By Joe Flynn
Editor Note: Mr. Flynn’s article is a response to Taking a Wide Lens on Mission Valley by Mary Lydon, published in Voice of San Diego.
A wide angle lens may not be the appropriate analogy for this discussion. It seems a telephoto lens for a close up was used here focusing on providing a stadium for the Chargers. The rest of the picture is fuzzy. What is troubling about these discussions is that they begin and end with the assumption that the city owned land in Mission Valley, now improved with Qualcomm Stadium is “dedicated for sports facility use.”
Perhaps parkland can be dedicated and forever reserved for public park uses, but other city owned land can and should be viewed as a public asset to be used for the most critical public needs. A truly long range view of this taxpayer asset would bring into the consideration other pressing public needs, such as infrastructure. San Diego has miles of streets and alleys in dire need of repair; miles of deteriorated water and sewer lines, and hundreds of public buildings in serious need of maintenance.
Early in the campaign for mayor the line was that no taxpayer money would be used for a new stadium for the Chargers. After the election this line moved to “making sure it was affordable for the taxpayers.”
Failure to repair our streets costs every motorist thousands of dollars in auto repairs annually and costs the city more in terms of litigation and settlements for accidents attributable to faulty streets. Broken water mains are a staple of San Diego TV news coverage with statistics on number of people without water, how long they will be without water and number of gallons of water down the drain. Not covered in those stories are the emergency overtime costs and the need to redo the repair when the line is replaced. All of these very real costs in dollars and quality of life have been lost in the discussions of how to provide a stadium for the Chargers.
If that land is to be developed to raise public funds then other municipal needs should be considered along with sports subsidies. Such consideration would truly represent a broad view approach.
Early in the campaign for mayor the line was that no taxpayer money would be used for a new stadium for the Chargers. After the election this line moved to “making sure it was affordable for the taxpayers.” Again the question has not been whether to build a stadium, but how much it would cost, more specifically how much it would cost the taxpayers. Then the dial moved quickly to include city owned Mission Valley land and the development thereof as means of financing a stadium.
If that land is to be developed to raise public funds then other municipal needs should be considered along with sports subsidies. Such consideration would truly represent a broad view approach.
The recent much publicized agreement with the County of San Diego might lead one to believe that this move cuts our costs. That is only true if you believe that when the city takes money out of one pocket and the County picks the other pocket that we save money in the process. It’s all taxpayer money and that should not be forgotten.
Joe Flynn is a retired City of San Diego Planner
At Large
Latest posts by At Large (see all)
- Future of Journalism is in Our Hands - December 13, 2018
- 30 Arrested at Border for Nonviolent Action in Support of Migrant Caravans - December 11, 2018
- The Dorn Effect | Remembering Bob Dorn - December 5, 2018
Big props to Joe Flynn. Stadium Inc. tried to sell us the line that the
County was rescuing the taxpayer with a last-minute contribution of
what, $2 million? That was an insult to the intelligence of most people
paying attention to this spam-sham Stadium plan. Maybe now the county
could instead put that money toward a desalination plant in the place of
of the weird stadium dreams of Downtowners, Sanders, Manchester and
the rest, who remind me of the old SNL joke about a the law firm called
Dewey, Cheatham and Howe.
I thought the only reason the city owns the land is because the county gave it to them for the express reason of building San Diego Stadium. Does that qualify as land for dedicated sports use?
The land where the stadium is located is within the City of San Diego. There is nothing that I can find that says it was “given” by the County to the City for the stadium. It was paid for by a bond measure.
Yes. It was given for the sole purpose of sports. If it doesn’t happen no, which it most likely will, we will eventually have a sports facility there. Unfortunately, if we wait too long, it may only be for college.
If there was a county gift of that land, when was it made? How did the county come to own that land in the first place? No guessing now.
Shawn: I could not find find any reference to the County of SD giving the City of SD any land in the stadium area. According to the County Assessor (today) the land is owned by the City of San Diego. Perhaps some confusion may have come some islands under the jurisdiction of the County of San Diego were annexed to the City of San Diego. The annexation brought all the stadium land under the City of San Diego jurisdiction and simplified stadium development.
If you or James Lincoln have information on County donations of land to the Stadium I would be interested. Whichever the case, the land would be public, and should be treated as a public asset.
This is a well-reasoned response to the original article. I spent 28 of my 45 professional years in the public sector, and I find it appalling that the “powers that be” in the City of San Diego” still think they can hoodwink the electorate. (I moved to the unincorporated San Diego County in 1975 – two reasons: Bad government and bad schools.) This issue revolves around PUBLIC POLICY, not feelings, emotions, sports, or political largesse. “SHOULD the TAXPAYER subsidize the PRIVATE SECTOR?” If you are a Republican, smaller government is supposed to be better (unless you’re chopping funds to the private sector). If you’re a Democrat, the call is for “society” – and that’s, in some degree, recreation activities. Both of these views of the world say that the City’s subservience to the NFL , the Spanos family and the business powers of the region should be a resounding NO.
As to the County involvement, read into it what you want/wish/hope, but my understanding is that the Board of Supervisors want a reasoned, cost-effective solution. They are not signing up to fund the continuing fiasco of the City of San Diego.
Haste makes waste…old saying, still true…all these secret machinations surrounding sudden super stadiums seems like very very hasty planning, considering the scope of the project, and trying to create a sense of urgency in San Diego to push projects that are not carefully thought out…
Please see my latest update on “Mission Valley Watch”
The city motto should be “No sports team left behind.” They can leave behind everything else like roads, streets water mains, poor people, but by all means we need world class sports entertainment although most San Diegans wouldn’t be able to afford to go to games in the new stadium even if one were to be built. These mega stadiums are designed to cater to the very rich and corporate interests. Nothing for most of us to get too excited about. We’ll be watching the game on TV no matter where it’s played.