Hmmm... I don't recall making an economic argument in my post, but one thing I've learned on these boards is that people often see what they want in a post no matter what you actually write.

I don't think an economic impact argument is the way to go for sports teams. And while I might argue that the Chargers have more impact on our city that does a 99 cents store, or even a single Walmart, I wouldn't use an economic argument to support my position.

I am a believer in the benefits of catalyst development. The Gaslamp does not exist as we know it without the convention center, and East Village would not be experiencing its renaissance without Petco.

I believe that the Mission Valley site would enjoy similar success with a new stadium at the Qualcomm site.

My point about losing the Charges is better placed in the "Don't know what you've got til it's gone" file.

It's easy to scream "let'em go" now, but cities that have done that have then spent years and billions of dollars trying to get a team back because the void it leaves is palpable and painful. Cities that teams leave suffer. They are emptier places.

Nick Canepa said it well in a recent column. San Diego would have a hole in it, and it would not be shallow.

That doesn't mean that we, as a city, roll over and hemorrhage tax-payer money to feed an almost obscenely rich sport. It does mean that the Chargers are worth making all reasonable efforts to keep in town.

Ask the citizens of Baltimore, Cleveland or Houston what Fall was like without their teams. Ask them why it was worth spending far more than they would have originally to get football back.

It appears we have a reasonable plan, one that does not require a tax increase, to avoid going that route.

I hope it succeeds... :cheers:

Good points Travis: Lets look at the situation. If the Chargers left our sports scene would be pathetic for a metro area of our size and one that has hosted 3 super bowls already. We would have the Padres and SDSU. State football is ok, if they were in PAC 12 may be a different story and college basketball has become so boooring the last few years the product is almost unwatchable. People say look LA has done fine these last 20 years without football! Well duh they have 2 Hockey, NBA, MLB, and NBA teams with the Lakers winning five titles in the last 20 years going to 7 finals and virtually the playoffs every year. Then for football they have two high quality PAC 12 programs in USC and UCLA. Sooo just a slightly different sports scene than SD or your average metro area.

Comparable metro area size who has lost a team recently: Seattle. Boooming economy and downtown everyone calling it SF 2.0. They still have MLS, MLB, NFL, and Univ. of Wash PAC-12 sports once again not comparable to what San Diego would have if we lost the NFL.

The only metro area that has risen to prominence without pro sports being part of its identity is Austin. That city just happens to be in the uber business friendly and booming state of Texas so they are the outlier, looks like the culture/music scene and businesses flooding in carries the city.

Here in San Diego we are a stagnating metro area only building 6700 housing units a year (SD County not counting Temecula/Murrieta). IMO anything we can do to make ourself look like a "can do" city is very important, a popular well known tourist city with a positive image will look like a total slacker to the outside world if we lose an NFL franchise.

little italy garage a year and half later

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/327/1...b967ca31_z.jpg

and LI plaza
big hole in the ground

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/485/1...fd54293c_z.jpg

Thanks for the update Bertrice.

Here's a link to the newly-released 460 16th street renderings that came out today:

http://www.civicsd.com/images/storie...duced_8x11.pdf

UMy response to you didn't say you made an economic argument, I asked what non-economic consequences you predict if the Chargers leave since economically it's pretty widely agreed the consequences would be minor. You didn't really answer my question, but instead tell me I should "ask Baltimore, Houston and Cleveland". I'm not the one trying to make the argument we would have a "palpable and painful" void, you are. So why don't you tell us what this palpable pain consists of? You said in a previous post you have seen cities suffer after losing a major sports team, I was simply asking you for examples not trying to start an argument.

A point about being a catalyst - was Qualcomm a catalyst for development in mission valley? It doesn't really seem like it. If nothing major attributed to Qualcomm developed in all these years at and near that site, what reasoning is there to think there would be with a new stadium there?

And finally, to your point of no tax money - just because there won't be a tax doesn't mean tax money isn't being used on this plan. Both the city and county would, under this plan, contribute hundreds of millions of dollars in public assets. With all the infrastructure and other needs in our city, is a sports stadium the best use of these public funds? I'd be for it if there were a reasonable expectation of a heavy return for the city, but I just don't see it. The plan doesn't even call for a stadium that meets the capacity requirements for a Super Bowl!!

