SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Compilations (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2 (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126473)

SDCAL Jan 8, 2016 5:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 7291772)
You are glad SD isn't ponying up for a franchise and although you won't get to go to your [former] team's games, your heart will be warmed be the pride that San Diego didn't cave in to the horrible NFL boondoggle. :tup:

Why do you keep saying those of us who think the money could/should be spent elsewhere should be proud of San Diego? Our mayor spent the better part of 2015 trying to throw money at them (along with the county they came up with a deal to give then around $300 + million towards a stadium.) Granted the city did string them along for years before that, I do agree with you there. But I'm not proud of the city. We should have either been up front and with them from the beginning and say no public money for a new stadium, or had a vote earlier to see what the people would be willing to pay for. I don't think there are winners here, the city, Spanos and the NFL all were pretty sketchy contributors to this mess :)

Nerv Jan 8, 2016 5:50 AM

Huh? When did this become a sports thread? :yuck:


Anyway there are way to many moving parts to the NFL and its 3 way race to LA. I say it's still to early to predict how it all plays out for San Diego.

How many teams will end up in LA?
2? 3?
Which ones?
Will San Diego continue to work on a new stadium?
Will it pass in a vote?
Will another team like Oakland or St. Louis (or even Jacksonville) end up here?
What's it going to be like for the teams moving to LA playing there in one of their "slum" stadiums while they wait 5 or 6 (could be more) years for a new stadium?
What's the fan reaction going to be in LA for the Chargers if they continue to perform how they have here for the last few years?
Will the Chargers end up doing a U turn back to San Diego if the reception is cold in LA much like Oakland did many years ago?

There are many unanswered questions. I didn't even include the very real fate of what is going to happen with San Diego State after their contract is up or the two SD bowl games or what happens to the Q's massive plot of land.

What I do know is my family has owned season Charger tickets for decades now (they keep getting passed down) and I have a ton of family in LA and the OC if I ever want to see a Charger game but honestly they have given San Diego such a terrible product for years I don't really care right now. What the Chargers need to change is owners to be winners, not cities.

eburress Jan 8, 2016 2:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 7292053)
Why do you keep saying those of us who think the money could/should be spent elsewhere should be proud of San Diego? Our mayor spent the better part of 2015 trying to throw money at them (along with the county they came up with a deal to give then around $300 + million towards a stadium.) Granted the city did string them along for years before that, I do agree with you there. But I'm not proud of the city. We should have either been up front and with them from the beginning and say no public money for a new stadium, or had a vote earlier to see what the people would be willing to pay for. I don't think there are winners here, the city, Spanos and the NFL all were pretty sketchy contributors to this mess :)


I don't think we are disagreeing. I'm not saying anyone should be proud of the city. My feeling is this Chargers situation is a complete and utter embarrassment, that it's another indication of the ineptitude of this city's government, not to mention its population, and that this should-be-great city keeps slipping farther from relevance.

People can spin this however they like (we didn't cater to the NFL, we're going to pave roads with all the money we didn't spend, etc), but IMO these are largely just rationalizations.

ChargerCarl Jan 8, 2016 5:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 7291772)
Huh? I'm assuming you meant to quote the other portion of my post, but either way, boondoggle or not, the cities that want NFL franchises pay for them and the ones that don't don't. Ultimately it's Charger fans that suffer...

...well other Chargers fans. You are glad SD isn't ponying up for a franchise and although you won't get to go to your [former] team's games, your heart will be warmed be the pride that San Diego didn't cave in to the horrible NFL boondoggle. :tup:

Yup. As much as I love the Chargers I love California more, which is why I'm glad we won't be wasting taxpayer dollars on gifting them hundreds of millions.

dales5050 Jan 8, 2016 5:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl (Post 7289940)
God forbid the taxpayers actually get to keep it...

So what is it?

Is it not being taxed more or being taxed more but spending it on infrastructure rather than a stadium?

ChargerCarl Jan 8, 2016 5:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 7292466)
So what is it?

Is it not being taxed more or being taxed more but spending it on infrastructure rather than a stadium?

