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 01-22-2016, 04:01 PM
 
Location: San Diego
5,615 posts, read 4,543,077 times
Reputation: 12531

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdlife619 View Post
The man is POS! He's been planning this all along. He's never once come out publicly and stated that he really wants to keep the team in SD and try to working something out. Not once that I can remember.

Fabiani has been the mouthpiece in all this, and for the owner to not at least address the fans that have supported the damn team for decades, spending their hard earned money on gear, tickets, and lending their support to the players and the team itself is truly disrespectful and cold hearted on Spanos part.

You don't think people in L.A. knows about how Spanos is treating this whole situation? Even media outlets in L.A. are saying that the Chargers will never work out there, and that the love and deep connections that the people here have for the Bolts in SD, most likely wont be replicated in L.A.

In some ways I rather the Chargers leave and the Raiders come to SD, so Spanos can feel like trash knowing that the Raiders have taken over not only his old market, but all of his so called 25% L.A. Charger fans.

The Raider games here will sell out every Sunday, even if hardly anyone from SD goes to the games, all the fans will want to drive down here just to see them play each Sunday during the season. They will own the SoCal market thats for sure. The Chargers will be an afterthought in everyone's minds not only in SD, but up in Smell "A" once there gone.

Oh and the whole trademark L.A. Charger naming rights is a sure bet that they are gone for good.
What a horrible thought....

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-22-2016, 04:50 PM
 
1,175 posts, read 1,905,969 times
Reputation: 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julianpieohmy View Post
Sometimes I wonder how the USA slipped behind other countries in academic rankings, infrastructure, and standard of living.

This thread definitely clears it up. People care more about subsidizing millionaires and sports teams than rebuilding schools, repairing roads, and addressing crime. They are more concerned with their egos and football team identity to do what is smart and right.

$400 million in taxpayer money will always be TOO MUCH for a billion dollar hobby. Fiscal responsibility please.
In a perfect world, yes, but in the US, this never actually happens. I bet you St. Louis won't be spending more on education, infrastructure, etc since the Rams left. They might still build a stadium or plan for one anyway. I mean the Chargers could leave for LA, but the city and county will still look at building a new stadium to attract the Raiders or some other team or a bigger stadium for SDSU.

I think subsidizing stadiums is a rip off, but at the same time, just because the Chargers leave and dont' get a new stadium built here, doesn't mean the city will actually spend the millions improving anything either. Look at LA and their schools and roads and so on. They lost two teams over 20 years ago and never really built any new stadiums along the way (at least not in LA for football) and they still have boatloads of problems and money issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2016, 06:39 PM
 
Location: Temecula, CA
60 posts, read 80,613 times
Reputation: 48
The time has come to put a gun to Spano's head. San Diego is now in the driver's seat. The Raiders have said they would pounce on the SD market if the Chargers want to leave. Let's not get left empty handed here. I would tell Spanos he has 30 days to make a decision, or we are seeking a deal with the Raiders. Below is a great article on the situation.

Report: Raiders would 'pounce' on San Diego if Chargers leave for L.A.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2016, 07:52 PM
 
414 posts, read 505,401 times
Reputation: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro2000 View Post
I bet you St. Louis won't be spending more on education, infrastructure, etc since the Rams left.
It's not always about spending more, sometimes it comes down to cutting less. Just because the $400 million in taxpayer money isn't going to another city issue doesn't meant that the opportunity costs aren't extremely high.

What happens to education, infrastructure, etc. in a recession? Funding is scaled back. San Diego is well aware of our own budget problems that led to horrible road infrastructure.

If SD doesn't invest in a money pit stadium, they might just have enough to not cut funding for other programs or services.

The reality is that the stadium loses money. This public subsidy for operating costs can and will be transferred to a better use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2016, 09:27 PM
 
414 posts, read 505,401 times
Reputation: 367
The Biggest Scam in Sports

Watch it.

It's time for taxpayers to stop bending over for millionaires. Get over your egos and lame identity crisis. San Diego IS better than the Chargers. We're too good for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2016, 03:44 AM
 
Location: San Diego A.K.A "D.A.Y.G.O City"
1,996 posts, read 4,746,878 times
Reputation: 2742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julianpieohmy View Post
It's not always about spending more, sometimes it comes down to cutting less. Just because the $400 million in taxpayer money isn't going to another city issue doesn't meant that the opportunity costs aren't extremely high.

What happens to education, infrastructure, etc. in a recession? Funding is scaled back. San Diego is well aware of our own budget problems that led to horrible road infrastructure.

If SD doesn't invest in a money pit stadium, they might just have enough to not cut funding for other programs or services.

The reality is that the stadium loses money. This public subsidy for operating costs can and will be transferred to a better use.

Why in the hell then are all of our streets so busted up? The city of SD has been in a surplus for a few years now, yet, everywhere I go, I can count the number of crater like sized potholes, broken sidewalks, and run down public bridges and other infrastructural needs. They're streets in San Diego that are literally falling apart, and have been for years, so the whole notion that a new stadium will cause even more backlogs and money problems is false. The mayor loves to talk on how he's doing this and that, but I personally haven't seen the improvements being made.

