If this gets built, it would be a combined convention center annex/football stadium near Petco Park in downtown San Diego.

http://www.chargers.com/news/2016/02/23/...s-downtown

Quote:The multi-use facility, when combined with Petco Park, the existing Convention Center, the Gaslamp Quarter, and a revitalized East Village, would create an unparalleled entertainment and sports district that will host Super Bowls and will ideally be a permanent home for Comic-Con and a Comic-Con museum. All of our research demonstrates that voters are more likely to approve a multi-use facility that would generate economic activity on hundreds of days per year, including by attracting major sporting and convention events that San Diego cannot now host. The downtown multi-use facility would also free up the existing Mission Valley site for potential use by educational institutions such as San Diego State and UCSD, as well as for a large riverfront park.

For these reasons, the Chargers will begin collaborating immediately with the existing diverse citizens’ coalition led by Donna Frye and JMI Realty that has already been formed in favor of a downtown convention center expansion and educational and recreational uses in Mission Valley. Our goal is to win voter approval in November 2016 for a downtown multi-use stadium/convention center facility and to facilitate the best possible community uses for the existing Mission Valley site.

The #1 advantage of this ballot proposal is that it requires only majority voter approval. Any ballot measure to use the tax money specifically for a stadium would require two-thirds approval, which is as close to impossible as anything can be. The #2 advantage is that it uses hotel-tax money, meaning that San Diego voters will be voting to increase a tax on local hotel guests and not on themselves.

No doubt some disgruntled group will file a lawsuit if the "downtown multi-use facility" measure passes, and might argue that a 2/3 supermajority was required. The Chargers are presumably thinking that getting 50% and prevailing in court is more likely than getting 66.7%. And, as noted in another thread, the NFL has already given the Chargers an extra year to fight things out in court before their Inglewood option expires.

(02-23-2016 10:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If this gets built, it would be a combined convention center annex/football stadium near Petco Park in downtown San Diego.

http://www.chargers.com/news/2016/02/23/...s-downtown

Quote:The multi-use facility, when combined with Petco Park, the existing Convention Center, the Gaslamp Quarter, and a revitalized East Village, would create an unparalleled entertainment and sports district that will host Super Bowls and will ideally be a permanent home for Comic-Con and a Comic-Con museum. All of our research demonstrates that voters are more likely to approve a multi-use facility that would generate economic activity on hundreds of days per year, including by attracting major sporting and convention events that San Diego cannot now host. The downtown multi-use facility would also free up the existing Mission Valley site for potential use by educational institutions such as San Diego State and UCSD, as well as for a large riverfront park.

For these reasons, the Chargers will begin collaborating immediately with the existing diverse citizens’ coalition led by Donna Frye and JMI Realty that has already been formed in favor of a downtown convention center expansion and educational and recreational uses in Mission Valley. Our goal is to win voter approval in November 2016 for a downtown multi-use stadium/convention center facility and to facilitate the best possible community uses for the existing Mission Valley site.

The #1 advantage of this ballot proposal is that it requires only majority voter approval. Any ballot measure to use the tax money specifically for a stadium would require two-thirds approval, which is as close to impossible as anything can be. The #2 advantage is that it uses hotel-tax money, meaning that San Diego voters will be voting to increase a tax on local hotel guests and not on themselves.

No doubt some disgruntled group will file a lawsuit if the "downtown multi-use facility" measure passes, and might argue that a 2/3 supermajority was required. The Chargers are presumably thinking that getting 50% and prevailing in court is more likely than getting 66.7%. And, as noted in another thread, the NFL has already given the Chargers an extra year to fight things out in court before their Inglewood option expires.

Not warmly welcomed by San Diego officials...

San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer and San Diego County Supervisor Ron Roberts Wrote:Most experts we've talked to have concluded that building a stadium downtown -- on land not owned by either the city or the Chargers -- would increase costs by hundreds of millions of dollars and take years longer to complete

Perhaps more importantly...

