I guess my reaction is that L.A. has had a hard enough time over the last 15 years getting one NFL team,” Fabiani said. “It seems a stretch to think that all of a sudden two teams are going to give it a try.”

It seems a longer stretch to think of a new football stadium in San Diego.

RandyC

09-28-2009, 02:57 PM

The Chargers' lease expires in 2020 and gives the team from Feb. 1 to May 1 every year to notify the city of an intent to move. The team's cost to break its lease is $54.6 million next year but the amount falls to $25.8 million in 2011, which has led to speculation that if the team departs, it would do so in two years.

2-1-2010 thru 5-1-2010. If Chargers leave, pay city $54.6m
2-1-2011 thru 5-1-2011. If Chargers leave, pay city $25.8m

As noted, nobody knows if we will have access to the site, or how long we will, once the Chargers announce they are leaving. The city intends on bulldozing the site, but that could take years. But in the meantime, what happens? Do they put a padlock on the gate and only leave security? Or does it stay as business as usual. There is some doubt because it becomes harder to justify having a stadium authority and that budget. What we (and the others that use the lot) pay is noise level. No pun intended.

Potential site being discussed in Escondido.

RandyC

10-07-2009, 12:59 PM

Yikes. Important data points-

They intend on talkiing to teams after February. 6 teams. Most of those 6 teams have stadium leases that would be hard to break.

Chargers can talk to possible sites.... in February.

In 2010, a departure would cost the team $54.6 million, but the termination fee drops to $25.8 million in 2011.

“The (relocation window) this year opened and closed, and we didn't do anything,” Fabiani said. “We anticipate that the one next year will open and close, and we won't do anything.”Note, he specifically says THE ONE NEXT YEAR. Right, so for 2010, nothing changes. Pretend to be looking at sites in San Diego and tell us why they won't work and point fingers at the bad politicians. But no mention about 2011. This guy is good.

Semcken said the NFL could return to the area in 2010 but more likely in 2011 and that a team would play close by before moving to Industry in 2013.Who could move in 2010? Chargers would be probably the only team that could move next year. The rest are locked in. Most likely in 2011? Yeah, because of the 25mil they save from waiting a year and the stadium will not be done until 2013 anyway.

Anyone else reading the handwriting on the wall? Who knows what will happen or change in the following two years. But if I was a betting man, I bet that the Chargers will play out 2010 next year and announce in 2011 they are moving to LA and they tried, sorry. But their hands were tied and it did not work out. Welcome to the SoCal Chargers. Playing in the Roski stadium. That means the future of the stadium lot would be up in the air as of February 2011.

Developers to test Chargers' interest in move to L.A.
By Matthew T. Hall
Union-Tribune Staff Writer

8:13 p.m. October 6, 2009

OVERVIEW

Background: Developers want to bring professional football back to the Los Angeles area with a privately financed $800 million stadium in Industry.

What's changing: They intend to approach half a dozen National Football League teams, including the San Diego Chargers, in February about relocating.

The future: The Chargers expect to be exploring options countywide come 2010, but after each season can pay a termination fee to leave San Diego.

The developers who want to bring professional football back to the Los Angeles area said Tuesday that they'll approach the San Diego Chargers and five other teams in February about moving as early as next season.

Majestic Realty Co. Vice President John Semcken III revealed his intentions at a breakfast gathering of the Orange County Business Industry Association in Costa Mesa. He made headlines more than a year ago with a pronouncement he had “no doubt” that a National Football League team would be playing in Los Angeles in 2009.

On Tuesday, Semcken hadn't lost any of his optimism.

He said the state Senate will help clear a last hurdle for an $800 million, 600-acre stadium project in the city of Industry by Oct. 15 – either via legislation, already passed by the Assembly, to bypass state environmental laws – or by negotiations Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg arranged last month.

“Come next week, our stadium will be approved,” Semcken said. “Then we'll be able to go out and buy a football team.”

It may not be that easy, of course.

The Chargers, for one, “expect and hope” to be playing in San Diego next season, said Mark Fabiani, point person on the team's push for a new stadium.

