For seven years, the San Diego Chargers have said they would build a new stadium without using taxpayer money. Thursday, a team spokesman said otherwise.
"It’s almost certainly going to involve some sort of taxpayer money," said Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani, who has led the team’s stadium search since 2002.
Chargers say they need public money for stadium
This actually makes sense. The team, eyeing the downtown site, will not have enough room to develop the surrounding area to build a cash flow.
Also, the city doesn't seem to mind, saying that they can borrow the money against future taxes/revenue.
3 months ago
John Gennaro
19 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Too bad there isn't a sap town like arlington near san diego
that doesn’t mind handing a check for 400 million dollars to a billionaire
by not humble enough on Dec 10, 2009 8:49 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Wish my taxes went here like a 100%!
"It dont matter if you win or lose your still a loser... said the Chargers Fan"
by ChargersWitch on Dec 10, 2009 9:13 PM PST via mobile reply actions 0 recs
At least they are trying to be up front about
I remember reading about New Yankee Stadium and all the tax breaks, construction subsidies and parking revenue shenanigans that they pulled off with the city and the analysis said the city would have been better off if they’d just chipped in some dollar amount for the stadium up front. And that was for a team that truly didn’t need any public monies. Of course, the Chargers will probably get some of those things on top of the public money they are asking for (if they get anything). Not that I care, I’ll gladly chip in my tax dollars, its just the lawsuits and complaints from the other San Diegans I worry about.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
by Wonko on Dec 10, 2009 10:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think it's funny that people complain about their tax dollars going to fund a football stadium
when if I had a choice, that’s one thing I would actually be ok about my taxes going towards.
"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds
by Zach (maestro876) on Dec 10, 2009 11:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I typically like
Our socialized fire department. It’d be pretty crappy to have them put out your house and then send you a bill. I also probably wouldn’t be a fan of private corporations owning our streets and highways. Parks are also a nice touch.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
by Wonko on Dec 10, 2009 11:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If this were Green Bay
and the public actually owned some of the team, I’d be more okay with it.
But this is the Spanos family, and I’m not keen to subsidize. But I’m poor and won’t. I don’t even have cable, so the Spanos clan doesn’t get a cent from me (or very little, if anything —indirectly…).
Of course I root big-time for my hometown team. If the Chargers make it to the Super Bowl and win, I’ll celebrate with the whole city, but hold my nose when it comes to knowing the team’s ownership will be lining its coffers more…. Oh well, that’s the way it is: they’re the ones with the dough, and they took on the responsibility of owning the team — the city doesn’t own the team: they do; and there’s nothing fans can do about that. It’s a private “enterprise.”
That’s why I’d rather concern myself with the players on the field and how they’re performing…. I root for a team of guys. Not for a business venture.
I certainly don’t want the Bolts to bolt, but I don’t want to be blackmailed or strong-armed or threatened (or whatever more appropriate word you want to use) by Alex or Dean Spanos or friggin’ Mark Fabiani, who’s basically their spokesman, I guess.
by jctess on Dec 11, 2009 12:54 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
At some point
You have to realize that the team of guys is a business venture. And at some point you have to decide what the team is worth to you. If it’s worth nothing, then don’t give a hoot if they leave. If its worth something to you then it probably makes sense to invest. In this particular scenario, the city can take a little less property tax and probably survive. I don’t even know how that affects the average Joe taxpayer. Obviously, if you work for the city its less money in their coffers to pay you (or maybe more appropriately, your pension). If you live outside the city of San Diego, it probably doesn’t effect you either. I’m not even sure exactly how the city makes its money besides property taxes. Its not an income tax, so I guess its a sales tax. So, if you really don’t want to subsidize the Chargers, I guess just buy you stuff outside the city limits? I don’t know. I guess my point is that they aren’t going to come around and take the money right out of your pocket anyway if that’s what you’re really concerned about.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
by Wonko on Dec 11, 2009 3:02 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I find it funny how when things like this come along certain people abandon ship on democracy. I remember when Prop C was on the table, and eventually passed, there were so many people saying “I don’t have a problem with it, I just don’t feel like I should have to pay it because I don’t even like the Padres.” That’s not why it was approved. It was approved because it was good for the city and the community, obviously.
This will eventually be brought to a vote, and if the majority rules in favor you will have to pay. If the majority of people think it’s a bad idea, and that it wouldn’t strengthen and grow the city further (it would), then nobody pays. This isn’t going to be an a la carte bill, because this isn’t anarchy.
"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock
by John Gennaro on Dec 11, 2009 4:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
would it strengthen the city?
Who wins? The city? The Football team owner? There is already a ridiculous concentration of wealth in America. The fans? If it’s worth it. Pass the bond.
by not humble enough on Dec 11, 2009 9:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good for the city and community
Obviously, some of the benefits of a stadium coming to a city are somewhat dubious. But, if we are talking about a new football stadium then we are talking about Super Bowl and probably some more drawing power for a few years for the city’s 2 college bowl games (assuming the NCAA doesn’t adopt some playoff system and screw us). How great would a Super Bowl have been in a down economy?
I’ve also noticed that even though the new stadium effect for Petco has worn off on the locals, there are a number of people who go to conventions in San Diego and get tickets for a game. There has to be some sort of an effect where people booking conventions see the close stadium and that becomes a tipping factor in where they book it. Not to mention that it changes the whole atmosphere of the Gaslamp on a gameday. I have to think that a Chargers stadium in the Gaslamp would bring in a lot of business from the stadium crowd and those that just want to find a fun place to watch the game from nearby. At the Q, people either tailgate, watch and go home or park, watch and go home.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
by Wonko on Dec 11, 2009 9:51 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly
and, although Padres attendance may be down, the “new stadium effect” is still there in the surrounding community. It has tripled the size of San Diego’s “downtown” district of restaurants, condos, hotels, bars, etc. Building Qualcomm even further away from the gaslamp district (but still just a few blocks away) would stretch it even further and certainly wouldn’t hurt sales on those empty condo buildings.
You’re absolutely right that it would’ve been, and still is, a risk that’s worth taking for the city itself. This is not just the owners wanting a new stadium for the sake of having a new stadium, it’s the team needing it and the city being able to benefit from it.
"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock
by John Gennaro on Dec 11, 2009 10:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
rec'd
the process is important. Paying to own a football team and watching it is precisely different from paying to watch a football team. The venue will be useful for other things. And when you do something big, like building a stadium, you are taking risks. Living without risks isn’t living.
But paying for a new stadium so a billionaire can have more power is just stupid.
by not humble enough on Dec 11, 2009 9:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I really hope you’re not implying that the only reason a stadium is being built is so that the Spanos family can have more power. That’s ridiculous.
"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock
by John Gennaro on Dec 11, 2009 10:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right. The team is bigger then the family
It’s just a lot of money. And having a football team is a luxury, not a necessary element of a just society
by not humble enough on Dec 12, 2009 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
UT had an article on Saturday pointing out
That if the Chargers just stay at Qualcomm until 2020 it will cost the taxpayers at least $300 million in taxpayer since the city its responsible for all maintenance costs under the lease. I always forget about that aspect.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
by Wonko on Dec 12, 2009 2:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Call or Txt: 760-515-BFTB (2382)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