A stadium is a great investment when it is being used year around, look at what Petco park has brought to downtown and how they are hosting different events year around? Before Petco, that entire area was atrociously bad. Warehouses everywhere, it was ghetto, dirty and scary. Think about how awesome a new stadium development at the Q site would look? More residential and commercial development close to the stadium that just adds more economic benefits in time.

Sure we pay the price now, but in 20 years, that investment will pay for itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2016, 03:57 PM
 
1,175 posts, read 1,905,969 times
Reputation: 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdlife619 View Post
Why in the hell then are all of our streets so busted up? The city of SD has been in a surplus for a few years now, yet, everywhere I go, I can count the number of crater like sized potholes, broken sidewalks, and run down public bridges and other infrastructural needs. They're streets in San Diego that are literally falling apart, and have been for years, so the whole notion that a new stadium will cause even more backlogs and money problems is false. The mayor loves to talk on how he's doing this and that, but I personally haven't seen the improvements being made.

A stadium is a great investment when it is being used year around, look at what Petco park has brought to downtown and how they are hosting different events year around? Before Petco, that entire area was atrociously bad. Warehouses everywhere, it was ghetto, dirty and scary. Think about how awesome a new stadium development at the Q site would look? More residential and commercial development close to the stadium that just adds more economic benefits in time.

Sure we pay the price now, but in 20 years, that investment will pay for itself.
Not really because in 10 years owners threaten to move if they don't get a new stadium. Go see St. Louis. They will still be paying for a stadium that was built in 1995. So the theory that in 20 years the stadium will pay for itself loses a lot of weight when you realize the Rams just left a city where the stadium is barely 20 years old. And the city still will be paying for it while the Rams are in LA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2016, 04:15 PM
 
Location: La Mesa Aka The Table
9,792 posts, read 11,449,501 times
Reputation: 11865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro2000 View Post
Not really because in 10 years owners threaten to move if they don't get a new stadium. Go see St. Louis. They will still be paying for a stadium that was built in 1995. So the theory that in 20 years the stadium will pay for itself loses a lot of weight when you realize the Rams just left a city where the stadium is barely 20 years old. And the city still will be paying for it while the Rams are in LA.
not just the city of St Louis but the whole state of Missouri
Taxpayers Left High and Dry After Rams Move to Los Angeles: "The problem is that Missouri taxpayers aren’t off the hook because they will be paying $12 million until 2022 on the Edward Jones Dome." ~ News Forage
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2016, 04:30 PM
 
414 posts, read 505,401 times
Reputation: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdlife619 View Post
Why in the hell then are all of our streets so busted up? The city of SD has been in a surplus for a few years now, yet, everywhere I go, I can count the number of crater like sized potholes, broken sidewalks, and run down public bridges and other infrastructural needs. They're streets in San Diego that are literally falling apart, and have been for years, so the whole notion that a new stadium will cause even more backlogs and money problems is false. The mayor loves to talk on how he's doing this and that, but I personally haven't seen the improvements being made.

A stadium is a great investment when it is being used year around, look at what Petco park has brought to downtown and how they are hosting different events year around? Before Petco, that entire area was atrociously bad. Warehouses everywhere, it was ghetto, dirty and scary. Think about how awesome a new stadium development at the Q site would look? More residential and commercial development close to the stadium that just adds more economic benefits in time.

Sure we pay the price now, but in 20 years, that investment will pay for itself.
IT IS A POOR INVESTMENT. A disgusting waste of taxpayer money to subsidize games and millionaires.

Actually, the city of San Diego has picked back up on fixing roads. It just takes time after years of neglect and budget issues (not helped by the Qualcomm money pit, mind you). I'm sorry your personal observation does not find this true.

I will completely agree with you that the public money invested in Petco Park was worth it. However, let us remember that a new Qualcomm stadium in Mission Valley or Downtown will not revitalize these areas. MV already has decent housing and shopping, and is mostly built out. East Village will develop with or without the Chargers.

A new stadium would NOT be awesome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2016, 04:31 PM
 
1,175 posts, read 1,905,969 times
Reputation: 999
Thanks. Even worse if you live in Chiefs country or don't even live close enough to St Louis to ever benefit.
But it's a known fact that NFL stadiums don't exactly bring in the revenue marketed. Even Olympics and World Cups and so on don't exactly bring in the long term revenue marketed. And those are once or twice in a lifetime events for cities.

And some people brag about a new Stadium bringing Super Bowls to SD, except SD has held 3 Super bowls over 50 years. LA has had like 7 super bowls and no team for over 20 years and no new stadium. That's not bringing in a ton of events. You could say having a new stadium would bring in super bowls, but the LA $3 billion entertainment complex is going to win far more Super Bowls than a new $1 billion and not much else Qualcomm 2.

As far as all the developments around Qualcomm, who knows. They have to get approved. They have to have builders and investment. The LA complex and surrounding areas are being built up by Stan. Petco and surrounding areas pretty much was going to make the former Padres owner money. And it did. Spanos doesn't seem to have the money to do any of that. So there won't be this billions in new developments around the Stadium because the Chargers owner doesn't really have the money to build it himself and the city and county and half the people who live in SD don't want to spend $1 billion on a new stadium, much less a few new office and residential buildings that only a few people can afford. And make traffic even worse in Mission Valley.
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