Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Diego
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-11-2014, 08:26 PM
 
1,014 posts, read 1,561,613 times
Reputation: 2630

Advertisements

Now that a new G.O.P. mayor is ensconced, let the billionaire handouts begin. Exhibit A to steal money from the city to fund yet another money-losing stadium is the Manchester-owned San Diego Union Tribune, an excrement-laden excuse for a community newspaper.

The day Manchester took over the paper, the Union Tribune's stadium die was cast. According to Manchester, newspapers exist to cheerlead for sports stadiums. "Local newspapers need to be a cheerleader for what's right and good for the country, such as promoting the new stadium or whatever," said Manchester. San Diego Union-Trib owner: Newspapers are for backing stadiums. And with that, Manchester and the UT purged the newsroom of anyone who opposes stadium handouts for billionaire sports owners. See, e.g., Tim Sullivan, stadium "obstructionist," terminated from UT. See also The Fall Of The San Diego Union-Tribune.

This dubious prologue confirms nothing the Union Tribune says about a Charger stadium can be trusted; the paper is owned by vested interests whose only concern is their personal aggrandizement.

Fast forward to today, and the paper dropped this unbelievable, but disgustingly predictable, load: Should we pay to help Chargers stay? This putrid piece is filled with lies and outrageously false opinions masquerading as "fact." For example,

Quote:
But understand, San Diego taxpayers will need to contribute something big in order for the San Diego Chargers to continue being the San Diego Chargers.

That's fact.
Answer: no. Not fact. Merely because other cities were so utterly stupid to pay for billionaire sports stadiums does not -- not -- mean San Diego must also write a check to support the monopolistic NFL. If the Chargers want a stadium, fine, let Spanos and the NFL pay for it.

More lies:

Quote:
What we’re talking about here – as I understand the rough proposal, in its current, unofficial form -- is the city providing the Chargers land (the current stadium and sports arena sites) that right now is not only under-utilized but a drain on the city's finances. The Spanos family and their partners would develop that land, probably valued at about $250-$300 million, and the rest of the city's contribution would come from sales, hotel and property taxes generated by that development.

No money from the General Fund. No bond issue. No tax increases.


All things considered, that sounds fair.
And here comes the fraud. There are so many things wrong with this, it would take pages to properly explore them all. But let's start with the most glaring supposition: to build this billionaire palace, San Diego has to gift both the stadium land in Mission Valley and the sports arena land near Loma heights?


I am not religious, but I say to you, holy Christ, this is far worse than I would have imagined. This would constitute a massive, massive land giveaway, huge swaths of valuable San Diego real estate. And that supposed $300 million valuation? Bull. ****. That land is worth way, way more than that figure, a total lie. Does the UT not have a single reporter on staff who can look at the skyrocketing values of residential and commercial prices in Mission Valley, Midway and Point Loma and see that figure is laughably wrong?


And not only does San Diego lose the land (at least as I understand it), but San Diego also loses all revenue-generating activity from the land as well? This confirms nothing Acee writes can be trusted. If land revenues are diverted to a private sports franchise, that indeed is "money from the General Fund," it simply was gifted away from the City and to the Chargers.


The article yammers on and on, about how "this is the way it's done," a sophomoric argument devoid of validity. Merely because other localities have been fiscally stupid by paying for sports stadiums does not mean this idiocy must continue here, in San Diego.


One could go on and on and on. Please, bring on the vote, so I can submit a big, fat no to this disgusting taxpayer ripoff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-11-2014, 08:31 PM
 
Location: San Diego
50,057 posts, read 46,562,994 times
Reputation: 33895
Just hope it goes to a vote!!! We've seen enough back door deals at all levels of Govt recently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2014, 08:33 PM
 
1,014 posts, read 1,561,613 times
Reputation: 2630
Copied one excellent Union Buffoon comment they are sure to delete:

Quote:
John Oliver

Let's see... a new stadium would have to be built on free or heavily-subsidized land. Strike one. It would be built with mostly out-of-town (if not out-of-state) juiced-in contractors. Strike two. Ticket revenues would go to the Chargers. Concession sales would go to the Chargers. Parking revenue would go to the Chargers. In return, they'd pay a fraction of that amount as rent. Strikes three, four, five, and six. We would be expected to believe that a new stadium would fill seats at even higher ticket prices. Strike seven. We would be expected to believe that all of those seats would be filled by people who would buy at local restaurants and shops before and after the game (not during, remember... that revenue is for the Chargers). Strike eight. We would be expected to believe that out-of-town football fans would flood in to every game, spending money and paying hotel taxes. Yeah, right. Strike nine. And we're expected to believe that a Superbowl every couple of decades would flood in money (other than the money for tickets and concessions during the game... remember! That's for the Chargers!) that would overcome the debt service on the stadium.

There are three types of people who believe this... 1) the weak-minded; 2) those who are directly profiting from it; and 3) those who are so greedy that their love for the Chargers in particular or football in general creates a mandate for other people's money to be spent to subsidize their pastime. That's it.

