SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2

[Derek]

Cool. Now only another 8 years!

[HurricaneHugo]

Lane Field is so ugly.

[eburress]

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo

Lane Field is so ugly.

The existing parking lot or the proposed new hotel towers...or both? hahaha

[Lipani]

I honestly can't believe Lane Field has been a worthless parking lot for decades. With all of the cruises that come to San Diego you would think our political leaders would want a good first impression of the city.

[brantw]

Originally Posted by Lipani

I honestly can't believe Lane Field has been a worthless parking lot for decades. With all of the cruises that come to San Diego you would think our political leaders would want a good first impression of the city.

The approval on the project has been delayed by another month.

[SDfan]

Originally Posted by brantw

The approval on the project has been delayed by a month.

Way to go San Diego...

[Lipani]

Looks like we can breath easy (for another year at least):

Chargers commit to S.D. for 2011, but not beyond
By Nick Canepa, UNION-TRIBUNE

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 at 1:26 p.m.

The Chargers will not be playing football in Los Angeles — at least not next year.

In a mild effort to snuff rumors that the team is headed north and hold off lame-duck status, the NFL franchise informed the city Wednesday it is not triggering the termination clause in its Qualcomm Stadium lease for 2011. The Chargers have the option to do that every year from Feb. 1 through May 1 until their contract expires in 2020.

But the team stopped short of any guarantees past 2011 — no one thought it would be going anywhere before 2012 anyway — as it continues its attempt to get a new downtown stadium built.

“(Club President) Dean Spanos notified me today that the Chargers would not in 2011 exercise the exit provision in its lease with the city,” Mayor Jerry Sanders said in a statement. “I very much appreciate the commitment that Dean, his family, and the Chargers have shown throughout the team’s eight-year search for a new stadium.

“The Chargers understand, as we all do, the tremendous challenges now facing our region during these historically difficult economic times. But, even in the face of these challenges, we will be able to work through 2011 with the Chargers on a stadium solution downtown that works for both taxpayers and the team.”

All this really means is that the Chargers will play football next season in Qualcomm Stadium — if there is a season. The NFL’s collective bargaining agreement with the players’ union has expired and there has been talk of a lockout by owners, so there are no guarantees there, either.

As for 2012 and beyond, Spanos and Chargers counsel Mark Fabiani, his point man on new stadium dealings, refuse to commit.

“There is just so much economic uncertainty,” Spanos said in an interview with the Union-Tribune. “No good businessman is going to lock himself up unless there’s certainty. You wouldn’t do it in your personal life. You’re never going to say never. It’s unfair to ask any businessman to make a long-term commitment. It’s not good business practice.

“We’re making a serious commitment here — we have made a serious commitment here — and I think people realize we’re sincere. It’s not a question of our commitment, but can the city get something done.”

Rumors that the team could be headed to Los Angeles have heated up since the Spanos family hired Goldman Sachs to find a buyer for 36 percent of the franchise, saying it needed the sale to help pay for estate taxes when owner Alex Spanos and wife Faye die.

Sixty percent of the team would still be owned by Alex and Faye’s four children. Dean claims the decision to do this probably happened 15 years ago.

“We expected capital gains taxes to go up by the end of the year,” Fabiani said, “and that’s why we wanted to sell it by then. But it’s back to where it was now that the Bush tax cuts have been extended for two years, so it takes some of the pressure off having to sell a minority stake in the team right away.”

One of the suitors is said to be AEG, the Los Angeles-based sports and entertainment conglomerate known to be seeking permission from that city and the state to tear down part of the L.A. Convention Center and build a new stadium after it knows it can attract an NFL franchise.

“It’s no different now that when Ed Roski said he was building a stadium (in the City of Industry) two years ago and we were moving there then,” Fabiani says. “No different. Every time somebody comes up with a new stadium idea in L.A., people think we’re moving. We can talk until we’re blue in the face. This is exactly the same as 2008.

