Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
SDSU supporters launch ballot initiative for stadium
Author Message
k5james Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,909
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 97
I Root For: SDSU
Location: Yuma, AZ
Post: #41
RE: SDSU supporters launch ballot initiative for stadium
(10-05-2017 09:29 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  You must have the $$$ as it's not going to come in buckets from Sacramento or from tuition/fees. You netter have either friends or eminent domain. Universities in the real estate business isn't a wise future venture.

One of the most potentially valuable parcels of land in the US at a price the Mayor set at a stupidly low mark to help his buddies at FSI. The CSUS would be dumb not to buy it. The CSUS purchases land quite often for its schools.
(This post was last modified: 10-05-2017 09:38 PM by k5james.)
10-05-2017 09:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
NCR Ranger
*

Posts: 2,501
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 62
I Root For: p-natal vitamin
Location: prenatal vitamins
Post: #42
RE: SDSU supporters launch ballot initiative for stadium
(10-05-2017 03:46 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  
(10-02-2017 08:41 AM)panite Wrote:  
(09-30-2017 09:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(09-30-2017 09:21 PM)k5james Wrote:  
(09-30-2017 08:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If putting this second ballot measure on the ballot just helps to kill off the possibility of MLS in San Diego and the would-be MLS owners' plan, it's a big win for SDSU. The SD mayor says in that article that he will help arrange for SDSU to use the existing stadium until it's torn down -- if it ever is torn down.

I don't see why SDSU would want to "win" the vote on that ballot proposition. The best case scenario for SDSU football, given the outrageous cost of building any new stadium, is that they kill off all plans for that site, the old stadium stays there out of sheer inertia, and they use their political connections to rent the old stadium at a dirt cheap price indefinitely.

SDSU athletics has almost zero infrastructure debt. I think they owe a few hundred k for some lights on the practice field. They'll be able to afford to finance a new stadium. "The Bank" is not a long term solution.

I've been to a couple of Holiday Bowl games in that stadium. It's not perfect but it's definitely usable and it's not going to collapse. It's in much better shape than Candlestick was before it was torn down.

Hope SDSU gets the stadium and property and uses it which ever way they want too. Maybe they can rent it to the Chargers when they come crawling back to San Diego where they were loved. They can't draw flies in LA. They are even putting tarps over the empty upper decks in a 20,000 seat stadium. 05-stirthepot 03-nutkick 04-jawdrop 07-coffee3 04-cheers

That move still blows my mind. I get that LA is a big media market but there is a such thing as market saturation. LA has TWO NFL teams, two major college football teams, and just about every other professional team. Wouldn't the better idea have just been to promote the team in LA and in nearby Tijuana? And keep their base fan base in one of the countries biggest cities, San Diego?

They have made a lot of people in San Diego anti-Chargers.

The Spanos family wants to sell the Chargers for a lot of $$$$'s. Spanos wants out and he wants a lot of $$$$'S on the way out. Apparently, even farts have $$$ worth in LA. But I totally agree with what you say.
10-05-2017 09:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #43
RE: SDSU supporters launch ballot initiative for stadium
k5, keep in mind that Wedge has an extreme political agenda against even a single cent of public money going to build a stadium. Once you realize that, you can easily spot that slant to every post he makes on this topic.

The new stadium absolutely should have some public funding and absolutely can make both the Aztecs and MLS happy, which should be the goal for the new stadium.
10-05-2017 10:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
NCR Ranger
*

Posts: 2,501
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 62
I Root For: p-natal vitamin
Location: prenatal vitamins
Post: #44
RE: SDSU supporters launch ballot initiative for stadium
I'm not Wedge!!! I'm DNB, and I just can't stand Dean Spanos and all of his whiny, money grabbing ways!!!!!!
10-05-2017 10:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
k5james Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,909
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 97
I Root For: SDSU
Location: Yuma, AZ
Post: #45
RE: SDSU supporters launch ballot initiative for stadium
(10-05-2017 10:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  k5, keep in mind that Wedge has an extreme political agenda against even a single cent of public money going to build a stadium. Once you realize that, you can easily spot that slant to every post he makes on this topic.

The new stadium absolutely should have some public funding and absolutely can make both the Aztecs and MLS happy, which should be the goal for the new stadium.

They were really close to partnering on this stadium but it went from "let's build a stadium together" to "Here's SoccerCitySD and oh yeah, you can rent the stadium from us and buy land for your campus expansion from us at retail prices."
10-05-2017 11:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #46
RE: SDSU supporters launch ballot initiative for stadium
I will say this: Minnesota's MLS team played its first season in the U of Minn football stadium, which seats 50k. They routinely draw in the low 20k's. It works great, as they just close the upper decks and fill up the lower decks. Great atmosphere, great crowds (for their size), great sight lines ... and why wouldn't they be? It's essentially the same sized field.