Okay.

You do realize the basis of economics rests on comparative analysis and data, right? You can't compare the relationship between "the Chargers/San Diego economy" to itself only. You need other examples to provide reference points in order to prove and/or disprove your theories.

And comparing San Diego to Buffalo isn't?

Glad to get your mind moving. :cheers:

:duh

Good, this is comparative, but you're also forgetting Buffalo is not a modern economic powerhouse, but rather, a slowly recovering relic of a manufacturing empire long gone. They don't deal with housing issues because who moves to Buffalo these days? Wage stagnation and income inequality wouldn't be a problem in a city that is desperately trying to change it's occupational base and is having difficulty luring high-income jobs to begin with. And cool, they have lots of water, they win the geography lottery this time; oh, and enjoy winter...

My interaction with what? The economy? I'm guessing (since you're not clear here at all) that you mean I don't have much of an investment in "the Chargers/San Diego economy," or, that I'm not a fan of the team or the NFL. To be honest, I'm not. So, yes (I think) you are correct here. I don't give two flying ducks about them. I do care about actual issues, like transportation, housing, infrustucture, etc. You know, day to day things that affect millions of people in this region. :D

I wrote my thesis on Mission Valley's development. Qualcomm (Jack Murphy, San Diego Stadium, whatever) was not a catalyst for development in the valley. The tipping point was Mission Valley Mall (now, Westfield Mission Valley). After that, western Mission Valley became what it is today, while eastern Mission Valley (stadium land) developed much later, decades after the stadium was constructed.

This is nice. :tup:

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...ublic/16th.jpg

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...blic/16th2.jpg

I can't wait to see people throwing themselves off of Sunset Cliffs when the Chargers announce they're going to Carson.

:haha:

You're a little insensitive about the importance of the Chargers. As a fellow advocate of this city, I would think that you would realize that the Chargers are a regional asset and amenity, which improves the profile of the city and could even help influence people to come to or stay in SD versus other cities.

I have to respectfully disagree. I know you are an advocate for SD, I've read your posts, they are always well thought out and I agree with the majority. In this case, though, I would argue the amount to which the Chargers contribute to the profile of our city is overstated. I'm sure there are some who having a pro football team would make or break their staying or coming here, but my guess is that would be an incredibly small amount of people.

I would also argue that the Chargers are insensitive to this city that has been their home for a very long time. They seem like they are after the best deal, without any particular loyalty to SD. That's fine, I realize they are a business, but it works both ways. Fans can also look at this in terms of what is best for the city instead of just blind loyalty and willing to do anything (or have our city do anything) to keep them here.

I'm complimening our city when I say I think we have enough positive aspects that losing the Chargers wouldn't detract from our profile.

Some people might not care about a city's profile as it relates to its major pro sports franchises, but many do. Either way, being a single sport, non-football city firmly establishes that San Diego is not a major, tier 1 US city (we're on par with Portland and Orlando) and it is also further evidence of San Diego's downward trajectory. From national and international relevance to...well I guess we'll see when we hit bottom.

Disagree. San Diego is a second tier city because of our airport and our proximity to LA which tends to get the regional (i.e. southern California) hubs for many things. Media for example. CNN is in LA, not SD, and the examples go on. Major international corporations establishing in this region tend to go to the LA area. LA is more internationally known and accessible and has far more international investment than SD. And, LA has not had a major league football team for a long time.

Again, I think those who are Chargers fans are overstating the importance - the problems you describe with SD's status as a major city or lack thereof exist WITH the Chargers here. Not to mention, newer stadiums seem to be migrating away from cities and into suburbs. Look at SF and the proposals for LA, they are getting away from this old-school idea of stadiums right in the heart of the city. They are moving to suburbs and seem to be less defined with the identity of the city and more with the metro/suburb areas. They have become ways for little known "satellite cities" like Carson and Santa Clara to make identities for themselves as opposed to large, established cities trying to retain them for their stature.

SDCAL: Lets be fair corporations really haven't been "setting up" in LA or OC for quite a while it is a legacy of huge growth from the 60's thru late 90's. Since then Texas has been the place for places to set up. CNN, big deal its a studio and a few reporters/anchors not like that is a giant economic engine along with ESPN set up outside of Staples Center. My point is of course SD isn't a big corporate city we already know that.