Both are better options then giving billionaires taxpayer money to finance their businesses.

dales5050 Jan 8, 2016 5:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 7290793)
Why is this argument so amusing to you? If the city can come up with $300 million for a football team and that plan doesn't move forward, it's perfectly reasonable to ask why they can't come up with the money for other things. For example, Balboa Park is back-logged with deferred maintenance that totals roughly what the city would spend on a new stadium. What's amusing are the people who balk at public money going towards civic and infrastructure improvements but they are ok giving it to a football team owned by a billionaire.


It's amusing because coming up with money for things is always going to be supported by some and not wanted by others.

For every person that said 'F the chargers, they can leave' there is a person who says 'Who cares about Balboa Park, let it rot'....

If you're talking about schools, for every person who says 'let's pour money into schools' there is another saying 'I don't care or the schools get enough'..

If we're talking about roads, there is one side that says we should maintain and expand...then there is another that says...use public transit or live closer to your job...nobody forced you to move out to the edge.

The point is...if San Diego does not want to spend money on the Chargers, that's fine. They leave.

But to suggest that because San Diego was successful in getting the Chargers to leave there is all of a sudden an equal pot of money to be spent elsewhere is foolish. It does not work like that.

dales5050 Jan 8, 2016 5:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl (Post 7292468)
Both are better options then giving billionaires taxpayer money to finance their businesses.

That is your opinion. It's a fine opinion and many agree with you.

That said, there are many taxpayers who want an NFL team in San Diego. They are OK with tax dollars being spent on having a team. Regardless if that goes to a non-profit or a billionaire.


Let me put it to you this way....

How do you think the person who can not afford a car and has to walk or take public transportation to work feels about their tax dollars being spent on roads for people who have more money than them?

It's the same thing. You might have issues with a billionaire getting your money but someone making minimum wage might have issue with their money going to someone in the middle class for things like roads.

Someone in the middle class might have issue with their tax money going to things for the upper middle class for things like museums or cultural spending that they would never attend or could not afford to attend.

Envy goes a lot farther down the line than just billionaires and the rest of us.

SDfan Jan 8, 2016 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 7292253)
I don't think we are disagreeing. I'm not saying anyone should be proud of the city. My feeling is this Chargers situation is a complete and utter embarrassment, that it's another indication of the ineptitude of this city's government, not to mention its population, and that this should-be-great city keeps slipping farther from relevance.

People can spin this however they like (we didn't cater to the NFL, we're going to pave roads with all the money we didn't spend, etc), but IMO these are largely just rationalizations.

I don't think San Diego is any different from other cities who have decided the NFL isn't for them, and we shouldn't be embarrassed about that. Let's not forget that the 49ers are no longer in San Francisco but in Santa Clara, the Cowboys aren't in Dallas - Arlington paid for it, and the Jets and Giants play in New Jersey in a stadium they split on. Those cities decided they wouldn't waste their money on a boondoggle, and we're doing the same. We just don't have a way to privately finance our stadium or a sucker of a suburb willing to doll out the public funds, or owners who understand that it isn't the public's responsibility to build them glorified coliseums.

Our public government and population is inept on a lot of issues, but this is clearly not one of them. If we were to pass a measure to pay for a stadium (which would never pass in SD, or any large CA city) in light of all of our financial and infrastructural problems, that would be stupidity on San Diego's part.

Bertrice Jan 9, 2016 1:00 AM

Doesn't a stadium count as infrastructure?
at some point the stadium will have to be dealt with. chargers or not

#foresight

SDCAL Jan 9, 2016 2:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 7292478)
It's amusing because coming up with money for things is always going to be supported by some and not wanted by others.

For every person that said 'F the chargers, they can leave' there is a person who says 'Who cares about Balboa Park, let it rot'....

If you're talking about schools, for every person who says 'let's pour money into schools' there is another saying 'I don't care or the schools get enough'..

If we're talking about roads, there is one side that says we should maintain and expand...then there is another that says...use public transit or live closer to your job...nobody forced you to move out to the edge.

The point is...if San Diego does not want to spend money on the Chargers, that's fine. They leave.

But to suggest that because San Diego was successful in getting the Chargers to leave there is all of a sudden an equal pot of money to be spent elsewhere is foolish. It does not work like that.

