By Doug Porter
After more than a decade of studies and surveys, the most likely answer to San Diego’s stadium dilemma is that it ain’t happening here.
Let the finger pointing begin.
Both locations currently under consideration–Mission Valley and the east end of downtown–face legal and logistical considerations that make them non-starters. The mayor has declared that these are the only options on the table.
But the real reason is political. The Chargers’ preference for a joint use facility in as part of an expansion of the convention center is opposed by hotel and tourism interests. Each side considers the other’s proposal to be unfavorable to their own financial success.
And then there’s the matter of money. National University System’s Institute for Policy Research number crunching on the subject is postulating that San Diego will have to pick up the tab for 65% of the costs. Given the inflationary spiral attached to guesstimations as to the ultimate cost of a stadium (It’s gone from a billion to just south of two billion in recent months) the cost to taxpayers has gone from pie-in-the-sky to are-you-crazy?
The Latest on Qualcomm
The momentum in media coverage has shifted in favor of the current stadium location in Mission Valley.
Much of the needed transportation infrastructure is already in place and presumably any redevelopment would include a solution to the regular flooding at Qualcomm.
The pool of petroleum under the stadium site has reportedly been mitigated, but the question of who actually owns the property has not, as NBC7 News pointed out:
…the remedies aimed at addressing the legal flaws and dealing with the city’s quest for a new stadium could be complex and costly.
It all starts with the little-known fact that nearly half oft he 166-acre site — and most of the land under the stadium itself — is owned by the city of San Diego’s Water Utilities Department.
Under the asphalt is an aquifer that could yield potable water…
That’s the short version.
The Downtown Stadium Dream
Earlier this week representatives of the company founded by former Padres owner John Moores met with the stadium task force to present a proposal putting a complex on Tailgate Park and the MTS Bus Yard, which are located next to Petco Park.
From the Times of San Diego:
JMI developed four football stadium plans last year and the one that matches the description of their current proposal was a joint use stadium/convention complex that would cost $1.4 billion.
This is $400 million less than it would cost to build the complexes separately.
Yeah, but…From the Los Angeles Times:
The downtown site is near Petco Park and the new central library, but building a stadium would require relocating a maintenance and administrative facility operated by the Metropolitan Transit System. Relocating the bus yard could cost upward of $100 million and delay construction of a stadium by five to seven years, the system’s chief executive warned last week.
The advisory committee appears to be focusing on the Qualcomm site.
The Goldman Sachs Connection
Voice of San Diego contributor Beau Lynott posted an article this morning following up on the big money interests favoring the Chargers’ exit from San Diego:
SportsBusiness Journal’s Daniel Kaplan, citing unnamed sources, reported Monday that Goldman Sachs will finance the Chargers’ costs of moving to L.A. by covering “any operating losses suffered by the team in the first few years in that city as well as costs for any renovations needed in a temporary venue.” If they relocate, the Chargers are expected to play in the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum or the Rose Bowl while a new L.A.-area stadium is under construction.
Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani confirmed to ESPN that the Chargers have a long-standing working relationship with Goldman and that the firm will work with them on financing a new stadium in the Los Angeles market.
“We are in a hyper-competitive environment regarding Los Angeles at this moment, and so we won’t be releasing specifics on our work with Goldman Sachs,” Fabiani told ESPN. “The bottom line is that we, along with Goldman Sachs, are completely confident that the Raiders/Chargers L.A. stadium proposal can feasibly be financed.”
Goldman Sachs involvement has everything to do with the potential fees, interest and commissions available with a deal done in the city of Carson. Neither San Diego location offers up those kinds of incentives. Oh, and Lynott points out that the NFL’s point man on any Los Angeles deal is “NFL Senior Vice President Eric Grubman — a former Goldman banker.
The ‘Save the Chargers’ Petition
If you’ve visited any shopping malls nearby, you might have seen petitions passed around by the usual suspects (Victory Consultants is paying $2 per signature) to keep the Chargers in San Diego.
This, as Catherine Green at Voice of San Diego pointed out yesterday, has nothing to do with the stadium issue.
It’s a deeply cynical ploy to tie up the local employment market for signature gatherers to prevent the opponents of One Paseo, the recently approved mega-development in Carmel Valley from getting enough support to place a referendum on the ballot.
One developer is opposing another developer’s plans. And shoppers get the opportunity to be a pawn in this game while feeling good about the Chargers.
