1. Welcome to San Diego Chargers NFL Football Podcast and Forum!

    Bolt Talk is one of the largest online communities for the San Diego Chargers. We host a regular Chargers podcast during the season. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Create an Account or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Chargers need 2/3rd vote!

Discussion in 'Chargers Fan Forum' started by Fouts, Jun 30, 2016.

  1. Fouts

    Fouts I heart Deano!

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,788
    Ratings:
    +350
  2. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    22,302
    Ratings:
    +4,413
    Knew it all along. ;)
     
  3. HEXEDBOLT

    HEXEDBOLT Don't like it, lump it!!!

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Messages:
    14,284
    Ratings:
    +1,887
    Hello, hello. I don't know why you say goodbye I say hello.
     
  4. The Nose

    The Nose Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2016
    Messages:
    28
    Ratings:
    +16
    Yeah, there is no way SD get's 2/3 vote. That sucks
     
  5. Chaincrusher

    Chaincrusher BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,330
    Ratings:
    +306
    While I agree that there is next to zero likelihood that the California Supreme Court deals with this issue before November, I do not think that that means it is necessarily over.

    Suppose it goes to a ballot in November and the vote is 52% for the stadium plan and 48% against it.

    If the league wants the Chargers in San Diego, the owners can extend to Chargers' time to elect by another 2-3 years in anticipation of a favorable California Supreme Court ruling if it sees the votes as likely being there. After all, the Kroenke stadium won't even be completed until 2019, so there is no need to rush the issue when a possible San Diego option could realistically emerge. Then, there could be a re-vote on the issue somewhere down the line after the California Supreme Court clears up the issue.

    In the interim, the Raiders can pound sand.

    Also, there is an argument out there that there may not even have to be a re-vote. If the vote goes 52-48 in favor of the stadium and the local government officials say the election has been lost, I could see a legal challenge to the declared result with the argument that the law was actually that only a simple majority was required.

    Now, if the result in November is 40-60 against the stadium, then it seems like the league would have no reason to believe that a stadium could be done in San Diego and the Chargers could go elsewhere.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. House of Hayne

    House of Hayne Chargers Smash

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2014
    Messages:
    649
    Ratings:
    +204
    Should have gone with the MV plan
    Now its the LA plan
     
  7. Concudan

    Concudan Caffeinated Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    53,044
    Ratings:
    +4,979
    Why? You think the MV plan would not require a 2/3 vote?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    22,302
    Ratings:
    +4,413
    No, but perhaps something more realistic and less expensive would have a better chance of getting the votes needed.
     
  9. Concudan

    Concudan Caffeinated Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    53,044
    Ratings:
    +4,979
    I doubt it. Anyway the point is moot now. They will vote on the convention center / stadium deal. Maybe the vote will go the Chargers way... I figured it was a long shot them staying either way.
     
  10. House of Hayne

    House of Hayne Chargers Smash

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2014
    Messages:
    649
    Ratings:
    +204
    I feel the MV plan would have been a better option all the way around
    Cheaper and doesn't mater anymore
    We will see how it goes in November
     
  11. matilack

    matilack Take A Knee McCree!!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    17,105
    Ratings:
    +3,556
    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan

    Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    6,985
    Ratings:
    +1,584
    But MV plan required a raise in local taxes. That was NEVER gonna pass. The downtown plan raises the TOT (tourist) tax. The hoteliers, who have the Mayor and other council members in their back pockets, want you to believe that a raise in the TOT tax will mean less visitors will come to SD. That is a complete load of crap. No one ever said "I won't go to <insert city name here> because their TOT tax is too high". Look at other tourist destinations that have higher TOT taxes and have less to offer than SD. They aren't hurting at all.

    What will be interesting to see is how well "yes" vote will be presented. If it's an all out blitz by Spanos and others, then we'll know he's serious about staying.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  13. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    22,302
    Ratings:
    +4,413
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. Concudan

    Concudan Caffeinated Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    53,044
    Ratings:
    +4,979
    Without Faulkner backing it, and given the nature of majority SD residents of not really caring about sports... I just don't see it getting done. Lets face it, Spanos has not endeared themselves to the locals, and the team has not been been in the playoffs lately...

    I think LA is where they will be this time next year.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    22,302
    Ratings:
    +4,413
    Stadium won't be ready until 2019..... doubt that they would move beforehand.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. ThunderHorse17

    ThunderHorse17 Lone Wolf

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,328
    Ratings:
    +341
    So there's still a chance for the StL Chargers...
     
  17. Ride The Lightning

    Ride The Lightning Join the Dark Side, we have cookies.