Quote:It remains unclear how the Chargers intend to finance a Downtown stadium. But it is abundantly clear that a ballot measure that raises taxes for a stadium must be approved by two-thirds of San Diego’s voters.

It's a good idea - this is what AEG tried to do in Downtown LA with Farmers Field - but it's still looking like a longshot.

I don't see how the SD mayor could advocate for a "no" vote without facing backlash. It's one thing to do nothing and let the proposal stand or fall on the work of the Chargers and their allies, but to publicly oppose this? The mayor would be the guy who actively killed the stadium and pushed the Chargers to Inglewood. That can't work out well for him unless powerful political forces also want to kill the stadium proposal.

Maybe he left himself wiggle room with the "for a stadium" language, because the idea behind the proposal seems to be that it's a general tax hike (50% needed) and not a tax hike for a specific purpose (66.7% needed under state law).

I wonder if the chargers are thinking of two chances for voters to approve something in SD. First option is for the downtown site to get approved but if voters turn it down than the chargers extend the LA option for another year and go with another voter approved plan at their current spot. Thus, the saga of the chargers and raiders are delayed for 2 more years. I think the raiders made a mistake of not just getting a short term lease at levi stadium to wait out the chargers.

(02-24-2016 12:36 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I think the raiders made a mistake of not just getting a short term lease at levi stadium to wait out the chargers.

Raiders have a short term lease in Oakland. It's for 2016 and the team has two one-year options for 2017 and 2018.

Quote:The agreement with the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Joint Powers Authority guarantees that the Raiders will play the 2016 season in the same stadium they have called home since 1995. It also carries two one-year team options.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/147625...016-season

Those multi-purpose convention center/stadiums work great. Maybe, the San Diego people could contact the Saint Louis people for advice.

Not much information here, so I don't know exactly how this plan would work.

Apparently the hotel tax money would pay for acquiring the land and building convention center space that is mostly underground, and the infrastructure for the site, and the Chargers would borrow the money to privately fund construction of the stadium itself on top of the underground convention center halls. Also, I assume, the Chargers would then own the retractable-roof stadium and generate revenue from renting it out.

Quote:Jonathan Horn
‏@10NewsHorn

Cory Briggs just told me the #chargers will pay for the dt stadium privately, like they offered in Carson. How it would work on @10News at 6

5:49 PM - 23 Feb 2016

Quote:Scott Lewis
‏@vosdscott

@sdutPosner again, it's about paying for the Convention Center annex and then privately funding the stadium bowl on top. Not same as Carson.

5:53 PM - 23 Feb 2016

(02-24-2016 01:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Raiders have a short term lease in Oakland. It's for 2016 and the team has two one-year options for 2017 and 2018.

Quote:The agreement with the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Joint Powers Authority guarantees that the Raiders will play the 2016 season in the same stadium they have called home since 1995. It also carries two one-year team options.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/147625...016-season

That doesn't mean they still shouldn't have tried to get a short term lease at Levi's.

Spanos REALLY doesn't want to stay in Mission Valley...

Quote:The San Diego Chargers have finally made their appeal for a new downtown stadium official, and according to San Diego County Supervisor Ron Roberts, the team requested $550 million in public money to get a deal done if they chose the city’s preferred site.

The city already promised $350MM, so that's a $200MM premium to move 7 miles.

There's another mention of the 2/3s majority for a tax increase in this article. I don't think anyone (save the Chargers?) believes this can be a majority vote.

The blogger you linked is very much taking the mayor's side, and his numbers are completely unrealistic. His argument is:

Quote:If you take the $350 million offered by the city, add that to the $300 million the NFL has pledged and around $150 million in revenue from personal seat licences, the Chargers would have $800 million to put towards a new facility. Throw in the $550 million Spanos was willing to spend just to pack up the moving trucks to head to Los Angeles and you’ve got a $1.35 billion stadium project.

