Let's hope the Jacobs can bring NBA back to San Diego. That would be amazing. A downtown arena akin to LA Live would be amazing.

Ok I'm confused what would the Jacobs brothers have to do with the Sacramento Kings, and why would the Clippers move here when they have two stars and are looking like a perennial playoff team for the foreseeable future? Good teams never relocate in any sport. Teams have usually had 3 to 5 consecutive down years before they move.

The only way an NBA team would work here is if they were a solid team with established stars, the Kings or Pelicans coming here would be a disaster and maybe draw 10k per night :( San Diego just does not have the corporate base and enough people with money within a 15 mile drive of downtown to support an NBA team at the average ticket prices most of them charge. If they were SDSU prices then maybe 15k per game but NBA tix aren't too cheap.

As far as I know, the Jacobs' reason for buying into the Kings are unknown, which is what makes it so interesting. Off the top of my head, there are only 3 reasons why they would have made the investment:

1. They just really wanted to invest in a team, even if it's 600 miles away
2. They bought into the team to "cut their teeth" and learn how the sports ownership business works, to prepare for a full stake in another team
3. They plan to eventually move the team once the competition from Seattle cools down.

Could be any one of these, although some scenarios are more plausible than others.

As far as NBA in San Diego goes, I think it's looney that people point back to the 60's/70's with the Rockets and Clippers to say that there isn't an appetite or fan base for NBA in SD. The size of the city has more than doubled, and we are almost 2 generations removed from the 60's/70's.

Again, based on 40-50 years since the last team, we have a lot more in terms of corporate sponsorship now than before. Qualcomm could use the entire team to woo clients while profiting from the venue at the same time. Also, the fact that the facility could be shared with NFL would help lower ongoing operating costs. Not to mention the income/subsidy from redevelopment of the Sports Arena and area surrounding Qualcomm.

Without an expansion team, you're right, the Clippers, Kings or another team would have to move. I'm not sure how likely that is, but I definitely think we could support the team much better than in the past.

If SD gets their act together and can come up with a working plan to build an arena in the East village, they could lure the Clippers from LA. They would love to have their own home and not play on the Lakers' court. I believe Seattle is interested in a NBA team. There are many articles and blogs about why the Clippers should move. All I'm saying is Why not SD?

As for tickets and a fan base, I don't see a problem there. I see conventioneers from an expanded convention center filling the gap. The NBA is successful in many small markets (Salt Lake, OKC, Sacramento, Cleveland, NO, Portland, San Antonio).

San Diego's history with the NBA is far,far into its past. I'm not sure how a team would do here today and unless we ever get one I don't see any predictions of success or failure being terribly accurate.

The Rockets were originally started back here but that was in 1967-71. The city was tiny compared to today and if a Texas backer hadn't bought the franchise and moved it to Houston I'm not sure the team wouldn't have "grown into" the city like the Chargers and Padres finally did.

The Clippers were more of a passing ship in the night for San Diego. The team wasn't a original San Diego product (the Clippers started in 1970 in Buffalo). We got them years later in 1978 until 1984. The team was terrible and the ownership did nothing to endear themselves to San Diego fans. The negative reaction you get from San Diego basketball fans when you bring up the name Clippers is well deserved. It would have been the same reaction had the team played in any other city.

Hey I know people like to bash on San Diego fans here but both the Chargers and Padres have proved at times when you treat the fans proper and make your best attempt with your product (spelled team) we draw attendance numbers with the best. Treat the fans otherwise as both the Chargers and Padres have at times and you see the opposite.

My point being if a serious owner came to town with a serious attempt to win fans over with a NBA team, I think it might work. You don't have to be in the playoffs every year to draw San Diego fans you just need to stop screwing with them... :titanic:

Explain this, how could a basketball arena be shared with the NFL? The only NBA team to ever play in a facility that housed football was the Spurs in the Alamo dome?

There are many examples online...here is one.
http://www.vigilantsports.com/wp-con...ional-2013.jpg

Is it perfect? No. Could it make keeping the Chargers and getting an NBA team viable? Maybe.

There could be many benefits to sharing. Naming rights could be worth more due to the 2 sports seasons. Also there would be a better chance of selling seat licenses with 2 sports. High rise condos around the facility could fetch higher prices as they could be marketed to NFL and NBA fans (or both).

Spoonman there are no NBA teams who share a facility with a college or pro football team, I don't really know if an NBA team would want to move here to play in a football stadium.

Note on Clippers: They could have had there own identity and Arena in Anaheim at the Honda center years ago. That facility was built with the intention of having the Ducks and Clippers play there and the owner Donald Sterling could take that deal at any time but he chooses to stay in the City of LA and share an arena with the Lakers.

What makes anyone think Sterling would want to come back to SD a place he left so long ago when he could have had his own team identity in OC with easy access to parts of the Inland Empire for the last 19 years?

The Honda center was the premier Arena in all of California for six years until Staples opened in 1999. Would have made a lot of sense for Sterling to go down there but he seems to be an "LA guy".

Regarding the NBA: I think DT is a perfect location for a NBA arena. It could double as an event center. Putting it in the East Village could really accelerate the build out.

If this were to happen, I would love to see some sort of planned urban village to be constructed on the site of the current sports arena.

Regarding the Charges Stadium: Regardless of where it goes and if it actually gets built, I think people are going to have to give up the idea of having a vast amount of space to tailgate. Simply put, it puts zero money into the coffers of the team or city.

I also really like the Cushman plan for the current site. I know there are issues with pollution but I hope those could be resolved. It would be great to see the gas field cleared in the new build.

http://media.utsandiego.com/img/phot...053cbc530c46a8

So do you guys really think that if the Qualcomm or Sports Arena site become open for a planned urban village there will really be demand for such a project??

Look at CIVITA: The land has been cleared for what 4 years now and that is a prime Mission Valley location and it is coming along sooo slowly in phases... So will there really be demand for 2000 units on Sports Arena land or 4 to 5k on Qualcomm?? I know there is demand for housing in the County but not at the price point the developers need to make things pencil out.

Of course new 2 bedrooms at 1200 to $1400 per month will lease like hotcakes but Civita is starting at 2k per month and I would assume any urban village on the aforementioned properties would be asking similar prices.

It depends on what kind of timeline you're looking at. If you look at it over say 20 years...that's not to far of a reach.

I also wonder if the build out could have a more diverse housing stock and thus maybe tap into various funding sources. I know some county support buildings are around the corner and there is already a good mix of low end retail like Target and Vons.

A PUD does not have to be high end in my opinion. In fact, if low income was better developed we would all be better off.

^ I agree.

I'm for building as much housing in SD as possible. Low priced housing would instantly reduce pent up demand for affordable structures. Even at high prices, you would have residents "moving up" vacating less desirable units for less affluent buyers.

In the papers, this city keeps debating over "Linkage Fees" which tax developers, in order to build "low income" housing. Problem is that this scares away developers (worsening the job market/and incomes), and creates very little subsidized housing.

The city needs to come to the realization that regulations should be reduced, and massive housing complexes need to be build somewhere to reduce pressure on prices. Let's pick an uncontentious area and build tons of low-med income housing that is only subsidized in that developers can fast track the projects, and receive lienency on restrictions and red tape.

Absolute +1 :notacrook:

Just have a look at San Francisco to see how badly the "robin hood" principle of affordable housing has gone. It's simple demographic fact that developer fees on the few units built for the rich cannot pay for housing for everyone else. What would have been one of the most highly taxed developments in SF was 134 luxury condos bringing $8M in affordable housing. That isn't a ratio that will ever make an impact.

Volume in new locations is the way to bring down prices.

Regents Road
 

Hey guys, just a quick question. I'm not originally from SD so I'm not sure on the history of how things developed here (but I'm learning).

Does anyone know why Regents road does not connect from University City to UTC area? Was it a NIMBY issue, or does it have to do with the RR tracks?

It seems like this would ease congestion and provide another access point to the region via the 52.

Same question for Balboa/Tierrasanta rd to Mission Gorge in Allied Gardens...seems like it was planned, but never completed.

Here is the link to the Wikipedia article regarding the bridge. Regents Road Bridge Also it's a little old but the Marriott ballroom project gained coastal commission approval and is moving forward. It's expected to start in 2015. http://www.portofsandiego.org/san-di...s-forward.html

I believe Regents was going to be completed "soon", but there was NIMBY pushback. I had thought that the NIMBY's were not going to win this one because completing Regents was tied to the redevelopment of UTC, which is to include multiple towers of residential, hotel, office. Not sure though.

What are you guys' thoughts on the mayoral race?

Faulconer will probably be the best for downtown development and in my opinion is the best choice.

I don't like Alvarez because he seems anti-jobs & anti-development. I did not like his stance on Barrio Logan. Shipbuilding brings in high paying jobs, and is the major use of our harbor (as opposed to being a cargo port). We shouldn't have to mess that up to appease people that bought houses in a sh!tty neighborhood. I shouldn't be able to move somewhere crappy, then have the legislature fix it to get my property values up. Sorry for the rant.

Falconer supported my stance on the Barrio Logan issue. That said, he came out in favor of the 30ft coastal height limit in Voice of SD. His explanation rubbed me the wrong way, in that he seemed in lock step with the aging boomer set, intent on preserving "their" views, and driving up home prices. I believe the coastal limit should not stretch to the 5, but maybe only 1/2 a mile. All that said, he is a republican, and so he may be a friend to developers (which is good), but may not be a friend to well planned development (not good).

Fletcher seems a wild card. Despite what people say, I like the fact that he is in the pocket of Qualcomm. If nothing else, just to see what Qualcomm is looking to get out of the city. No single company has done more for the city in recent history. He may be the guy to push a stadium or arena through...than again, who knows.

If I had to vote today, I would pick Fletcher, with Falconer as second choice.

Re: Regents Road: thanks Tyler/spoonman.

Regarding the mayoral race, I'm for Faulconer. Fletcher has some unknowns and Alvarez isn't a realistic option.