You're right on some points, but I think distinction can be made on infrastructure based on necessity and infrastructure based on public use. I think a stadium, being something that's not public (we still need to pay to go to events there) and not vital to the city's infrastructure puts it into a category of something that needs to be voted on before spending hundreds of millions of dollars. Balboa Park is a public park in the city so I think that's something the city should fund without a public vote. Even if a stadium is neither public nor critical, if it was going to be owned by the city and the city could use profits from it for other things, I think more people would be in favor of it. Hell, if the Chargers were any good I think more people would be in favor of it. Let's be honest, when you look at certain facts: Chargers record is mediocre, it's owned by a billionaire, and the NFL itself is a cash cow, asking a city that is already lacking in good mass transit and civic infrastructure to give hundreds of millions to such a rich organization is a hard sell. Have you been to city hall lately? It's like a shanty building with asbestos and water stains, the building is falling apart. Do we really want to be the city who gives hundreds of millions of dollars to a sports team when our city employees are one more El Niño storm away from being housed in FEMA trailers!?

SDCAL Jan 9, 2016 2:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 7292896)
I don't think San Diego is any different from other cities who have decided the NFL isn't for them, and we shouldn't be embarrassed about that. Let's not forget that the 49ers are no longer in San Francisco but in Santa Clara, the Cowboys aren't in Dallas - Arlington paid for it, and the Jets and Giants play in New Jersey in a stadium they split on. Those cities decided they wouldn't waste their money on a boondoggle, and we're doing the same. We just don't have a way to privately finance our stadium or a sucker of a suburb willing to doll out the public funds, or owners who understand that it isn't the public's responsibility to build them glorified coliseums.

Our public government and population is inept on a lot of issues, but this is clearly not one of them. If we were to pass a measure to pay for a stadium (which would never pass in SD, or any large CA city) in light of all of our financial and infrastructural problems, that would be stupidity on San Diego's part.

You make a really good point about the migration of these teams to "satellite cities." I was thinking about this the other day and wondering why a "lesser known" city (nationally speaking) in our area like Chula Vista or Oceanside didn't try to lure them. It seems like bigger well known cities have wised-up and realize they don't need these teams to be world class cities, but lesser known satellite cities still look at luring these teams as a chance to put themselves on the map. Carson isn't LA proper, it's a dump south of LA.

dales5050 Jan 9, 2016 5:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 7292896)
I don't think San Diego is any different from other cities who have decided the NFL isn't for them, and we shouldn't be embarrassed about that. Let's not forget that the 49ers are no longer in San Francisco but in Santa Clara, the Cowboys aren't in Dallas - Arlington paid for it, and the Jets and Giants play in New Jersey in a stadium they split on. Those cities decided they wouldn't waste their money on a boondoggle, and we're doing the same. We just don't have a way to privately finance our stadium or a sucker of a suburb willing to doll out the public funds, or owners who understand that it isn't the public's responsibility to build them glorified coliseums.


Wow. This is a reach. They are still in the SF, Dallas, NYC and Atlanta metro area. Not the same as moving to another metro.

The Chargers are leaving. Odds are Comic Con is as well. San Diego has changed it's trajectory for sure.

dales5050 Jan 9, 2016 5:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 7293197)
You're right on some points, but I think distinction can be made on infrastructure based on necessity and infrastructure based on public use. I think a stadium, being something that's not public (we still need to pay to go to events there) and not vital to the city's infrastructure puts it into a category of something that needs to be voted on before spending hundreds of millions of dollars.


How about a County Gas Tax?

That is one way to raise money just for roads and only have those who use the roads pay for it and pay by use. The more you drive, the more you pay.

That's about as fair as it can get.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 7293197)
Balboa Park is a public park in the city so I think that's something the city should fund without a public vote. Even if a stadium is neither public nor critical, if it was going to be owned by the city and the city could use profits from it for other things, I think more people would be in favor of it.

That's your opinion. I am sure there are many people who don't use public parks and don't care if they get funded.

FWIW, I think Balboa Park is the crown jewel of the city but I have taken walks in it on a Tuesday night just because due to location. Others in the city maybe go every couple of years..for some event.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 7293197)
Hell, if the Chargers were any good I think more people would be in favor of it. Let's be honest, when you look at certain facts: Chargers record is mediocre, it's owned by a billionaire, and the NFL itself is a cash cow, asking a city that is already lacking in good mass transit and civic infrastructure to give hundreds of millions to such a rich organization is a hard sell.