How San Diego of them! At least they’re not claiming the Navy will leave town.
In other news…
Oversight for Civic San Diego. We Hope
In recent months the San Diego Free Press has posted articles about Civic San Diego, the entity now charged with finding new means for local redevelopment. Community activists Jay Powell, Jim Bliesner, Norma Damashek and (SDFP Editor) Anna Daniels (and others) have all written about the emergence of this group, raising serious questions along the way.
Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez this morning announced plans for introducing legislation to create more oversight at local governments that rely on the planning, zoning or permitting expertise of non-profit organizations or private individuals.
The presser announcing Assembly Bill 504 was taking place at the same time as I was writing this column, so I’ll share with readers what the press release promised was going to be said:
California’s decision to end redevelopment eliminated accountability requirements regarding groups like the non-profit organization called Civic San Diego who are permitting and approving development in San Diego, although it’s uncertain whether the agency has the legal authority to do so in state law after redevelopment’s demise.
As it stands now, if residents do not agree with what Civic San Diego has planned for their community, they can only go to the board of directors of this nonprofit organization—which is not accountable to the city council that was elected to be stewards of the city’s development.
Civic San Diego’s potential authority to dramatically engineer the future of neighborhoods with little supervision or accountability presents serious concerns about transparency and public input.
On This Day: 1857 – The Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision ruled that blacks could not sue in federal court to be citizens. 1930 – With the Great Depression underway, hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers demonstrated in some 30 cities and towns; close to 100,000 filled Union Square in New York City and were attacked by mounted police. 1973 – John Lennon’s visa extension was canceled by the New York Office of the Immigration Department. It had been granted only five days before.
Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to “The Starting Line” and get an email every time a new article in this series is posted!
I read the Daily Fishwrap(s) so you don’t have to… Catch “the Starting Line” Monday thru Friday right here at San Diego Free Press (dot) org. Send your hate mail and ideas to DougPorter@SanDiegoFreePress.Org Check us out on Facebook and Twitter.
Doug Porter
Latest posts by Doug Porter (see all)
- Last Call. Last Column. - December 14, 2018
- Which Presidential Candidate Will You Support in 2020? - December 13, 2018
- Mounting the Assault on Big Gay and Other Drivel From SDSU’s Minimum Wage Scrooge - December 12, 2018
The Chargers “problem” comes down to one thing…the Chargers ownership GREED! They want the fans and folks in San Diego to foot the bill for a new stadium.
I say let them go to L.A…..I’m sure we will look very attractive to other football teams.
“I’m sure we will look very attractive to other football teams.”
Uhh I don’t think so. It still will get back to building a new stadium and the fact is, most teams do not and will not foot the majority of the bill for a new stadium. While I don’t want the Chargers to leave we need to resign ourselves to the fact that we will be without a football team and that’s simply the way the cards are laid out and move on.
We’re better off without a football team. Every few years they want another multi-billion stadium built so their owners can make oodles of money. They also want this stadium built at public expense so they can make even more money. Do you think this latest hoorah about a new stadium will be the last? They want new, new, new and better, better, better. Meanwhile, poor people are supposed to suffer and a lack of infrastructure maintenance inconveniences and threatens us all.
Let the babies who want new and better all the time go elsewhere. They don’t appreciate the stadium they’ve got which is completely adequate for tossing a football around a few days out of the year. Good luck with Goldman Sachs. The owners will be pleading for bankruptcy before Goldman is done with them.
Chargers: beating a dead horse. Fabiani knows the polls won’t be favorable to using taxpayer money. He’s the master of PR. He is the master of Texas Hold “em. If the City is stupid enough to let him bluff you, then you will get what you deserve. Wake up San Diegans. It’s over! Go Away Chargers: http://mandybear44.wix.com/goawaychargers
Options for a NEW football stadium:
• First off (WE) San Diego is being re-active to the football stadium! We asked for a stadium-the Chargers asked for a stadium 3-4 years ago, and NO body budged! NOW that there is a threat of losing the Chargers we are reacting!
• So, Option 1-The team doesn’t get a realistic good deal so they move to LA-Carson.
• Option 2-reconstruct Mission Valley: Advantages:
1. Lease costly- there is already pre built construction.
2. It’s centrally located.
3. It’s the quickest solution.
Disadvantages:
1. The traffic around there is already crazy, even on NON-Game events.
2. It’s a band-aid because out of 4-5 locations, it’s the worse for a new stadium.
3. We need a new convention center AND airport! We keep putting band-aids on these items, but the truth is we NEED ALL 3 of these venues. (if we are going to continue to grow!) We should be proactive and build ALL 3 of these necessities! Especially the football stadium AND the convention center!