The answer is no. The Chargers have enough of our money. And they would NEVER sign a deal that evens the scales... giving back revenue, guaranteeing to stay until the new stadium is paid off, etc. Either the deal is 100% tilted in their favor, or they threaten to take their ball and leave. I say let 'em go. We can watch them on TV or drive to LA to see a game in person. We'll save hundreds of millions, lose only millions, and be ahead of the game. Let the taxpayers of los Angeles take the hit here, if they're dumb enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2014, 08:39 PM
 
Location: San Diego
50,057 posts, read 46,562,994 times
Reputation: 33895
and 4. The people that are rabid fans and don't care about the negative impact of tossing free money to Billionaires THEY will have to help pay for. You'll see them at the stadium at 8 am getting wasted before the game.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2014, 09:04 PM
 
Location: Where they serve real ale.
7,242 posts, read 7,872,880 times
Reputation: 3497
I wish these fraudsters would all just go away but they won't. They've spent tens of millions buying politicians with the goal of getting to steal $1 billion from the taxpayers of this city and, sadly, lots of sports "fans" truly are stupid enough to vote to give it to them even while they wonder why the schools their kids go to have no money or why there streets are filled with potholes. It's all about priorities and if San Diegans vote for to allow this fraud to take place then I guess they deserve to have streets in worse condition than a third world country and for their kids to never learn to read.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2014, 09:41 PM
 
Location: La Mesa Aka The Table
9,776 posts, read 11,431,915 times
Reputation: 11827
Let's not make this a right against left issue.
Both side of the aisle is crooked in this town, both sides!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2014, 10:20 PM
 
1,148 posts, read 1,563,139 times
Reputation: 1308
So what do you propose that the city do with the land that it is reportedly not using right now? (I have no idea if that is true or not). If the city land lies dormant now - for the sake of argument - how are you "paying" for the stadium? What fee or hidden tax is comimg out of your pocket right now to maintain the land, that would in substance represent a loss to you if the land were just given away?

Second question would be, how is it bad for your local economy to allow a billionaire to build hotels and other commercial business in the area? That sounds like a good thing for the city, financially speaking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2014, 10:48 PM
 
1,095 posts, read 1,622,636 times
Reputation: 1697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself View Post
I wish these fraudsters would all just go away but they won't. They've spent tens of millions buying politicians with the goal of getting to steal $1 billion from the taxpayers of this city and, sadly, lots of sports "fans" truly are stupid enough to vote to give it to them even while they wonder why the schools their kids go to have no money or why there streets are filled with potholes. It's all about priorities and if San Diegans vote for to allow this fraud to take place then I guess they deserve to have streets in worse condition than a third world country and for their kids to never learn to read.
I agree with this. I love the Chargers and all, but why is a new stadium the top priority of the city? The city schools need more funding, the streets need repairs, and maybe some more public transportation. If the Chargers actually make it to the Super Bowl and win, maybe just maybe they can get their new stadium.

It's sad that all these neighborhoods like Barrio Logan are being gentrified for the yuppy hipster crowd. All the lower class/poor folks are being forced out onto the streets. Speaking of being forced out onto the streets, maybe the city should do something about all the homeless like keep the homeless shelters open or build more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2014, 12:12 PM
 
Location: La Mesa Aka The Table
9,776 posts, read 11,431,915 times
Reputation: 11827
The longer they wait the more money it's going to cost to Build.
Quote:
The San Diego Chargers game plan for replacing Qualcomm Stadium increasingly points to a countywide ballot measure a little more than two years from now.
A working scenario would see a roughly $1 billion stadium proposal go before voters in the November 2016 presidential general election.
Funding would combine money from the Spanos family that owns the team, development partner Colony Capital, LLC, and some form of taxpayer contribution common in the construction costs of every new National Football League stadium in recent years.
The Spanos family and investment partners would put up roughly $400 million and seek a $200 million loan from the NFL. The rub comes in how the remaining roughly $400 million would be financed.
The proposal could include a Joint Powers Authority to oversee the stadium, which the team wants to own and have operational control over to help recoup its costs.
Early talks with Mayor Kevin Faulconer’s top aides are ongoing with no firm proposal expected for months. But a variety of factors have re-energized the more than decade-old quest for a higher revenue-generating stadium the Chargers say they need to compete with other franchises.
The key factor in the talks resuming, say parties in and around them, is a renewed sense of political stability at City Hall.
“San Diego has had seven mayors over the last decade — the kind of political instability that is more typical of a banana republic than of a major American city,” said Mark Fabiani, team special counsel and point man on the stadium issue. “We hope, for the good of the city overall and for the future of our stadium project, that we will now see a solid stretch of political stability for San Diego.”
Other major factors that bring the stadium issue back to the political forefront include the improved economy, an increase from $80 million to $200 million in loan money available NFL, and fears of a team relocating or the league granting an expansion team to Los Angeles. Orange County accounts for roughly a third of the Chargers’ ticket base.
Chargers eye 2016 stadium ballot measure | UTSanDiego.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2014, 11:06 AM
 
Location: San Diego
50,057 posts, read 46,562,994 times
Reputation: 33895
IMO if they are going to give us an ultimatum of that magnitude...........BYE!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Diego

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top