The team has a three-month window every February to inform San Diego city officials by letter that it's leaving town, breaking a lease that has the Chargers playing at Qualcomm Stadium through 2020. In 2010, a departure would cost the team $54.6 million, but the termination fee drops to $25.8 million in 2011.

“The (relocation window) this year opened and closed, and we didn't do anything,” Fabiani said. “We anticipate that the one next year will open and close, and we won't do anything.”

After exploring potential stadium sites in National City, Oceanside and Chula Vista in recent years, the team is discussing options in Escondido and downtown San Diego. Majestic briefed team executives about its private financing plans in 2008.

Semcken said new talks would begin after the Super Bowl in February, and may involve the Jacksonville Jaguars, the Buffalo Bills, the Minnesota Vikings, the St. Louis Rams, the Chargers and the Oakland Raiders.

The San Francisco 49ers could also be pursued if a vote for a new stadium in Santa Clara fails.

“There are at least seven teams that are having an issue,” Semcken said. “San Francisco, I think they're fine. So the other six teams, one of those six will move to our stadium.”

Semcken said the NFL could return to the area in 2010 but more likely in 2011 and that a team would play close by before moving to Industry in 2013.

He did not say how big a stake his boss, billionaire Ed Roski Jr., would want in whatever team relocated. He also didn't mention that unless Roski sells the Silverton hotel and casino he's owned in Las Vegas since 1997 that the NFL won't let Roski buy a team.

Roski is a friend of the Spanos family, which owns the Chargers. He was recently named the 236th richest American by Forbes magazine, with a net worth of $1.5 billion, and is a minority owner of the Los Angeles Lakers and Kings and built the Staples Center where the Lakers play.

At the Orange County builders' breakfast, Semcken said the NFL has no interest in expanding beyond the existing 32 teams at this stage, but it does seem high on the prospect of returning to Los Angeles 15 years since the departure of the Raiders and Rams.

The project consists of a 75,000-seat stadium, 25,000 parking spots, 1.1 million square feet of retail, 1.4 million square feet of offices, practice fields, an orthopedic facility and room for an adjunct football Hall of Fame.

Perhaps it was just an unintentional reference to the team that has called San Diego home since 1961, but when Semcken was done Tuesday, home builder Dave Bartlett said, “I don't know about anyone else, but I'm charged up.”

RandyC

10-07-2009, 01:00 PM

Just to show that the contracts signed with SDSU do not mean Qualcomm will live after the Chargers leave.

http://www.examiner.com/x-7530-San-Diego-Sports-Examiner~y2009m10d6-San-Diego-bowl-games-and-Aztecs-to-follow-Chargers-to-new-stadium (http://www.examiner.com/x-7530-San-Diego-Sports-Examiner%7Ey2009m10d6-San-Diego-bowl-games-and-Aztecs-to-follow-Chargers-to-new-stadium)

The San Diego Bowl Association and San Diego State are willing to move its football games to Escondido if the San Diego Chargers are able to build their new facility in the North County city.
Officials for the Holiday Bowl, Poinsettia Bowl, SDSU and the CIF-San Diego Section told the North County Times that they will move with the Chargers to a new facility anywhere in San Diego (http://nctimes.com/news/local/escondido/article_9d723510-bf50-5ba1-9d26-4006746e8488.html).
The only problems that would arise, especially for the bowl games, is lack of hotel space and attractions in Escondido.
But the executive director for both games says that that won’t be too much of a problem for the Holiday Bowl or Poinsettia Bowl.
“There are many bowl games where they don't have a lot of hotels in the backyard of the stadium," Bruce Binkowski told the NC Times. "That would be a minor inconvenience.”
A few bowl games, like the Las Vegas Bowl and the Armed Forces Bowl in Fort Worth, Texas are miles from any substantial hotel space.
The Las Vegas Bowl is still miles away from the sprawling hotel space of the Las Vegas Strip and TCU—where the Armed Forces Bowl is held—is a freeways drive from the major hotels in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
Traveling the 30 miles to Escondido to play home games doesn’t seem to be a problem either for San Diego State.
Though the campus is currently just two trolley stops away from Qualcomm Stadium, the university can send bus loads of students—or even fans—to Escondido for Aztecs home game at a new facility. Other universities do it, like UCLA which sends students almost an hour away to Pasadena.
The University of Minnesota used to bus students to the Metrodome before building an on-campus facility for the start of this season.
And many Florida schools travel long distances for home games (South Florida, Central Florida and Miami all play in stadiums that are not adjacent to their campuses).
"There's never been a question that we would follow them," San Diego State athletic director Jeff Schemmel told the NC Times. "There are a lot of schools where students have to drive to games."
Of course, a new football stadium in either Chula Vista or National City would be more beneficial for the Bowl Association and for San Diego State.
But when a new facility calls, you have to follow.
It wasn’t like the bowl games or the Aztecs were just going to stay at Qualcomm Stadium and let the Chargers enjoy all the new facilities.
But this stands true for any new stadium that is built in San Diego county. Whether the Chargers build in National City, Chula Vista, Escondido, Oceanside or even in San Diego, the Holiday Bowl and the Aztecs will follow.

