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)

ChargerCarl Jan 6, 2016 9:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IconRPCV (Post 7289946)
I have read several articles mentioning this as well. The San Diego Raiders sounds odd but better than nothing.

Im pretty sure the NFL would block that.

Nerv Jan 6, 2016 9:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl (Post 7290191)
Im pretty sure the NFL would block that.


Because that's worked so well the last time the Raiders (and others since) wanted to move. Lol

The NFL has no legal powers to stop anyone moving if they really want to.

ChargerCarl Jan 6, 2016 9:53 PM

Yes it does. The NFL has to approve relocations. They're franchises. I doubt a team would be able to get away with what the Raiders pulled in the 80's.

Nerv Jan 6, 2016 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl (Post 7290230)
Yes it does. The NFL has to approve relocations. They're franchises. I doubt a team would be able to get away with what the Raiders pulled in the 80's.

Actually the Raiders case proved in the courts that it was illegal for the NFL to stop any owner from moving. It's called antitrust laws. It's why we don't have the Baltimore Colts or the "real" Cleveland Browns today. They knew based on the Raiders case the NFL was toothless to stop them. It's only a matter of an owner wanting to break ranks and any of them will if it's in their best interests.

A recent NBC Sports article heading:

NFL reminds teams approval is needed to move to L.A. (even if it isn’t)

Posted by Mike Florio on February 9, 2015, 6:06 PM EST

As the Rams apparently prepare to move back to Los Angeles, the NFL is doing the best it can to retain the perception that it controls the process. Even if it ultimately doesn’t.



The Rams owner has already said that stadium is getting built no matter what anyone says so I'd say he is fine breaking ranks since he is one of the wealthiest owners anyway.

eburress Jan 6, 2016 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl (Post 7289928)
Are you serious? As a huge chargers fan I applaud San Diego for not throwing public money at what is a hugely profitable business. Let the NFL pay for their own fucking stadiums.

If a city wants an NFL team, paying for stadiums is the cost of doing business.

You may applaud SD and subsequently, you're probably also pretty pumped about cheering for your LA Chargers from afar.

eburress Jan 6, 2016 10:54 PM

Quote:

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

That's not happening either.

ChargerCarl Jan 6, 2016 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 7290316)
If a city wants an NFL team, paying for stadiums is the cost of doing business.
You may applaud SD and subsequently, you're probably also pretty pumped about cheering for your LA Chargers from afar.

No, I'd rather the government not subsidize the rich. If the NFL doesn't deem the SD market profitable enough to invest their own money in keeping a team there then perhaps, maybe, there shouldn't be one.

If we really care about having an NFL team that badly maybe we should pursue policies which enable more population growth in the region that would make funding a billion dollar stadium more attractive to the NFL instead of putting taxpayers on the hook for an investment of extremely dubious value?

mello Jan 7, 2016 2:18 AM

I just looked up the budgets of SD City and County:: City 2015: 3.2 billion County: 2.5 billion. Total: 5.7 billion. Financing a stadium between the 2 of them is maximum 30 million per year for 20 years probably closer to 25 million. That comes to .52% of the combined annual budget for the City/County..... Like others have said I highly doubt that drop in the bucket is going to make a dent in this regions infrastructure and increasing the TOT tax to 15-15.5% would bring in an extra 20 million a year already.

Look at the exposure Phoenix and the entire state of AZ has been getting lately with hosting the SB. Last year, NCAA title game this year, and final four soon, it's a giant commercial essentially I think for a destination region like ours spending .5% of annual budget is worth having an updated facility for huge events especially seeing that Qualcomm will have been used for 50+ years.

Wayward Memphian Jan 7, 2016 2:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 7290565)
I just looked up the budgets of SD City and County:: City 2015: 3.2 billion County: 2.5 billion. Total: 5.7 billion. Financing a stadium between the 2 of them is maximum 30 million per year for 20 years probably closer to 25 million. That comes to .52% of the combined annual budget for the City/County..... Like others have said I highly doubt that drop in the bucket is going to make a dent in this regions infrastructure and increasing the TOT tax to 15-15.5% would bring in an extra 20 million a year already.

Look at the exposure Phoenix and the entire state of AZ has been getting lately with hosting the SB. Last year, NCAA title game this year, and final four soon, it's a giant commercial essentially I think for a destination region like ours spending .5% of annual budget is worth having an updated facility for huge events especially seeing that Qualcomm will have been used for 50+ years.

It's infrastructure, it will never make money directly but indirectly if the gov't builds it. Arenas are a bit different as they host many more events and it's even better if there's a successful pro sports tenent. But.... I'll give a downside from Memphis. It can also be bad. The FedEx Forum essentially killed a mixed use retail/entertainment development called Peabody Place that was a block away because it's events made parking expensive and scarce so a shopping destination along with a top notch movieplex and Jullians bit the dust and it's sat empty.

There's another interesting dynamic. Let's take OKC and Tulsa. They each have newer arenas. Both are very nice. OKC has the Thunder. Where as Tulsa has some minor stuff but no major tenent, not even a college team. Tulsa lands concerts that OKC does not. Tulsa got Roger Waters and Madonna where as OKC did not as it has better flexibility in scheduling.