No reason at all, in my opinion based on my experiences with Minn's team at TCF Bank Stadium, that a 40k Aztec's Stadium couldn't have similar success and atmosphere.

Pretty sure there are other successful examples as well. Seattle, Orlando, Atlanta.
(This post was last modified: 10-05-2017 11:28 PM by MplsBison.)
10-05-2017 11:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Renandpat Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 190
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Central State
Location:
Post: #47
RE: SDSU supporters launch ballot initiative for stadium
(10-05-2017 10:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  k5, keep in mind that Wedge has an extreme political agenda against even a single cent of public money going to build a stadium. Once you realize that, you can easily spot that slant to every post he makes on this topic.

The new stadium absolutely should have some public funding and absolutely can make both the Aztecs and MLS happy, which should be the goal for the new stadium.
Birmingham gets or still.tries to get public $$$ even with a newly elected populist mayor.

Fresno State may only receive state money for their current project under the guise of "deferred maintenance", not new construction.
10-05-2017 11:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,672
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 160
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #48
RE: SDSU supporters launch ballot initiative for stadium
(10-05-2017 11:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I will say this: Minnesota's MLS team played its first season in the U of Minn football stadium, which seats 50k. They routinely draw in the low 20k's. It works great, as they just close the upper decks and fill up the lower decks. Great atmosphere, great crowds (for their size), great sight lines ... and why wouldn't they be? It's essentially the same sized field.

No reason at all, in my opinion based on my experiences with Minn's team at TCF Bank Stadium, that a 40k Aztec's Stadium couldn't have similar success and atmosphere.

Pretty sure there are other successful examples as well. Seattle, Orlando, Atlanta.

Atlanta just uses some fancy drapes to block off the upper deck of Mercedes Benz Stadium to get the seating to 40K
[Image: 170519_mercedes_atlanta_2_0.jpg?itok=b-X2Dk3X]
10-06-2017 07:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,247
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 188
I Root For: UC
Location: Normal, IL & Cincy
Post: #49
RE: SDSU supporters launch ballot initiative for stadium
(10-05-2017 10:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  k5, keep in mind that Wedge has an extreme political agenda against even a single cent of public money going to build a stadium. Once you realize that, you can easily spot that slant to every post he makes on this topic.

The new stadium absolutely should have some public funding and absolutely can make both the Aztecs and MLS happy, which should be the goal for the new stadium.

What's wrong with that? Repeated studies have shown that stadiums funded by the public are a bad deal. Football stadiums are the worst because they're used less than 10 days a year.

The new stadiums for the Rams, 49ers, A's, and Giants were built with almost no public subsidy (at least, no more than is given for an average skyscraper). And it's not just a CA thing - the St. Louis Cardinals did the same thing.
10-06-2017 11:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
indianasniff Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,996
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
I Root For: Toledo
Location:
Post: #50
RE: SDSU supporters launch ballot initiative for stadium
If you build a larger stadium, use a sail over the lower bowl so the kickball (err soccer) fans can stay out of the sun
10-06-2017 11:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #51
RE: SDSU supporters launch ballot initiative for stadium
(10-06-2017 11:09 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(10-05-2017 10:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  k5, keep in mind that Wedge has an extreme political agenda against even a single cent of public money going to build a stadium. Once you realize that, you can easily spot that slant to every post he makes on this topic.

The new stadium absolutely should have some public funding and absolutely can make both the Aztecs and MLS happy, which should be the goal for the new stadium.

What's wrong with that? Repeated studies have shown that stadiums funded by the public are a bad deal. Football stadiums are the worst because they're used less than 10 days a year.

The new stadiums for the Rams, 49ers, A's, and Giants were built with almost no public subsidy (at least, no more than is given for an average skyscraper). And it's not just a CA thing - the St. Louis Cardinals did the same thing.

Good grief -- when you buy a cheeseburger, are you asking yourself "what will be the return on this investment?"

It's OK to buy stuff because you want to have it, even though it won't make you money. Stuff is nice to have. It's OK to want nice stuff.


Public parks and trails aren't investments, either. They're nice things to have. So you buy them. Same thing for public stadiums.



Huge part of the problem with this country, trying to pretend every single thing is an investment with a return. 07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 10-07-2017 10:14 AM by MplsBison.)
10-07-2017 10:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,247
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 188
I Root For: UC
Location: Normal, IL & Cincy
Post: #52
RE: SDSU supporters launch ballot initiative for stadium
(10-07-2017 10:13 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(10-06-2017 11:09 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(10-05-2017 10:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  k5, keep in mind that Wedge has an extreme political agenda against even a single cent of public money going to build a stadium. Once you realize that, you can easily spot that slant to every post he makes on this topic.

The new stadium absolutely should have some public funding and absolutely can make both the Aztecs and MLS happy, which should be the goal for the new stadium.

What's wrong with that? Repeated studies have shown that stadiums funded by the public are a bad deal. Football stadiums are the worst because they're used less than 10 days a year.