chapmanr

10-07-2009, 01:23 PM

cpasti

10-07-2009, 01:35 PM

Traveling the 30 miles to Escondido to play home games doesn’t seem to be a problem either for San Diego State.

I'll also be willing to drive 10 miles north to Escondido to autocross in the new stadium lot compared to 10 miles south in today's stadium lot :)

RandyC

10-07-2009, 01:40 PM

I think it will be at least a year before the credit markets will be receptive to providing private (or even quasi public) financing for a football stadium. And, no one is going to back it unless a team is already signed.

So, if the Chargers plan on relocating anywhere before 2013 or 2014 (allowing for construction time), it would have to be to an area which already has a stadium.

Also, any plan that depends on selling expensive skyboxes would be a hard sell for the foreseeable future.

The plan as I understand it would be for the team to play in the existing stadium that the Raiders used to play in until the Roski stadium is done.

Expensive skyboxes are a lot easier to sell in LA than the smaller market of San Diego.

RandyC

10-07-2009, 01:40 PM

cpasti

10-07-2009, 02:17 PM

So a little more damage if we miss the apex pillar instead of the apex cone :(

froggy47

10-07-2009, 03:27 PM

:rotflmao:

chapmanr

10-07-2009, 04:56 PM

I was talking with a couple of our longer term members a few days ago, and they were reminiscing about having an autox at the parking garage of a local college. Grid was on one level, the course was spread across two others.

I'm having visions of the parking garage drifts in F&F 3.

RandyC

10-07-2009, 05:35 PM

Steve35

10-07-2009, 05:38 PM

RandyC

10-07-2009, 05:39 PM

j_rho

10-08-2009, 08:01 AM

I was talking with a kart racer. He told me he does this in the some of the parking garages late at night. For 15 minutes and then gets out before law enforcement arrive. lol

Not condoning such things! :)

Weak sauce, try this!
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=19265440

:rock2:

RandyC

10-23-2009, 11:31 PM

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/financial-crime-politics/2009/oct/23/fabiani-quote-suggests-chargers-la-move-may-be-don/

If another NFL team occupies a new stadium under consideration in City of Industry in the Los Angeles market, "It would be financially catastrophic for the Chargers," Mark Fabiani, the team's spokesman, told Gene Cubbison of KNSD-TV yesterday (Oct. 22). "We're in a bad financial situation now; we'd be in a much worse situation if there was a team in Los Angeles," Fabiani intoned. Of course, he was not telling the truth. The Chargers are not in a bad financial situation. They are making plenty of money at Qualcomm Stadium. It's just that they want to rake in more money. The Chargers deny it, but they want to occupy that City of Industry stadium, if it is ever built. The Chargers can never get the kind of money they want from luxury boxes, club seats, advertising, and sponsorships in San Diego. Teams get to keep such revenue -- not having to share it with other teams. Fabiani told Cubbison that the team gets 30% of such revenue from the L.A. market -- another dubious statement.
There are 17.1 million people in the L.A. market, compared with 3.1 million in San Diego. L.A. has many more companies and superrich families that would put bodies in the luxury boxes and seats. Fabiani's remark means that he is putting pressure on the league to let the Chargers move. Other teams, such as Jacksonville, Minnesota, and Oakland, covet L.A.
Fabiani's statement "makes the obvious obvious," says former Councilmember Bruce Henderson. "It's basically over with, although the team may not yet have made a deal with other owners." Other owners no doubt fear an uprising in San Diego, such as the one that mushroomed in Cleveland when the Browns left.