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    10,930
    Ratings:
    +1,748
  18. Concudan

    Concudan Caffeinated Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    53,044
    Ratings:
    +4,979
    You make Charger Girls cry! Hurumph! :oops:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. House of Hayne

    House of Hayne Chargers Smash

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2014
    Messages:
    649
    Ratings:
    +204
    Hope not but well we did say it's all the spanos fault if it does happen
    Treating fans and the city like:poop: for years
    This is what you get
    I would like to know the number of season tickets holders that quit this year
    Might be interesting
     
  20. Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan

    Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    6,985
    Ratings:
    +1,584
    None of that has ANYTHING to do with the requirement of a 2/3rds vote to pass.
     
  21. powayslugger

    powayslugger Feckless Slappy

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,297
    Ratings:
    +276
    Even Ronald Reagan didn't get re-elected by a 2/3 vote.... and he won that by taking 49 states. You couldn't get a 2/3 "yes" vote even if you were giving away hundred dollar bills. Going to be an interesting season. I second the question of how many season ticket holders gave the finger to cheapo Deano and didn't renew.
     
  22. Fouts

    Fouts I heart Deano!

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,788
    Ratings:
    +350
  23. House of Hayne

    House of Hayne Chargers Smash

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2014
    Messages:
    649
    Ratings:
    +204
    I didn't renew after 11 seasons because of his crap
     
  24. ChargerMike

    ChargerMike BoltBruthaFromAnuthMutha

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2012
    Messages:
    924
    Ratings:
    +481
    Being undefeated going into November might be our only saving grace.
    Winning games can change minds.
     
  25. Fouts

    Fouts I heart Deano!

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,788
    Ratings:
    +350
    Listening to Jan Goldsmith on Darren Smith saying he is gonna send a request that CA supreme court speed up their review of that 51% citizens initiative case, (he says unlikely) or as it pertains to SD initiatives, or to take control (forget legal term) of the Briggs/Chargers citizens initiatives until they do rule on that case. I think I have that right. FWIW
     
  26. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    22,302
    Ratings:
    +4,413
  27. ChargerMike

    ChargerMike BoltBruthaFromAnuthMutha

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2012
    Messages:
    924
    Ratings:
    +481
    Look at that HUGE parking lot......oh wait......uh....
     
  28. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    22,302
    Ratings:
    +4,413
    Chargers must allay fears with good faith effort
    SDUT - Kevin Acee

    [​IMG]

    After 110 pages of legal gobbledygook and millions of dollars spent on spin, we are destined to have as many questions as answers about the Chargers stadium initiative even after voters cast their ballots on Nov. 8.

    That is not anyone’s fault. That is, according to folks on all sides of the issue and those familiar with political machinations, the way these things are inherently designed.

    The language in an initiative is binding. Thus, it can only address so much.

    But one gigantic cloud can at least be dissipated. It can be done now. Really, it must be.

    The Chargers have to pledge that if it is determined the cost of their stadium-convention center project puts even a cent of the city’s general fund in peril they will not go forward.

    Whether general fund money was at risk would be determined by a committee convened to establish what the actual costs of land acquisition, MTS bus yard relocation, construction and other costs will be, as well as the division of the stadium-convention center’s operational revenue and expenses.

    This will be the process after the election, assuming the initiative is approved.

    The pledge from the Chargers must come now.

    Dean Spanos must say that if it is determined by an independent/bi-partisan group that the proposed transient occupancy tax increase might not be sufficient to cover the bills, he won’t hold the city to the terms of the initiative.

    (This goes beyond the initiative’s language that says it “would not impose any obligation on the city to pay for operations and maintenance and capital costs for the convention center expansion and stadium out of the general fund.” Not “imposing an obligation” doesn’t necessarily mean the city couldn’t have to find a way to fund a potential shortfall.)

    Such a guarantee by Spanos would reasonably allay the fears of those who say the Chargers’ plan for a downtown stadium and convention center is a recipe for financial ruin.

    Not taking this step leaves too much open for interpretation.

    And after the past year or so, the Chargers can’t afford locals interpreting that they are untrustworthy. Too, there is evidence in the plight of other NFL stadium projects that portends possible problems.

    Of course, this would do nothing to soothe those opposed to the initiative on the basis of being anti-tax increase and/or against public subsidies for stadium construction. That’s an argument for another time, and it is likely one with no hope of resolution. Too, it does not assuage those opposed to the non-contiguous convention space. That is also a non-starter as an argument.

    What the pledge by Spanos would do is provide some guard against the city being on the hook for more than it can handle.

    We can’t have that.

    A concept can be wonderful and bad.

