New SD City Hall. What do you think? (San Diego: rent, condos)

[djxpress]

City Hall: Yes. New Chargers Stadium: No.

When we have a team that actually has a proven track record, then it maybe worth it. But the Chargers have been nothing but "blue balls" in disguise.

[BacktoBlue]

Originally Posted by djxpress

City Hall: Yes. New Chargers Stadium: No.

When we have a team that actually has a proven track record, then it maybe worth it. But the Chargers have been nothing but "blue balls" in disguise.

If they moved to LA, it would still be hard to all fans. I will take it hard too. It's like a slap in the face. The team and the owners actually seem kind of selfish. There is nothing wrong with Qualcomm other than being old.

[Mugsy]

I see nothing wrong with the old city hall. I work in a building that is so old as well. I have no complaints where I work.

The city needs to expand the Convention Center and build a new football field to attract a super bowl. And forget that library, all the homeless and pedos will be the there using the computer internet. BLECCH!!

[Oerdin]

Originally Posted by mongoosedn

I agree with Oerdin that it makes sense to consolidate City departments into one building would be a smart and productive idea, but why do it half baked? I know the cost is an issue, but isn't it City Hall's job to think long term?

I'm afraid San Diego always does things half baked because of the population of the city. There are loads of retirees here on fixed incomes who are planning to die in the next ten years so their attitude is screw everyone else I don't the government to spend money on anyone or anything but me. Then you have the huge numbers of people who are from some where else and who only plan to stay here a little while (to get their careers started or what not) and who then plan on going home to Arkansas or where ever. It's not surprising that they don't want to help pay for something since they're planning on leaving in a short time. Lastly, you have a similiar situation with military people who are generally low paid and only going to be here for one tour before going home so once again they don't care about the long term health of the region and they don't want to spend a penny.

This sort of half baked shoe string planning is what you get when half the population really doesn't care about the city or the region and instead just wants to squeeze it for all they can get before departing (pun intended).

[Oerdin]

Originally Posted by caliguy19

If they moved to LA, it would still be hard to all fans. I will take it hard too. It's like a slap in the face. the team and the owners actually seem kind of selfish. There is nothing wrong with Qualcomm other than being old.

The 49'ers stadium was almost entirely funded by private money with the city only helping by giving the stadium a low yearly lease price on the land (the city retains ownership of the land where as Spanos is demanding he own the whole thing even though he'd only pay for 1/8th of it). If the 49'ers can do it why can't the Chargers? The answer is they could but Spanos much prefers to shake the city down for corporate welfare.

[sav858]

I like it a lot and hope it gets built. Two independent studies have shown it as the most cost effective course of action given the current circumstances of the building and leases. I don't know why they chose to put it to a vote though, voters here tend to be spiteful and shortsighted and will vote NO even though it saves them money in the long run. We need more nice, iconic civic structures in this city imo.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Oerdin

The 49'ers stadium was almost entirely funded by private money with the city only helping by giving the stadium a low yearly lease price on the land (the city retains ownership of the land where as Spanos is demanding he own the whole thing even though he'd only pay for 1/8th of it). If the 49'ers can do it why can't the Chargers? The answer is they could but Spanos much prefers to shake the city down for corporate welfare.

What stadium are you talking about? Candlestick? Or are you thinking of the Giants?

[Oerdin]

Originally Posted by Mugsy

I see nothing wrong with the old city hall. I work in a building that is so old as well. I have no complaints where I work.

The city needs to expand the Convention Center and build a new football field to attract a super bowl. And forget that library, all the homeless and pedos will be the there using the computer internet. BLECCH!!

I'm willing to bet that the old building you work at has been properly maintained and hasn't been neglected for 60 years. The truth is San Diego has the lowest tax rate of any large city in America and that chronic lack of money has to result in skipping a few things. Guess what? "Delaying" maintenance to buildings is one of the politicians favorite things to do because you can cut spending without directly cutting services and this has gone on for decade after decade after decade. The result is that the so much needed maintenance has been ignored for so many decades that the building is no longer structurally sound. Yep, even the best bridges and buildings MUST have periodic maintenance or they start to deteriorate and San Diego's city hall was a cheap slap together when it was originally built in the 50's so it's not one of the best to begin with and it's been neglected for most of the last half century.

The maintenance issue has gotten so out of control that chunks of the concrete facade a literally falling off the building onto the sidewalk and it is only a matter of time before the city gets the heck sued out of it when it hurts someone. The problem has gotten so bad that, according to the city, the cost of repairing the building is now so large that it actually makes more sense to build a new one then to keep dumping money into a money pit. Then there is the fact that the city out grew the building decades ago and now rents ten, yes, TEN office spaces around the city to house all the workers.

When you add up the cost of paying rent on those ten offices, the cost of repairing the crumbling existing city hall, and compare that cost to the alternative route of just building a new building... Guess what? It's actually cheaper to just build a new one. That's the type of cost benefit analysis businesses do every day and everyone claims they want government to be run more like a business but in reality when they try it turns out most citizens aren't bright enough to follow these numbers nor engaged enough to actually look them up. The result is Joe Six Pack sits around with his beer claiming the city is wasting HIS MONEY!!! When in reality the move saves millions. Don't expect Joe Six Pack to figure that out though because he was never good at math.

[NewCalifornian]

I agree with most of you here. They should have gone with the previous 33-story proposal. I know cities with 500,000 people that have 24-story city halls and you want to tell me that such a huge city is okay with a 19-story joke? I'm pretty sure we will have to build a new one in 20 years. But by then, construction costs and property prices will have doubled.

Everything speaks for a 33-story building today so that we save money in the future. I hate it when politicians scale back plans that were perfect in the beginning.

[Oerdin]

Originally Posted by sav858

What stadium are you talking about? Candlestick? Or are you thinking of the Giants?

This one: http://www.footballnewsnow.com/2010/...n-in-bay-area/

It's almost completely paid for by private money. The City of Santa Clara kicked in a little bit by leasing the land the stadium is on at a bargain rate (they already owned the land anyway) and it agreed to pay to move some utility lines but that was it. The rest was entirely paid for by private money. If the 49'ers can do it then why can't the Chargers? They could, we all know they could. The owner just doesn't want to. If he is unwilling to do it with his own money then what does that tell you about how profitable this proposed new stadium will really be?

Website for the new privately owned and financed 49'ers stadium: http://www.49ersnewstadium.com/#/video

BTW Staples Center in LA was also financed entirely with private money. Why is it all these other groups are able to finance their own stadiums without handouts from the taxpayers yet Spanos claims that's absolutely impossible for the Chargers?