The new stadiums for the Rams, 49ers, A's, and Giants were built with almost no public subsidy (at least, no more than is given for an average skyscraper). And it's not just a CA thing - the St. Louis Cardinals did the same thing.

Good grief -- when you buy a cheeseburger, are you asking yourself "what will be the return on this investment?"

It's OK to buy stuff because you want to have it, even though it won't make you money. Stuff is nice to have. It's OK to want nice stuff.


Public parks and trails aren't investments, either. They're nice things to have. So you buy them. Same thing for public stadiums.



Huge part of the problem with this country, trying to pretend every single thing is an investment with a return. 07-coffee3
Public parks, trails, and libraries are "nice things" that are practically free to the public after they are built. So everyone can use them.

Stadiums that charge $5,000 for "seat licenses" that are only used 8 times a year are "nice things" for the wealthy.

Even though I'm one of those wealthy people, I don't think it's appropriate to spend tax dollars on playthings that are only used by the wealthy.
10-08-2017 05:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #53
RE: SDSU supporters launch ballot initiative for stadium
(10-08-2017 05:38 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(10-07-2017 10:13 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(10-06-2017 11:09 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(10-05-2017 10:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  k5, keep in mind that Wedge has an extreme political agenda against even a single cent of public money going to build a stadium. Once you realize that, you can easily spot that slant to every post he makes on this topic.

The new stadium absolutely should have some public funding and absolutely can make both the Aztecs and MLS happy, which should be the goal for the new stadium.

What's wrong with that? Repeated studies have shown that stadiums funded by the public are a bad deal. Football stadiums are the worst because they're used less than 10 days a year.

The new stadiums for the Rams, 49ers, A's, and Giants were built with almost no public subsidy (at least, no more than is given for an average skyscraper). And it's not just a CA thing - the St. Louis Cardinals did the same thing.

Good grief -- when you buy a cheeseburger, are you asking yourself "what will be the return on this investment?"

It's OK to buy stuff because you want to have it, even though it won't make you money. Stuff is nice to have. It's OK to want nice stuff.


Public parks and trails aren't investments, either. They're nice things to have. So you buy them. Same thing for public stadiums.



Huge part of the problem with this country, trying to pretend every single thing is an investment with a return. 07-coffee3
Public parks, trails, and libraries are "nice things" that are practically free to the public after they are built. So everyone can use them.

Stadiums that charge $5,000 for "seat licenses" that are only used 8 times a year are "nice things" for the wealthy.

Even though I'm one of those wealthy people, I don't think it's appropriate to spend tax dollars on playthings that are only used by the wealthy.

But this thread is specifically about SD St's effort to get a new stadium built on the land, designed for 40k seats.

They'd gladly almost give tickets away to get 40k people in the door, who actually care about Aztec football.

So that argument doesn't hold water here.
10-08-2017 09:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TrojanCampaign Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,190
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 106
I Root For: USC, UA, AAMU,
Location: Huntsville
Post: #54
RE: SDSU supporters launch ballot initiative for stadium
(10-08-2017 09:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(10-08-2017 05:38 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(10-07-2017 10:13 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(10-06-2017 11:09 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(10-05-2017 10:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  k5, keep in mind that Wedge has an extreme political agenda against even a single cent of public money going to build a stadium. Once you realize that, you can easily spot that slant to every post he makes on this topic.

The new stadium absolutely should have some public funding and absolutely can make both the Aztecs and MLS happy, which should be the goal for the new stadium.

What's wrong with that? Repeated studies have shown that stadiums funded by the public are a bad deal. Football stadiums are the worst because they're used less than 10 days a year.

The new stadiums for the Rams, 49ers, A's, and Giants were built with almost no public subsidy (at least, no more than is given for an average skyscraper). And it's not just a CA thing - the St. Louis Cardinals did the same thing.

Good grief -- when you buy a cheeseburger, are you asking yourself "what will be the return on this investment?"

It's OK to buy stuff because you want to have it, even though it won't make you money. Stuff is nice to have. It's OK to want nice stuff.


Public parks and trails aren't investments, either. They're nice things to have. So you buy them. Same thing for public stadiums.



Huge part of the problem with this country, trying to pretend every single thing is an investment with a return. 07-coffee3
Public parks, trails, and libraries are "nice things" that are practically free to the public after they are built. So everyone can use them.

Stadiums that charge $5,000 for "seat licenses" that are only used 8 times a year are "nice things" for the wealthy.

Even though I'm one of those wealthy people, I don't think it's appropriate to spend tax dollars on playthings that are only used by the wealthy.

But this thread is specifically about SD St's effort to get a new stadium built on the land, designed for 40k seats.

They'd gladly almost give tickets away to get 40k people in the door, who actually care about Aztec football.

So that argument doesn't hold water here.

And with the NFL team leaving the city does want some form of big time football to remain.
10-09-2017 08:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.