4. look at #1!
• Option 3 & 4-Chula Vista & Oceanside-both viable, but expensive!
• Option 5-Noone has brought this up, but not only does the Indian Reservation have A LOT of land, they probably would love to have you build on it! I have a suspicion that they would pay for 50% of this.
A. with ALL the land they have, we can build a new stadium, an airport with TWO runways, (LA has 4-5 airports in their surrounding area) AND a new convention center.
B. The casinos can be allowed to build new hotel & resorts (80% of their own and 20% others).
C. this would create mass transit from San Diego to the Indian Reservation-Casinos.
D. This would create a TON of jobs!
E. This would alleviate traffic congestion.
F. the BEST ways to build a city AND bring more money to a city is: 1. Out of country $$(from individuals flying into San Diego, for gambling, & visiting.) 2. Out of state $$ (from individuals flying into San Diego, for gambling, & visiting.) 3. Out of city $$ (from individuals flying into San Diego, for gambling, & visiting.)
G. (being repetitive) The casino-reservation would put up 50% of the money for this project NOT the citizens!! With 50% of the money put up by the reservation-casinos-we can afford tickets AND food at the game!
Thanks Doug- you are far along in accepting the inevitable. If only others would likewise constructively engage in the process of the Chargers leaving San Diego.
Regarding water: cities have historically been built adjacent to water supplies, out of necessity (esp in arid southwest). This is likely why the city water department is the “owner” of this land. But San Diego has allowed development of tank farms etc. to pollute our river past the point of potability. And you can’t mitigate drinkability- just ask the residents of West Virginia.
Moreover, instead of protecting/using local water supplies, city leaders are planning to spend $1 billion+ for “reclaiming” imported water- insane….
But as for Chargers: most see this inevitable, slow-motion exodus as a “death” and have been engaging in the process of anger, denial, bargaining, depression, and (hopefully) acceptance.
Better for San Diego leaders to begin engaging in the process of CHANGE. The five stages are: pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance.
The stealth dealings of the Raider/Chargers/Wall Street financier cabal demonstrate “pre-contemplation.” They recognized the drum beat of boosterism that resulted in the 1996 expansion and the PetCo SEC investigation may not be so motivating the 3rd time around, and informal polls showing taxpayers have no desire to pay for a new stadium or subsidize a team confirmed this.
So let’s encourage the City Council, Stadium Authority et al to begin “contemplating” options and changing the stadium for use by other entities. These could be SDSU, , high school sports teams (tho they have gone crazy with their own stadiums on campuses), and other local sports teams/events of all kinds. Or traveling/international sports exhibitions (soccer, tennis etc.)
Or why not take advantage of the fact the stadium parking lot is one of the largest west of the Mississippi, and lobby officials to design the bullet train to end there, after heading south along the I15 corridor? Follow Japan’s lead (see: Tokyo train stations) and begin to build transit-related infrastructure. Or move the downtown bus station there, and create new opportunities for the downtown space.
The City Council should let the Mayor’s Task Force friends do their work, then begin exploring what it would take to return the stadium to its origins: San Diego Stadium, financed by the people of San Diego and operated for our enjoyment and benefit at an affordable cost. (I’m old enough to recall when it was affordable for families to pass many summer days watching the Padres from the cheap seats.)
The Chargers have made it clear: they are leaving.
It’s time for San Diegans to enter contemplation mode: what do WE want?
And: what can WE afford?
Final note: Several years ago, when the City of Industry had a sweetheart deal on the floor of the Assembly to allow them to build a stadium and bypass CEQA reviews, I stood and offered to adjourn “in memory of the San Diego Chargers” – in jest (we were not at the end of session).
The bill was approved, the financing fell through- but this pattern of luring the Chargers north continues.
We are going to have hockey again. More affordable and more entertaining. Also OMBAC rugby is a treat.
Spanos is willing to pony up $ 850,000,000 for a stadium in Carson, and only $200,000,000 for a stadium in San Diego. Enough said about intent. Follow the money…they’re leaving.
Lori, great insight! Thanks for posting. I will email city council in support of your two suggestions for that lot! San Diego needs public transportation way more than a football team!