This has to go to vote of citizens in November 2018. There is also competing initiative for the same property by investment group for MLS soccer. If both initiatives pass the 50% threshold the initiative with the most votes has the right the to purchase the 166 acre land that SDCCU stadium currently sites.
This being said it is a great day for the vision to grow SDSU in a campus expansion and a new stadium. It is now up to the university, alumni and supporters to get this across the finish line.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYbG_LKx...e=youtu.be
35,000 seats is good. If the Holiday Bowl is played there it probably becomes a G5 bowl game at that capacity.
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).
Yeah...I don't think voters are going to approve the revenue bonds. Also, when it was first mentioned the stadium was going to be $150 million and now it is $100 million more.
(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).
But that's ok for SDSU football. If both their proposal and the MLS proposal lose at the ballot box, SDSU football wins because the existing stadium isn't torn down and all they have to do is use a little pressure to keep the city from tearing it down. With both proposals on the same ballot, the possible outcomes are:
MLS ballot measure wins, SDSU ballot measure loses -- MLS wins but you'd think this is the least likely outcome.
MLS and SDSU measures both win, MLS gets more votes -- MLS wins, but second least likely outcome.
Both measures win, SDSU measure gets more votes -- SDSU wins.
Both measures lose (maybe the most likely outcome) -- SDSU wins. To me, this looks like the best outcome for SDSU, because the old stadium stays and they won't have to find $250 million to build a football stadium.
They're playing the game correctly, I think. Even if they lose, they're probably still going to win.
(11-30-2017 10:23 PM)Wedge 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).
But that's ok for SDSU football. If both their proposal and the MLS proposal lose at the ballot box, SDSU football wins because the existing stadium isn't torn down and all they have to do is use a little pressure to keep the city from tearing it down. With both proposals on the same ballot, the possible outcomes are:
MLS ballot measure wins, SDSU ballot measure loses -- MLS wins but you'd think this is the least likely outcome.
MLS and SDSU measures both win, MLS gets more votes -- MLS wins, but second least likely outcome.
Both measures win, SDSU measure gets more votes -- SDSU wins.
Both measures lose (maybe the most likely outcome) -- SDSU wins. To me, this looks like the best outcome for SDSU, because the old stadium stays and they won't have to find $250 million to build a football stadium.
They're playing the game correctly, I think. Even if they lose, they're probably still going to win.
I actually think think first scenario is the most likely.
The MLS proposal only needs a simple majority to win since there is no taxpayer money involved. SDSU needing revenue bonds will need 2/3rds majority.
(11-30-2017 09:02 PM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2017 08:53 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote: [ -> ]https://timesofsandiego.com/sports/2017/...on-valley/
That stadium is a month too late for the MLS expansion round. Nashville, Sacramento, Cincinnati, and Detroit are the finalists for next month.
You realize that MLS is going to 28 teams, right?
https://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2017/06...s-timeline
LAFC start platbnext year to make 23.
Miami is still set for a team to make 24, but no stadium is built.
Those four cities are fighting for two slots which will start play in 2020 to make 26.
There's still two more to be named this time next year if MLS stays on plan.
This and Soccer City seem to be on a collision course to be competing balloon measures next November.
(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.
MLS has tanking tv ratings and expansion could finish their minor league operation.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
(11-30-2017 09:02 PM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2017 08:53 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote: [ -> ]https://timesofsandiego.com/sports/2017/...on-valley/
That stadium is a month too late for the MLS expansion round. Nashville, Sacramento, Cincinnati, and Detroit are the finalists for next month.
Expect Sac to get a bid later this month. Dirt has already started moving on the stadium.
(11-30-2017 11:00 PM)k5james Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2017 10:32 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2017 10:23 PM)Wedge 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).
But that's ok for SDSU football. If both their proposal and the MLS proposal lose at the ballot box, SDSU football wins because the existing stadium isn't torn down and all they have to do is use a little pressure to keep the city from tearing it down. With both proposals on the same ballot, the possible outcomes are:
MLS ballot measure wins, SDSU ballot measure loses -- MLS wins but you'd think this is the least likely outcome.
MLS and SDSU measures both win, MLS gets more votes -- MLS wins, but second least likely outcome.
Both measures win, SDSU measure gets more votes -- SDSU wins.
Both measures lose (maybe the most likely outcome) -- SDSU wins. To me, this looks like the best outcome for SDSU, because the old stadium stays and they won't have to find $250 million to build a football stadium.
They're playing the game correctly, I think. Even if they lose, they're probably still going to win.
I actually think think first scenario is the most likely.
The MLS proposal only needs a simple majority to win since there is no taxpayer money involved. SDSU needing revenue bonds will need 2/3rds majority.
![[Image: fb1a5458f65f6041532442f46aabee13a8c95d4e...a6456d.jpg]](http://m.quickmeme.com/img/fb/fb1a5458f65f6041532442f46aabee13a8c95d4e74c1affd8bca7c0be3a6456d.jpg)
Yeah, I'm no expert on election rules, but I'm pretty sure that if this is a city ballot measure, 2/3 majority vote is required only if the city itself would be issuing bonds to pay for the ballot measure.
(12-01-2017 01:39 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2017 11:00 PM)k5james Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2017 10:32 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2017 10:23 PM)Wedge 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).
But that's ok for SDSU football. If both their proposal and the MLS proposal lose at the ballot box, SDSU football wins because the existing stadium isn't torn down and all they have to do is use a little pressure to keep the city from tearing it down. With both proposals on the same ballot, the possible outcomes are:
MLS ballot measure wins, SDSU ballot measure loses -- MLS wins but you'd think this is the least likely outcome.
MLS and SDSU measures both win, MLS gets more votes -- MLS wins, but second least likely outcome.
Both measures win, SDSU measure gets more votes -- SDSU wins.
Both measures lose (maybe the most likely outcome) -- SDSU wins. To me, this looks like the best outcome for SDSU, because the old stadium stays and they won't have to find $250 million to build a football stadium.
They're playing the game correctly, I think. Even if they lose, they're probably still going to win.
I actually think think first scenario is the most likely.
The MLS proposal only needs a simple majority to win since there is no taxpayer money involved. SDSU needing revenue bonds will need 2/3rds majority.
Yeah, I'm no expert on election rules, but I'm pretty sure that if this is a city ballot measure, 2/3 majority vote is required only if the city itself would be issuing bonds to pay for the ballot measure.
It's a citizen's initiative authorizing the sale of the land at a fair market value determined by the City Council to SDSU for campus expansion.
It only needs 50% of the vote or 50%+ more than the FSI proposal.
What SDSU builds there besides a stadium will have to adhere to the the City of San Diego's Mission Valley Community Plan...unlike the alternative proposal which legislated all of it's own rules into the initiative.
(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 initiative does not include financing of any kind. The initiative is simply to vote whether to sell the 166 acre Qualcomm site to SDSU at fair market value. With 85,000 applicants each year for 6000 spots it's a no-brainer. SDSU will destroy the soccer proposal at the ballot box. Once SDSU gets control of the site they can issue revenue bonds on their own.
(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.
1.6 million square feet of classroom space not the centerpiece? 3 billion vs. 250 million?
"...The $3 billion campus expansion onto San Diego County Credit Union Stadium property encompasses 1.6 million square feet of classroom and research buildings, a river park and open space, 4,500 housing units, retail shops, a pair of hotels and a multi-use 35,000-seat stadium for college football and other sports, according to SDSU...."
(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.
(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.