The flaws in that argument are:

(1) "The $300 million the NFL has pledged" - only $100 million of that is a gift from the NFL; the other $200 million is a loan that the Chargers would have to pay back.

(2) "Around $150 million from personal seat licenses" - that's more than what could be raised in SD. Here is the Chargers' argument about why the amount is unrealistically high.

(3) "Throw in the $550 million Spanos was willing to spend to head to LA" - Nice try. The reason Spanos is making another attempt in SD is so he can avoid paying the $550 million LA relocation fee. If Spanos was forced to pay that money whether he stays in SD or goes to LA, then he'd be gone already.

When you break down the argument that way, the blogger has unintentionally shown that there is a big shortfall which makes it obvious why the Chargers would ask for more public money (whether or not we agree that more public money should be offered).

If the mayor and allies thought the Chargers were going to reverse course and take a long-term deal in San Diego on the same terms that the city offered and the Chargers rejected last year, then they have not been getting realistic advice.

I agree. I wasn't promoting this guy's agenda, just showing that there is STILL a huge gap between Spanos and San Diego. All that other stuff is meaningless.

The delta is obviously in ownership of the facility. If Spanos owns the downtown/convention annex, his revenue opportunities are multiples of the ticket revenue for football only.

Right. If Spanos owns a retractable-roof stadium that sits on top of the convention center, he can rent it out and make significant money. That's the option most attractive to him financially, unless the city substantially increases the amount of public money on offer for Mission Valley.

Interesting take on political maneuvering about the Chargers' stadium proposal; don't know if this is correct or not, but...

http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/2/2...m-chargers

Quote:Over the last week, I've heard two different stories or opinions or however you want to frame them (they're below, in context) that seem to point to the same thing. Politicians are attempting to fail on purpose, and that might be the best way to get the San Diego Chargers the downtown stadium that they actually want.

Quote:The Mayor hopes that, since he tried it their way first, Comic-Con will not leave town and will instead support the Chargers' plan for noncontiguous Convention Center expansion. He also hopes that the hoteliers don't attempt stand in the way of a raised tourism tax, which would be used to add money towards a general fund (which is why it's a 50% vote and not 66.6%) that could be used to pay for the stadium and/or hotel upgrades in the downtown area, although there isn't much they'd be able to do except delay things in court. I think.

Scott Lewis and Andrew Keatts brought this up on this week's Voice of San Diego podcast, and theorized that this could be the Mayor's actual plan. I am inclined to agree with them.

(02-28-2016 03:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Interesting take on political maneuvering about the Chargers' stadium proposal; don't know if this is correct or not, but...

http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/2/2...m-chargers

Quote:Over the last week, I've heard two different stories or opinions or however you want to frame them (they're below, in context) that seem to point to the same thing. Politicians are attempting to fail on purpose, and that might be the best way to get the San Diego Chargers the downtown stadium that they actually want.

Quote:The Mayor hopes that, since he tried it their way first, Comic-Con will not leave town and will instead support the Chargers' plan for noncontiguous Convention Center expansion. He also hopes that the hoteliers don't attempt stand in the way of a raised tourism tax, which would be used to add money towards a general fund (which is why it's a 50% vote and not 66.6%) that could be used to pay for the stadium and/or hotel upgrades in the downtown area, although there isn't much they'd be able to do except delay things in court. I think.

Scott Lewis and Andrew Keatts brought this up on this week's Voice of San Diego podcast, and theorized that this could be the Mayor's actual plan. I am inclined to agree with them.

There are at least a couple of problems here, right? Comic-Con wants a contiguous expansion. If the vote for it doesn't pass (virtually certain), is Comic-Con willing to live with a non-contiguous expansion? This "strategy" by the mayor's office implies they're assuming Comic-Con will stay.

And I've got to believe some group(s?) are going to challenge the majority/super majority distinction for the Convadium plan. Majority only applies if the tax revenue goes to the general fund, where it can be used to pay for anything of benefit to the city. If the campaign markets it as a way to pay for the stadium property, somebody's going to call it out as a racket.