“Just as it’s tough to do in San Diego, it’s tough to do in L.A., tough to do in San Francisco, tough to do in Oakland. Building a Super Bowl stadium in California is a tough thing to do. That project in L.A. has to make financial sense. So much would have to be done. It’s so far off.”

The team claims AEG has not purchased a part of the team; a sale to AEG is not imminent, and that Alex and Faye Spanos have been selling other assets for some time for estate purposes. Fabiani also said potential buyers are not limited to AEG or anyone from Los Angeles.

“Thery’re in San Diego, too,” he said. “I got a call from one this morning.”

There even have been rumors Dean Spanos has purchased a home in Los Angeles, which he vehemently denies.

“If I’ve purchased a home in Los Angeles, I’ll give you the deed right now,” Spanos said. “I have not purchased a home in Los Angeles and have no intention to purchase a home in Los Angeles.

“For the first time in a long time we have a good relationship with the city and the mayor’s office. There are some smart people there, like Fred Maas (the CCDC chief who is leaving the job at the end of the month) that really want to get something done.”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/08/chargers-commit-sd-2011-not-beyond/

[HurricaneHugo]

I don't know why they're so keen on having a public vote when it's not necessary...

[Derek]

...and that's what's wrong with this city...

[brantw]

Some new steel up at the Broadway end of the new courthouse


The core


Library through the fence


That 3rd crane thing that was there last week, is now gone. I think it was to help setup the cranes, but just looked like a skinnier crane.


The new Father Joe's Village building

[HurricaneHugo]

Where's the Father Joe's village?

[Lipani]

^ Across the street from the MTS bus depot on Imperial.

[HurricaneHugo]

You mean the FUTURE home of the San Diego Super Chargers?!

[kpexpress]

A better East Village - NO CHARGER'S STADIUM







The possibilities! Charger's Stadium = no village

[tdavis]

Originally Posted by kpexpress

A better East Village - NO CHARGER'S STADIUM

The possibilities! Charger's Stadium = no village

Would never happen in the next 20-30 years. The stadium would act as a catalyst to spur development, similar to Gaslamp/Petco. Given the economic mess, and seeing that things won't change for a very long time, the Charger's Stadium is the best bet to help jump start this blighted area of downtown.

[HurricaneHugo]

that looks really ugly

[SDfan]

Kpexpress, I don't know what that is (the upper east village development?), but there aren't enough high-rises (real high-rises) in that alternative plan.

I mean, you fit at least three in there...

[mongoXZ]

With or without the Chargers Stadium, I hope the East Village densifies quite nicely. But if it takes building a 65,000 seat stadium there to keep the team from moving then by all means do it. Having been a lifelong Charger fan (since the Dan Fouts days) it would be absolutely D E V A S T A T I N G to lose them!

kpexpress: From what I've gathered earlier in this thread I assume you're not a San Diego native. That's why losing the Chargers doesn't mean much to you. Am I correct?

[bmfarley]

Originally Posted by mongoXZ

With or without the Chargers Stadium, I hope the East Village densifies quite nicely. But if it takes building a 65,000 seat stadium there to keep the team from moving then by all means do it. Having been a lifelong Charger fan (since the Dan Fouts days) it would be absolutely D E V A S T A T I N G to lose them!

kpexpress: From what I've gathered earlier in this thread I assume you're not a San Diego native. That's why losing the Chargers doesn't mean much to you. Am I correct?

IMO, San Diego needs to keep the Chargers. And, I am not, or was ever, a native of San Diego.

The thing is... a Professional Football team adds a lot of character for the city and really helps market the region.

No Chargers = Sacremento perception. Or, San Jose, Portland Oregon, San Antonio Texas. Basically, second rate cities not committed to big things.

It means no aerial views that are nationally broadcast of the downtown skyline or Mission Valley on Sundays or Mondays. It means less marketing to the liesure and travel industry, and, quite possible fewer conventions... in the long run.

[brantw]

Sacrificing the Chargers and a new stadium just for some densification of East Village is ridiculous.