IIRC, Spanos offered to pay for a new stadium in full if he was allowed to develop the Q. I thought that was a pretty good deal that should have been explored further. But many say no.

But this reminds me a lot of Charlotte and the NBA. The people in the city simply did not like the first owner. He wanted a new arena and they said no. He took his team to New Orleans. A couple of years later a new ownership group presented and a new arena was built.

I think in 10 years San Diego is going to be looking for a NFL team. Doubt they get one but I think this has a lot to do with people simply not liking the owner. Not the economics. Just my opinion.


Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 7293197)
Have you been to city hall lately? It's like a shanty building with asbestos and water stains, the building is falling apart. Do we really want to be the city who gives hundreds of millions of dollars to a sports team when our city employees are one more El Niño storm away from being housed in FEMA trailers!?

People find pride in their city in different ways. You obviously find no value in a NFL team. That's fine. I get it. But many do.

As for City Hall, I think a new one would be wonderful but you're going to find many who don't think it's a good investment of their tax dollars to spend on fancy new office space for public workers.



San Diego is setting a course that will drastically alter it for the next few generations. I am just not sure people are going to be happy with the result.

Bertrice Jan 9, 2016 7:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 7293586)
How about a County Gas Tax?

that sounds like an amazing idea!!

Leo the Dog Jan 9, 2016 9:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 7293586)
How about a County Gas Tax?.

Sounds good, but with the popularity of hybrids and now all electric Teslas, Volts, Leafs and the inevitable all-electric fully automated vehicles to hit the road, this won't raise enough funds for roads.

Maricopa County (Phoenix) created a 20 year, 1/2 cent sales tax dedicated to transportation. The first 20 years raised enough money to build their freeway system, enhance bus service etc. They renewed the tax for another 20 years and this included their light rail system and HOV lanes on all freeways along with new freeway extensions.

In 1985 they had only 2 partially built freeways and was the last link in the 10 freeway to be complete by 1990.
http://www.discoverphoenixarizona.co...reeways-sm.jpg

SDCAL Jan 9, 2016 9:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 7293586)
As for City Hall, I think a new one would be wonderful but you're going to find many who don't think it's a good investment of their tax dollars to spend on fancy new office space for public workers

Not building a new city hall was one of the stupidest decisions our city made. I'm not sure how many years ago it was, but they had bids and selected what seemed like a really good design. People in the local media comments sections ridiculed the idea of doing what you said, spending money on a "Taj Mahal" for public workers. The problem: By building a city owned building it would have saved tax payers over the long term, instead the leases are expiring and the city is embarking on astronautical downtown rental rates to conduct city business. The city could have even made money in the future by renting out some of the space.

eburress Jan 9, 2016 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 7293575)
Wow. This is a reach. They are still in the SF, Dallas, NYC and Atlanta metro area. Not the same as moving to another metro.

The Chargers are leaving. Odds are Comic Con is as well. San Diego has changed it's trajectory for sure.

It's just one more rationalization in a long line of rationalizations we'll all hear. It's just like when your girlfriend breaks up with you. Obviously she was crazy and you never liked her that much anyway. Uh huh...


Obviously the NFL is a boondoggle, SD wised up, and really, we never wanted an NFL franchise anyway. Uh huh...

ChargerCarl Jan 9, 2016 11:31 PM

SD will surely die a slow death without an unpopular NFL team.

dales5050 Jan 10, 2016 4:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog (Post 7293782)
Sounds good, but with the popularity of hybrids and now all electric Teslas, Volts, Leafs and the inevitable all-electric fully automated vehicles to hit the road, this won't raise enough funds for roads.

How so?

Take the average number of gallons of gas sold in the County for the last 5 years. Then take say 90% of that to account for hybrid adoption.

Then Come up with a number for the county wide road improvements over the next 5 years.

From there divide the cost by 5. Take that number and divide it by the average of sales.

The result is the amount that each gallon of gas needs to be taxed.

Every year run the same formula and set the tax.


People who use the roads in the county pay for them.


By the way, this is the same logic of those who say people who go to Chargers games should pay for the stadium.


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.