Fabiani's statement "makes the obvious obvious," says former Councilmember Bruce Henderson. "It's basically over with, although the team may not yet have made a deal with other owners."

RandyC

11-10-2009, 02:06 PM

Some positive movement to building a new stadium downtown.

Chargers, city are discussing downtown
15-acre site near Petco Park eyed for $1 billion project
By Matthew T. Hall

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at midnight

SAN DIEGO — After years of watching other cities tease the Chargers with talk of a new stadium, San Diego has become the team's leading suitor again by dangling the possibility of professional football near Petco Park. Mayor Jerry Sanders discussed the downtown idea in a private meeting with team President Dean Spanos two weeks ago. That prompted Escondido to stop wooing the team while San Diego revisits the stadium issue for the first time since 2006 when the Chargers rejected rebuilding at the Qualcomm Stadium site and began exploring options elsewhere in the county.

The focus on downtown has fueled optimism among community leaders and created anxiety among property owners who might be displaced by a $1 billion stadium project.

The roughly 15 acres being eyed for a stadium includes city-owned Tailgate Park close to Petco Park, the privately owned Wonder Bread building and the bus yard for the San Diego Transit Corp., owned by the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System.

Sanders has long said he would oppose using public funds toward construction of a new stadium, but mayoral spokesman Darren Pudgil said yesterday that the Mayor's Office is looking at all of the ways cities have helped with stadium construction. Pudgil said two options could be infrastructure financing and borrowing money against future redevelopment revenues downtown.

Everyone from team officials to potentially affected property owners say the project's financing is its main hurdle.

"Somehow, somebody still has to come up with the money to build this big, expensive stadium," said Bob Sinclair, who owns the Wonder Bread building. "I don't know how they're going to get over that delta for the cost."

Sanders and Spanos met for about an hour on Oct. 27 at the La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club. It was their first meeting since Jan. 7, although city and team officials have talked since then. Sanders called Spanos in July and early October, and Sanders' aides met with a team representative in April, May and mid-October. Future meetings will explore the city's role in the project.

In an interview last week, Sanders said contacts are more frequent now because the political landscape has changed since April 2006 when he said San Diego lacks the time and money to focus on a new Chargers stadium.

In particular, Sanders said, the city has a less combative city attorney since Jan Goldsmith replaced Michael Aguirre and the team has stopped exploring sites in Chula Vista, National City and Oceanside.

"I don't want to say the Chargers were not important because they were, but I think that after four years, we certainly have to give them a signal on what we intend to do or how we want to do it or what we can do," Sanders said. "And then start working together to see if we can achieve a solution."

Sanders and Spanos have met privately three other times, once in January 2006, about six weeks after the mayor took office, and twice in October 2006.

Building a football stadium downtown has been kicked around San Diego before. In 2003, the year before Petco Park opened, then-Mayor Dick Murphy's citizens task force on Chargers issues examined a downtown stadium site while studying a replacement or upgrade of Qualcomm Stadium.

At the time, the task force noted that building on the large bus storage facility in East Village was an option but would require a relocation of the fleet and likely an environmental cleanup. On the plus side, it found, the area has 57,000 parking spaces within 1.5 miles.

Property owners in the area are mixed on the idea of a downtown stadium. Sinclair, whose Wonder Bread building on 14th Street dates to 1898 and is about 20 percent leased, said the location makes sense for a stadium because it is accessible, has ample parking, is made up of only a handful of parcels and probably isn't too contaminated from the buses.

While some people believe the team may eventually give in to the temptation of a new stadium proposed for the Los Angeles-area City of Industry, Sinclair expects the team to stay local.

"If they're reasonable enough, they could make a deal with everybody on our little block," he said.

Yet Eddie Zaitona, the longtime owner of Logan Market & Liquor on 16th Street, which could be in the stadium's footprint, doesn't want to leave.

City officials have not ruled out using their eminent domain powers for the stadium, Pudgil said yesterday. For now, the city and team are agreeing to a series of regular meetings to study the stadium concept.