Just observations.

SDCAL Jan 7, 2016 7:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales5050 (Post 7289601)
Do you honestly think that saying NO to the NFL and a new stadium means the money for that will all of a sudden go towards infrastructure improvements?

I have always found this particular argument a bit amusing. It's not like there is a pile of money or gold sitting somewhere and the debate is on where it should be spent.

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.

SDCAL Jan 7, 2016 7:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 7290316)
If a city wants an NFL team, paying for stadiums is the cost of doing business.

You may applaud SD and subsequently, you're probably also pretty pumped about cheering for your LA Chargers from afar.

It's the cost of doing business because no politician will stand up to the NFL, so it's become the expected thing to do. A team threatens to leave, local political hacks panic, and they give money to the very wealthy NFL. I've read a number of things that show pro sports stadiums are a terrible investment for a city to make (in financial terms, you can make arguments about civic pride.)

And SD should not be applauded. We didn't tell them to pay for it themselves or leave, we offered them a deal, they just rejected it. I'd have more respect for our city leaders if they just said you want it you pay for it period. I'd like to see one politician somewhere sometime do this to start to break the cycle of entitlement the NFL has.

bobdreamz Jan 7, 2016 8:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 7290798)
It's the cost of doing business because no politician will stand up to the NFL, so it's become the expected thing to do. A team threatens to leave, local political hacks panic, and they give money to the very wealthy NFL. I've read a number of things that show pro sports stadiums are a terrible investment for a city to make (in financial terms, you can make arguments about civic pride.)

And SD should not be applauded. We didn't tell them to pay for it themselves or leave, we offered them a deal, they just rejected it. I'd have more respect for our city leaders if they just said you want it you pay for it period. I'd like to see one politician somewhere sometime do this to start to break the cycle of entitlement the NFL has.

Just look at what the NFL has done to Miami hosting future Super Bowls because the Dolphins stadium ( privately financed at the time ) is now considered old & it rained in one of the past ones.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...ances/2345651/

IMBY Jan 7, 2016 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 7285327)
One thing I will say to add to the discussion about San Diego is having Tijuana so close adds an element of mystery and allure for the well seasoned traveler or those who like to explore. Culture and art are booming in Tijuana and its core is very dense. I was surprised when walking its Centro/Zona Norte that it has block after block of retail and fairly vibrant streets. Then you have a red light district so it is a fascinating place that is so easy to access but not always easy to return from :( Obviously no other US city has something like this sitting just 15 miles from its downtown area.

There's Minneapolis-St. Paul, Dallas-Forth Worth, and one day, we may see San Diego-Tijuana. Combined metro area of 5 million people?

But for that to happen, San Diego has to find some reason to feel proud for having Tijuana as its sister/brother.

After all, these 2 cities run together just like Minneapolis and St. Paul. And I lived in Minneapolis for 21 years, and egocentric Minneapolitans oftentimes regard St. Paul as their Tijuana, or their biggest suburb.

I don't think there's a metro area more unique than SD-Tijuana, except perhaps El Paso-Jaurez.

It's long overdue for these 2 cities to shake hands and hug one another!

I will always look upon Tijuana as Poor Man's San Francisco, except I think the many vertical hills in Tijuana are a bit steeper, and they're not shy at all about building houses (all concrete of course!) on those steep hillsides! And, oh what view of San Diego from those upper hills! Views to kill for!

The Mexican Gov't was never happy with the name Tijuana, and in 1925, they passed a ruling, to re-name it Zaragoza, but it never went into effect. Thank God!

eburress Jan 7, 2016 2:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl (Post 7290326)
No, I'd rather the government not subsidize the rich. If the NFL doesn't deem the SD market profitable enough to invest their own money in keeping a team there then perhaps, maybe, there shouldn't be one.

If we really care about having an NFL team that badly maybe we should pursue policies which enable more population growth in the region that would make funding a billion dollar stadium more attractive to the NFL instead of putting taxpayers on the hook for an investment of extremely dubious value?

Which cities' stadiums do you think the NFL paid for? What you're describing isn't how it works, here or anywhere.

The NFL has a very desirable product for which cities are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for the privilege of a franchise. If you'd rather San Diego not spend that much on this privilege, that's fine. You'll likely get your wish. San Diego seems more and more like a one sport town anyway.

Nerv Jan 7, 2016 4:47 PM

San Diego will survive whatever happens with its NFL future one way or another.


Didn't hurt LA one bit not having an NFL franchise for a quarter of a century.


LA was and is still the number two market in the US with or without an NFL franchise. LA like San Diego has way more to it.

It's not like we are stuck in some nowhere land like Texas. Lol

ChargerCarl Jan 7, 2016 5:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 7290949)
Which cities' stadiums do you think the NFL paid for? What you're describing isn't how it works, here or anywhere.

If your friends jumped off a bridge would you do it too?

Study after study have confirmed publicly financed stadiums are a boondoggle. No thanks.