Eburress is talking about the status of having an MLB and NFL team and hosting Super Bowls/NCAA Football title games and what that brings on the national stage. Can you put a price on it no. Do I wish Korean and Chinese money was flooding in to SD and not LA of course I do. How do we go about capturing that Asian money? I think a new airport is obviously a good start, cooperating with Tijuana and Mexico in general could be a catalyst.

Lets face it, is the LA economy thriving? Can you or I just move up there and get a 55 to 70k per year job easily? Of course not. CA is a very tough competitive state to make it in without being a tech wiz or biotech engineer. I know I'm rambling but look at the US every city with an MLB team also has a NFL team (Milwaukee has the Packers in GB but they have NBA)... Think about that, SD would be the only city with an MLB team not to have an NFL team not good.

Having nice sporting facilities makes a city look like a "Can do" place. Losing an NFL team would be a big blow for SD, LA is so huge it could absorb it and I already posted about their jam packed sports scene.

Mello, my point about CNN was just one example explaining San Diego is not the regional hub city for Southern California. Whether it's media, consulates, even big name retailers, they always go to LA first and SD is a secondary market if they come here at all. Football doesn't change this. Eburess specifically mentioned international relevence in his or her post about the importance of the Chargers. What international profile enhancements has SD gained from having the Chargers here and what has LA lost not having an NFL team? San Diego has what - one foreign consulate for Mexico. Both LA and SF have many foreign consulates that are the Diplomatic hubs for the Western U.S., and it's not because of their sports teams. Have the Chargers driven any foreign investment in our city? And if so, what? And what do you think about the current proposal being for a stadium that wouldn't meet minimum Super Bowl capacity? Our city is so desperate to keep this team and "elevate our standing" and show the nation we are a "can do" city as you guys keep arguing, but we can't even build a stadium that could have a super bowl? Ridiculous.

Current Chargers stadium proposal = 65,000 capacity
Minimum required for Super Bowl = 72,000

Maybe this will change in negotiations, but the proposal on the table now wouldn't even qualify us to host a SB

By the way, I'm not trying to diss SD when I compare it to LA, I'm just stating fact. And there are areas we have done very well to drive our region. SD has done a good job in the biotech arena where we have universities, research institutions, and biotech companies creating a strong hub here. And those jobs aren't moving to Texas. I have to cringe whenever someone uses the Texas example. I know people who fled CA to make more money and buy a cheaper house in Texas, and they have either come back to CA or are desperately trying to. You have give and take, and when your state decides to dole out welfare to corporations it has negative consequences. The environmental standards from what I've been told by people who moved are very low, healthcare is lacking, and the state has gone so far overboard to attract business that other areas have suffered. There needs to be balance.

SDCAL, It looks like we're not going to agree on this. As you have said though, everything goes to LA first and there are many examples of this. I think we can agree that the NFL leaving SD would be yet another example of this. We can argue to what degree it matters, but I think I speak for everyone when I say that the last thing any of us want is another example of us losing (football, basketball, railroads, headquarters, hubs, etc etc etc) to LA. :cheers:

My last thought on this is that football doesn't make us great, but it is a piece of the puzzle. Status is largely derived from perception. People aren't going to take the time to understand why we no longer have the NFL, they will just know that we must not be able to have a team for some reason and are therefore are probably second class, or worse.

Los Angeles has lost both the Rams and the Raiders. Both of which went to Superbowls while playing in LA with the Raiders winning it all. The city was unable to keep either team.

Los Angeles hasn't had a NFL in it since 1994. Hasn't destroyed its image in that time.


Los Angeles is the great fantasyland where any NFL team landing there will strike it rich. Only problem is there's no history to back it up.

The Rams and Raiders are becoming NFL yoyo's for the city and now after 55 years the Chargers want to play too.

Part of me wants the Chargers to work it out and stay in SD but the other part wants to see them in LA with the Raiders so they can become the Clippers to the Raiders Lakers. LA fans would like the Raiders back, not the Chargers. They are in for a rude awakening if they think they'll be anything other than LA's "other" team.

Even more fun is if we get a three's company of LA teams since the Rams are easily moving there first. Lol

Such drama.

:titanic: