SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (
-   City Compilations (
-   -   SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2 (

SDfan Dec 9, 2009 6:27 PM

I think they are suggesting we put the stadium under the city.

HurricaneHugo Dec 10, 2009 6:56 AM


Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 4599103)
I think they are suggesting we put the stadium under the city.

And hook it up with our massive subway system!:banana:

eburress Dec 10, 2009 4:28 PM


Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 4600289)
And hook it up with our massive subway system!:banana:

They could build it right next to the city's new subterranean international airport. ;)

Derek Dec 10, 2009 9:33 PM


staplesla Dec 10, 2009 11:23 PM

Chargers say they need public money for stadium
For seven years, the San Diego Chargers have said they would build a new stadium without using taxpayer money. Thursday, a team spokesman said otherwise.

“It’s almost certainly going to involve some sort of taxpayer money,” said Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani, who has led the team’s stadium search since 2002.

“Now the question is: Can you say to the taxpayers you’re putting in this, but here’s what you’re getting back? And you know, it’s possible you can make that case.”

It’s a significant shift for the team, which has always expressed a desire to finance stadium construction privately and acknowledged via Fabiani the difficulty of getting public support for any kind of taxpayer subsidy.

Fabiani’s latest comments came in an interview after he made a pitch for a new stadium and chief operating officer Jim Steeg touted the team’s value to the community at a morning gathering of the San Diego North Chamber of Commerce at Sony headquarters in Rancho Bernardo.

Fabiani was updating the crowd of 40 or 50 people on early efforts by the city and team to evaluate a potential stadium site in downtown San Diego east of Petco Park.

That location is in the city’s downtown redevelopment area, so it’s possible that the city could borrow money against future property taxes to help finance a stadium.

Mayor Jerry Sanders has long said he would oppose using public funds toward construction of a new stadium, but an aide said last month that the Mayor’s Office is looking at all ways cities have helped with stadium construction, including infrastructure financing and borrowing money against future redevelopment revenues downtown.

Thursday, Fabiani told the crowd a stadium could be built downtown for $700 million to $800 million. In the past, it has been said that the Chargers and the National Football League might contribute $200 million apiece to a stadium, and that the gap would be bridged by nearby ancillary development such as hotels, condos and retail.

The team has set aside that idea because of the poor economy and the small size of the downtown site, which is bounded by 14th, 16th and K streets and Imperial Avenue. Plans call for a 62,000-seat stadium to abut the street and expand to 72,000 seats to accommodate Super Bowls, with little room to build much else in the way of ancillary development.

Fabiani told the crowd Thursday about the need for creative financing and twice said a new financing model was something people must “wrap their heads around.”

Afterward, he said the team has “no interest in obscuring” from people its shift on public financing because it wants support from voters to achieve its goals.

Fabiani again said Thursday that the team wants to put any stadium measure onto a public ballot.

“We have no interest in spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, even into the millions, on this site, and then finding out that nobody wants to support it,” he said. “We think we should lay it out on the table right now that this is a very different kind of site, that it’s not the same model that we’ve used before, that people need to adjust their thinking about that, and that you’re not going to have ancillary development on the same site.”

A push to use public money would face opposition from Donna Frye, the longest-serving member of the San Diego City Council, whose district includes Qualcomm Stadium.

“My main point will always be that the taxpayers don’t foot the bill,” she said last week. “We cannot afford to pay for a Chargers stadium. The city can’t afford it. That would include any money from the redevelopment agency.”

SDfan Dec 11, 2009 6:31 AM


Derek Dec 11, 2009 7:28 AM

Fuck Donna Frye!

kpexpress Dec 11, 2009 8:10 AM


Originally Posted by dl3000 (Post 4598885)
Soooo whats that?

not under the city, just submerged a bit so as keeping the street level circulation scaled more toward human walking.

CoastersBolts Dec 11, 2009 5:11 PM


Originally Posted by Derek (Post 4602109)
Fuck Donna Frye!


mello Dec 11, 2009 5:16 PM

The only way I see the citizens of San Diego voting yes on any use of public funds is if the vote is right after the Chargers win the Superbowl. Other then that the stadium will not get built with public funds if it is put to a vote. Why does everything in San Diego need to get voted on? Is there a way to use public money and not have it go to a ballot measure?

I wonder if there is anyway to get the county to chip in money and not just the city of SD. This is going to be interesting. The developer in LA says that a team must commit to the stadium before he begins construction so whoever goes there would have to play in the Coliseum or Rose Bowl for 2 to 3 years before moving in to the new stadium in the City of Industry.

tdavis Dec 11, 2009 7:48 PM

I predict this will continue to stall as it has been for months, or the voters will vote no - with the end result being the Chargers moving to Los Angeles.

IconRPCV Dec 12, 2009 2:14 AM


Thankfully for us this guy up in LA wants majority ownership in the team that moves to LA and the Spanos family is not looking to give up more than half the team.

Derek Dec 12, 2009 9:00 AM

I'll be following the Chargers and move to Los Angeles. Yikes. I hate LA.

eburress Dec 12, 2009 4:14 PM


Originally Posted by Derek (Post 4603760)
I'll be following the Chargers and move to Los Angeles. Yikes. I hate LA.

I think at that point I'll either head back to Dallas or maybe give Seattle or Portland a try. ;)

Derek Dec 12, 2009 5:05 PM

Portland sounds good, but no sports teams = no bueno. :(

I guess they have the Trail Blazers...

eburress Dec 12, 2009 11:18 PM


Originally Posted by Derek (Post 4604013)
Portland sounds good, but no sports teams = no bueno. :(

I guess they have the Trail Blazers...

Bball's my second favorite sport and I think I could get on-board with the Blazers. ;)

Fusey Dec 12, 2009 11:22 PM

^ Too bad Oden gets injured more often than Merriman. :haha:

Portland is an okay. I think it's a bit overrated compared to several other US cities.

HurricaneHugo Dec 13, 2009 3:02 AM

Screw you guys, I'll go down with the ship!

pesto Dec 13, 2009 7:58 AM

I sympathize with how you feel. I would like to see LA get a team from outside the state but who knows which one we'll get. Whoever it is, I'll become a fan (except if it's the Raiders).

The real problem is the sprawl. SD might lose a team but it' hard to say that "LA" gets one. The Chargers would move 20 miles from LA. Industry is basically on the border of LA, SB, Riverside and Orange Counties. Similarly, the Rams and Angels were in a different county. Same in the Bay Area: the SF 49er's and maybe the Raiders and A's may move 50 miles away to SJ.

It might be tough, but you could probably find a rationale for staying Charger fans. I stayed a Rams fan after they moved to St. Louis. Maybe think of them as the SoCal Chargers of Industry What's it all really mean, after all?

Or move to Portland; nice place in the summer.

HurricaneHugo Dec 14, 2009 2:30 AM

I'm not sharing the Chargers with the rest of SoCal.

Screw them.

Anyways, anything going on with the Gaylord site?

All times are GMT. The time now is 2:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.