(12-01-2017 12:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 12:11 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 08:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 10:59 PM)k5james Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 10:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Looks like a nice proposal, but realistically, if there wasn’t public support for taxpayer dollars for a stadium to save an NFL franchise, why will this be different for a team that has a lot less interest by comparison? People in California seem to be the only ones that actually stick to proclamations of not using public money for stadiums (whereas stadium proposals elsewhere generally get rammed through despite loud objectors).

This proposal isn't using taxpayer dollars directly and it's not just about a stadium. It's about university expansion that happens to include a stadium. Much easier to sell that to the tax paying public.

Is it actually an easier sell? (I’m not criticizing - I really want to understand.) There are plenty of places that I could think of where keeping or obtaining an NFL team would be an easier sell than a university expansion. Also, this isn’t an academics-focused expansion. Instead, the stadium appears to be the centerpiece, which means the perception *could* be about choosing to build a stadium for SDSU instead of the Chargers as opposed to a true university expansion. This is just my analysis as a follower of politics more than a follower of sports - this doesn’t look like a slam dunk at all based on what has occurred in San Diego in the past.

The stadium looks to be about 1/10 of the expanded campus proposal right? So “centerpiece”—? Maybe a piece.

Its the centerpiece for the next 15 to 20 years. Only the Stadium is getting developed....the other 'planned' stuff won't happen for quite a long time.
Needing a Revenue Bond for the stadium will be the issue since public funds of some kind will be use....not to mention the additional cost for the lawsuits that will come up from environmental groups.

The land maybe purchased with SDSU cash...but the stadium is the different story.

Right, plus even if that weren't the case, "perception is reality" in the "Fake News" world that we live in. The headlines definitely emphasize the stadium first and foremost, which means that this could very well be *perceived* to be a stadium deal above all else (even if it's supposed to be only one piece in the long run). I'm just a healthy skeptic of anything happening according to plan regarding stadiums in California at this point. That doesn't mean that SDSU won't ultimately prevail here and get this built, but I'm used to the Chicago way where a commission can ram things through without a public vote (or much of public input at all). Anything that comes up for public vote in a place like California would be inherently risky (and to be clear, I'm not a California lawyer, so I don't know how SDSU revenue bonds are dealt with and whether they require a public vote or not).