Escondido Mayor Lori Holt Pfeiler said she will stand by in case talks break down in San Diego, but she isn't hoping for that outcome.

"The way I see it, we're all engaged in trying to make sure the Chargers stay in San Diego," she said. "I think (the downtown San Diego location) is a beautiful site."

Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani, the point person on the team's stadium search, has long said a downtown stadium makes financial sense because infrastructure improvements to accommodate a stadium of up to $1 billion elsewhere could cost $200 million, but they are a fraction of that downtown.

Both Fabiani and Sanders said they want to know quickly if the site is economically feasible for the team. A site of that size would be among the National Football League's smallest stadium footprints.

One of the first matters of business will be conducting a financial analysis to figure out how a project might be financed and to what extent the city might be involved. One possibility is some of the money for the project could come from selling or developing the city-owned 166-acre Qualcomm Stadium site, which the team would leave vacant.

Fabiani attended the Oct. 27 meeting between Sanders and Spanos with Kris Michell, Sanders' chief of staff, and Fred Maas, board chairman of the Centre City Development Corp., the city's downtown redevelopment arm.

The potential site is located entirely in the city's downtown redevelopment area, which may present financing opportunities because redevelopment law allows property tax dollars to be pumped back into an area in large sums. But it could mean competition with other projects for a limited pool of money.

Richard Rider, a longtime taxpayer advocate who ran for mayor in 2005 against Sanders, said the Chargers shouldn't count on any handout, including redevelopment bonds.

"I don't think the taxpayers are going to want to subsidize a new football stadium when we have a perfectly good football stadium more centrally located in Mission Valley," he said.

But Ben Haddad, board chairman at the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, is excited that Sanders and Spanos are again in regular contact.

"If folks can agree at the highest levels on a particular course of action, then I want to be in there right behind them as a business leader trying to get that done," Haddad said.

RandyC

11-17-2009, 02:40 PM

The downtown stadium is gaining steam. Escondido has tabled all discussions.

CCDC to Hire Stadium Consultant

The Centre City Development Corp. is officially jumping into the Chargers stadium search.

The city's downtown redevelopment agency's board will consider Wednesday (http://www.ccdc.com/events/resources/Item%2013%20-%20BBK.pdf) whether to spend $160,000 to hire Evolution Media Capital, a consulting firm that provides advice about paying for major projects. The company is a sports financing arm of the Creative Artists Agency, the Hollywood talent firm.

If CCDC's board approves the contract, it would formalize the city agency's role in the stadium search less than a month after Mayor Jerry Sanders met with Chargers President Dean Spanos to talk about potential downtown stadium sites (http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2009/11/03/government/222chargers103009.txt).

Fred Maas, CCDC's chairman, said Evolution will examine the site east of Petco Park that includes the Wonder Bread building (http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2009/10/30/this_just_in/164wonderchargers103009.txt) and Metropolitan Transit System lot. CCDC wants to know how other stadiums have been paid for, Maas said, how CCDC may contribute and how such a project -- estimated to cost as much as $1 billion -- could be financed.

The answers to those questions, as my colleague Liam Dillon has pointed out, are tough for the Chargers -- whether it's downtown or in Los Angeles (http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2009/11/16/government/221chargers110409.txt).

CCDC could help pay for some of the stadium's cost, Maas said. Over the remainder of its life, CCDC expects to collect about $390 million more in tax revenue that isn't yet committed to subsidize any specific projects, Maas said. But the agency would not contribute that much toward a stadium, he said. "I can't see that happening," he said.

"Candidly, we're not totally convinced the stadium works there," Maas said, "but we are convinced it's worth looking at the site."

Evolution's effort will be led by Mitchell Ziets, a stadium financing expert. Here's what the SportsBusiness Journal (https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/63229) says about him:
Ziets specializes in stadium leases, financing and franchise valuation. ... Over two decades, he has provided financing counsel on more than 40 new stadiums and arenas and advised buyers on acquisitions of teams including the Los Angeles Dodgers, Cleveland Cavaliers, Anaheim Ducks and Washington Nationals.
Maas said Ziets' effort didn't have a specific timeframe for completion, but that initial work should be complete within three to four months.

woodrufj

11-20-2009, 10:52 AM

RandyC

11-20-2009, 11:47 AM

I heard something on the radio a few days ago about San Diego pitching the use of QualComm stadium for possible World Cup (soccer) bids. FIFA officials actually went and inspected it, then deemed is good for use. These bids would be for 2018 or 2022! Seems like pretty long term planning on the city's part.

