To echo Jeff Siniard, "today is an important today as it regards the Chargers’ future in San Diego. I’m not sure if it’s the most important, but it’s certainly not inconsequential." I'd add to that, that today is an important day as it regards the future of San Diego, period.
Aside from a number of state and local propositions, the decision to affirm the Chargers' proposition is important to the city of San Diego, and as with all important decisions that have implications and a far reach pertaining to citizens and parties intertwined with the city and it's future, those decisions should be considered conscientiously and not as passionate matters of the heart.
As a disclosure, I will admit that I "root for the laundry" primarily, and that my experience as a sports fan isn't as typical as the majority of Chargers fans (and that likely has a lot to do with following and rooting for teams in sports that don't have a San Diego-centric team, such as Manchester City and the Los Angeles Lakers). That being said, before you get twisted up about that, given contributions from Chargers fans on this very website who call places as far as the United Kingdom home, you should probably come to appreciate that being a Charger fan and being a San Diegan are two non-mutually exclusive identities.
So then, if I'm a self-described fan of the team, why vote No?
Lack of Clarity/Transparency/Honesty
This is prompted by Padres Jagoff's tweet on the eve of the election, but essentially, the campaign around Proposition C has been rushed and poorly executed. The team only finally managed to bring Mayor Faulconer into the fold at the 11th hour (under some "assurances" as legally binding and flimsy as Manti Te'o's skeletal structure is durable), they have done a terrible job of outreaching to non-fans, and the financial arguments still perpetuated by the Yes on C crowd (stretching from the creation of numerous construction, concession, and hospitality jobs as though not-permanent nor seasonal to the utterly insane notion that building a football stadium in an already revitalized area of downtown San Diego will boost all property values throughout the city). The dubiousness on the subject of financial sense leads to the next point:
The Plan Doesn't Make Fiscal Sense
Jeff did a better job than I could at outlining this, but really there's no realistic way the stadium pays for itself or turns a profit for any party other than the Spanos family and NFL. That the hurried proposition seems to benefit or compliment only one party involved leads to the next issue:
The Chargers "Attempt" to Solve Everyone's Problems Doesn't Work For Almost Anyone But The Chargers
The convadium is being sold as a singular solution that works for all parties involved. It keeps the fans happy by keeping the Chargers in San Diego for generations (*cough*MaybeTwentyFiveYearsIfWe'reLucky*cough*), keeps Comic-Con in San Diego by building more convention center space not too far away from the convention center, the politicians in city hall able to keep their jobs, and ostensibly keeps the Padres happy by not leaving them as the only game in an increasingly less "big time" town. But as of writing, only city hall (not counting the hotelier lobby, which will always advocate against a TOT tax increase) seems to be the on board (presuming the Mayor speaks for the political class of the city). The convention center folk aren't supporting Prop C, partly since they weren't really involved in any part of the "conv" portion of the proposal (as well as what was touched on in Jeff's other article concerning Scott Sherman's line of (yet unanswered) questioning concerning how much dedicated space will be considered "convention" space) and partly due to scheduling issues (among other things). The Padres aren't on board either.
A stadium project of the size and magnitude of cost and risk as an NFL stadium in 2016 can't feasibly be advanced with only the Spanos family, the NFL and the Mayor on board a hastily cobbled together plan. Which leads to the most recent "approach" to the proposal:
Vote No Even If The Vote Is Now Allegedly "A Step In The Bargaining Process."
I'm pretty sure most of you reading this will be voting yes, and that's fine. I get why you'll do it, but if you do it, you cannot under any circumstances allow it to be a "Brexit" vote (as characterized by KNSD in the comment section of Jeff's most recent article). You should vote because you want Prop C, and all of the bells, whistles, and potential consequences, because you think it's the thing to keep the Chargers in San Diego.
I disagree vehemently with the approach of considering the vote a step in the bargaining process, the "even if you don't - like - Prop C, vote for it to show the Chargers you want to negotiate!". The city's willingness to negotiate with the Chargers is palpable, and frankly, by running away from the fact the team's machinations to leave town superseded it's genuine (or otherwise) attempts to remain and work with the city and it's integral partners, the team already has the mandate to come back with a better proposal.
There is nothing that we as an electorate are warranted to do to demonstrate our interest in keeping the team in San Diego. There are enough fans all over the world that patronize the team, buy it's merch (which I implore Mikey to stop doing as to not curse any more players by buying their jerseys) and actively support the San Diego Chargers. The impetus is on the Chargers and NFL to come back to the bargaining table, with all relevant parties, and develop a proposition that is even remotely sensible. Prop C and the downtown convadium is not that solution.
Thank you for your time.