Leo the Dog Jan 7, 2016 5:23 PM

I think that if the Chargers do leave (they might be stuck here), no way will the NFL bring another team back to SD. Why would they? The city has repeatedly rejected new stadium proposals and sell-outs have been a tough go. There just isn't as much interest in football here as a Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Green Bay, KC, Cincy, all of which are smaller markets. And with LA getting a team, that'll divert even more attention away from SD. Angelenos make the drive down here because its their closest NFL game, not necessarily because they're Chargers fans.

Brooklyn never replaced the Dodgers when they left. SD just isn't really that big of a place. The entire county has only 3.5 million people. We are a top 20 metro. We've been left behind by Phoenix, DFW, Houston, even San Antonio is gaining ground on SD and has expressed interest in a team.

San Diegans shouldn't fool themselves and think that we should "let Spanos move the team, we'll just get a new team."

ucsbgaucho Jan 7, 2016 5:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerv (Post 7291113)
San Diego will survive whatever happens with its NFL future one way or another.


Didn't hurt LA one bit not having an NFL franchise for a quarter of a century.


LA was and is still the number two market in the US with or without an NFL franchise. LA like San Diego has way more to it.

It's not like we are stuck in some nowhere land like Texas. Lol

San Diego is a hugely-desirable market for the NFL. The county population, the high-tech industry, the reasonable proximity to OC that the Chargers have cultivated over the years. Even if the Rams are the team that moves back to LA, the NFL would much rather have a team in San Diego than a team in Oakland. There are other cities that want an NFL team and have openly expressed that, like San Antonio. But San Diego is still a pretty large TV market, it supports the Chargers in the ratings pretty well despite their play on the field and record, and the NFL would definitely welcome another team in San Diego if someone like the Raiders or Jaguars wanted out of their city.

The problem you run into is the stadium issue. San Diego WILL pitch in money, whether it's a joint deal with the county or not, but its going to take an owner with deeper pockets than the Spanos family to make it work, as the team will have to be willing to shell out more than Dean is here. The NFL would LOVE to have San Diego back in the mix for Super Bowls as well. It's very similar to Miami in that respect, especially in January/February. Look at the places the NFL has had to choose for Super Bowls when they don't have San Diego and Miami regularly in the mix. Honestly if the NFL could have it's way, they'd have SD, Arizona, New Orleans, Dallas and Miami on a five-year rotation. Throw LA into the mix eventually and they'd be happy. The Super Bowl doesn't need to be moved to Indy or New York or Detroit like they've had to do. But they definitely reward cities for new stadiums, and they hold it over the heads of the other cities unwilling to cave in to demands.

If San Diego loses the Chargers, I think another team will want to move to SD sooner than SD would demand to get a team. I think our citizenry will act like LA; we'll be sad about it for a little while but then we'll head to the beach in December and forget all about it. But teams see the economic viability of a high-end, state-of-the-art stadium in San Diego, a stadium that SHOULD be designed to host events outside of the NFL (but doesn't seem to be so far). San Diego would be a viable destination for the NCAA Final Four, the Super Bowl, political conventions, major concerts, etc, but many of those would want at least a retractable roof. Obviously the Final Four would need one, and concerts would appreciate the option. Football stadiums can make sense if they are done right, and if adding an extra $100 million to the cost is what it takes to add an optional roof to allow SD to bring in those other events, they really need to look at it. We'd have the only retractable roof on the West Coast, you don't think that would play a role in where major events are held?

I think the Rams will move and I think the Chargers and Raiders will not get their deal done, the NFL won't want all 3 teams moving, so it's going to be one of hte proposals only. The Carson plan has a lot of issues and the Rams plan is much closer to reality. I've read tweets from major sports reporters talking about how the LA fanbase is going to regret getting a team back in their market, especially when you look at the caliber of franchises that could be coming there. Right now they get to watch the best games of the day since CBS and FOX don't have to show the hometown game. Wait until their stuck watching Raiders-Jaguars or Rams-Browns instead of the Patriots-Jets game at 10am.

That would be the best scenario for San Diego. The Chargers would have to come crawling back to the Q, with no chance of moving anymore (at least not in the near future), and have to cave in to the deal the city comes up with, or be forced to sell I think. If the Chargers do leave, whatever team that might want to come to SD is going to have a lot more leverage and it will cost the city more. The City should pounce quickly if the Chargers have to come back to the Q, and take advantage of the situation.

eburress Jan 8, 2016 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl (Post 7291150)
If your friends jumped off a bridge would you do it too?

Study after study have confirmed publicly financed stadiums are a boondoggle. No thanks.

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:

SDfan Jan 8, 2016 4:10 AM

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:

I'd rather have Chargers fans suffer than everyday San Diegans waste money on a rich mans play thing. Taxpayer money on needed infrastructure, social services and community investment projects are priority.

Oh the indignity of having to watch your favorite sports team on TV rather than lounging on a giant parking lot in the middle of a flood zone...

Not buying it. Emotions aside, the logic, priorities, economics and basic math just don't add up.

Bye bye Chargeeeerrrrs! :cheers:


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.