Jay W

I just read about them also pitching the use of a new downtown stadium for World Cup use.

yeah

Last week, a city official and sports booster traveled to New York City to make their case in front officials who are trying to bring the World Cup to the United States. Mayor Jerry Sanders held a press conference promoting the effort today, and the City Council will discuss the city's bid tomorrow, although it's not clear whether a new or half-century-old stadium will greet the world's top soccer teams.

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2009/11/16/this_just_in/060worldcup111609.txt

RandyC

06-24-2010, 11:34 AM

Update. On Tuesday June 22nd, the city council voted to approve the raise of the spending cap for CDCC. This is technically not a vote for a downtown stadium, but it opens the path for that to happen.

A vote against would have been a certain vote against a stadium. The council however was unanimous in voting for the raise of the cap. This means that $500,000 will be set aside for a study on the future requirements of downtown and where money should be allocated. This may include many other projects and also may include the new stadium.

Chargers referred to the vote as "pivotal."

This means that a possible stadium downtown might come up for a general vote in 2012.

This is actually good news for those that use the parking lot. The inevitable will happen, but it will take longer. The alternative, the Chargers going to Los Angeles (which could still easily happen) could occur much quicker. One theory was they may leave at the end of this coming season and play next year in an existing stadium in Los Angeles until the new Roski stadium is built. That means that as of Feb 2011, we could be looking at a dead stadium.

But going downtown means they would play here until the new stadium is built, and that will take years. A vote in 2012 means 2015 I would think at the earliest.

RandyC

10-20-2010, 03:16 PM

In regards to the previous post about a spending cap. The state passed legislation to no longer require the cap on spending. Basically, this opens up the way for the city to entertain the idea of a downtown stadium.

Governor signs redevelopment bill
Lifting revenue cap could help public money flow to new Chargers stadium

By Michael Gardner
Originally published October 19, 2010 at 4:41 p.m., updated October 19, 2010 at 6:33 p.m.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed controversial legislation to lift the cap on downtown redevelopment spending in San Diego, clearing a significant hurdle for efforts to build a new stadium for the Chargers and stimulate growth in the city’s urban core.

“We are not picking one city over the other, but we are trying to find ways of getting people to build and create jobs. That’s what this bill is about,” Schwarzenegger said Tuesday.

Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, R-San Diego, working in concert with San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders and Centre City Development Corp. leaders, quietly crafted the bill that will allow the city to spend billions more in redevelopment dollars instead of abiding by a cap of $2.9 billion set in 1992 and rapidly approaching.

San Diego County Supervisor Ron Roberts, initially skeptical, said he is more optimistic that the county and city will be able to negotiate a compromise on revenue sharing and project priorities.

“When you look at the entire table, it’s much bigger than the Chargers. It’s a vision for downtown.” Roberts said.

Signing the measure does have potential drawbacks for taxpayers. The state must backfill the property tax payments that would have otherwise gone to schools once the original cap was hit.

Also, the measure sets precedent. For example, some Los Angeles agencies are near their caps and will likely petition the Legislature for a similar deal that also would put pressure on the state budget.

Former San Diego Mayor and ex-Governor Pete Wilson weighed in during an interview Tuesday.

Wilson called Fletcher’s strategy to keep the bill under wraps an “adroit move” to ensure it would survive expected attacks from lawmakers representing Los Angeles, which has its eyes on the Chargers.

“Los Angeles and other cities are probably rightfully viewed as being in competition with San Diego to attract investment and job creation,” Wilson said.

The city had embarked on a lengthy study to determine whether the cap should be lifted. Wilson said that was time consuming and costly but critics say that public process — which was the law before the Fletcher measure — is now being circumvented.

Mindful of the public outcry, the city plans hearings eventually. City Councilman Carl DeMaio has said those hearings will have no impact, claiming “the deal’s been struck. These public forums are all for show.”