(02-29-2016 11:35 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 03:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Interesting take on political maneuvering about the Chargers' stadium proposal; don't know if this is correct or not, but...

http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/2/2...m-chargers

Quote:Over the last week, I've heard two different stories or opinions or however you want to frame them (they're below, in context) that seem to point to the same thing. Politicians are attempting to fail on purpose, and that might be the best way to get the San Diego Chargers the downtown stadium that they actually want.

Quote:The Mayor hopes that, since he tried it their way first, Comic-Con will not leave town and will instead support the Chargers' plan for noncontiguous Convention Center expansion. He also hopes that the hoteliers don't attempt stand in the way of a raised tourism tax, which would be used to add money towards a general fund (which is why it's a 50% vote and not 66.6%) that could be used to pay for the stadium and/or hotel upgrades in the downtown area, although there isn't much they'd be able to do except delay things in court. I think.

Scott Lewis and Andrew Keatts brought this up on this week's Voice of San Diego podcast, and theorized that this could be the Mayor's actual plan. I am inclined to agree with them.

There are at least a couple of problems here, right? Comic-Con wants a contiguous expansion. If the vote for it doesn't pass (virtually certain), is Comic-Con willing to live with a non-contiguous expansion? This "strategy" by the mayor's office implies they're assuming Comic-Con will stay.

And I've got to believe some group(s?) are going to challenge the majority/super majority distinction for the Convadium plan. Majority only applies if the tax revenue goes to the general fund, where it can be used to pay for anything of benefit to the city. If the campaign markets it as a way to pay for the stadium property, somebody's going to call it out as a racket.

There's no doubt it will be challenged in court - though winning in court is more likely than winning 2/3 in a vote, so I can't say the strategy is crazy.

Anything that requires a 2/3 vote is doomed, whether or not the proposal is for a contiguous convention center expansion. Which is why the most do-able solution would be the city offering Spanos more public money if he agrees to a stadium on the Qualcomm site with a 30 or 40 year lease. Then they either find a way to expand the convention center without a tax increase, or just deal with not expanding it.

(02-29-2016 11:35 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 03:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Interesting take on political maneuvering about the Chargers' stadium proposal; don't know if this is correct or not, but...

http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/2/2...m-chargers

Quote:Over the last week, I've heard two different stories or opinions or however you want to frame them (they're below, in context) that seem to point to the same thing. Politicians are attempting to fail on purpose, and that might be the best way to get the San Diego Chargers the downtown stadium that they actually want.

Quote:The Mayor hopes that, since he tried it their way first, Comic-Con will not leave town and will instead support the Chargers' plan for noncontiguous Convention Center expansion. He also hopes that the hoteliers don't attempt stand in the way of a raised tourism tax, which would be used to add money towards a general fund (which is why it's a 50% vote and not 66.6%) that could be used to pay for the stadium and/or hotel upgrades in the downtown area, although there isn't much they'd be able to do except delay things in court. I think.

Scott Lewis and Andrew Keatts brought this up on this week's Voice of San Diego podcast, and theorized that this could be the Mayor's actual plan. I am inclined to agree with them.

There are at least a couple of problems here, right? Comic-Con wants a contiguous expansion. If the vote for it doesn't pass (virtually certain), is Comic-Con willing to live with a non-contiguous expansion? This "strategy" by the mayor's office implies they're assuming Comic-Con will stay.

And I've got to believe some group(s?) are going to challenge the majority/super majority distinction for the Convadium plan. Majority only applies if the tax revenue goes to the general fund, where it can be used to pay for anything of benefit to the city. If the campaign markets it as a way to pay for the stadium property, somebody's going to call it out as a racket.

I thought the Convention Center expansion had already passed? if San Diego doesn't concede to Comic-Con's conditions, that event will be on the first thing smokin' to LA Live.