    Is the Chargers initiative, which suggests a beautiful Super Bowl-worthy edifice next to Petco Park, such a proposal? It is if there is a chance it could burden a city that can’t adequately fix streets or give a competitive wage to police officers.

    You have to acknowledge that, no matter how desperately you want the Chargers to remain in San Diego.

    The Chargers say they have run simulations in which even two recessions don’t come close to using all the money provided by their proposed net increase of four percent in the hotel tax.

    Spelled out in their initiative is that they will provide $350 million and the NFL will provide $300 million toward construction of the stadium portion of the project. The cost of the convention center and land acquisition is not specified, but the team has said it expects the total cost of the project to be $1.8 billion.

    That’s great. The Chargers say it will be x. What if it’s xy or xy + z?

    What if the cost of land and relocation of the MTS bus yard is north of the $200 million estimated? What if the cost of cement and/or steel and/or ceiling tiles and/or fuel skyrocket? What if infrastructure improvement, the cost of which is not provided for in the initiative, is prohibitive?

    See? A lot of questions.

    But not so many that we should just throw up our hands and say, “Never!”

    Look, we’re going to have time after the election to figure out some things. Construction won’t start by Thanksgiving. We’re looking at the end of 2017 before we even know whether a shovel will ever turn dirt on this thing.

    Potential/probable lawsuits aside, should the measure pass, the city would have to appoint an entity to work with the Chargers on the construction, operation and maintenance of the facility.

    The sides would then hammer out real costs.

    Only at that time will we know what we can really expect to spend and whether what voters mandated is actually feasible.

    We should accept a certain amount of ambiguity until then. However, we need a larger measure of good faith from the Chargers now.
     
  29. Pointyearedog

    Pointyearedog I only put idiots on ignore...

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,348
    Ratings:
    +1,734
    That's almost worth two-thirds of my vote...
     
  30. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    22,302
    Ratings:
    +4,413
    Chamber endorses Chargers downtown stadium
    By Roger Showley | 12:10 p.m.July 28, 2016


    The Chargers’ proposed downtown stadium ballot measure won its biggest endorsement Thursday from the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce.

    “No ballot measure is ever perfect,” President and CEO Jerry Sanders told a press conference at the Chargers headquarters, “but in our evaluation, the benefits far outweigh the risks. And more importantly, the positive effect a new stadium will have on this region is good for business and good for civic pride.”

    He said of the 46 board members participating, two voted no and several abstained. He declined to give the exact count.

    The Chargers successfully gathered enough signatures to put the project on the Nov. 8 ballot. It would authorize a new stadium, east of Petco Park on the MTS bus yard and Tailgate Park lot. A convention center annex would be built close enough to expand onto the playing field.

    To pay for the project, the initiative would raise the city hotel room tax from the present 12.5 percent to 16.5 percent. Other funding would come from the NFL and the Chargers via seat licenses, naming rights, sponsorships and other sources. A two-thirds approval by city voters would be required unless the state Supreme Court rules otherwise.

    A competing measure, called the Citizens Plan, would raise the tax to 15.5 percent and bar using public funds for the stadium, unless voters later approve. It would also lay out university-related redevelopment and river park options for the Qualcomm Stadium property in Mission Valley.

    Chargers Chairman Dean Spanos welcomed the chamber action, which came nearly four months after the team launched its initiative.

    “We would not have a chance of success without the support of the chamber,” he said. “It’s a long road ahead of us and we’re up to the challenge. We’re committed to getting this thing approved and we’re going to do it.”

    The Chargers have yet to win the backing of the hotel industry, which prefers expanding the existing San Diego Convention Center, or Comic-Con International, whose leaders also want contiguous expansion to take care of the annual event’s burgeoning attendance.

    Mayor Kevin Faulconer, who has backed the hotel industry’s views, has yet to take a position. Councilmen David Alvarez and Chris Cate have come out in opposition and the seven other council members have yet to decide.

    The No Downtown Stadium coalition issued a statement that it was no surprise “to see big business back big business over a deal that would only benefit one of its buddies.” Its members had no chance to present its case, the group said.

    Sanders said a chamber ad hoc committee held meetings with various stakeholders and studied the initiative’s details before recommending approval. The anti-stadium group did not request a meeting, he said, but communicated its views to the full chamber board. He said the backing was accompanied by several conditions.

    Among them, the Chargers need to:

    Reach out to the community to identify needed infrastructure improvements, such as freeway, transit and road improvements;

    Ensure that the final financing plan guarantees the present 2 percent hotel tax going to the Tourism Marketing District remains “whole”;

    Schedule games around other major large events in the city — a matter dealt with by the NFL’s recent commitment to free up certain days of the month for non-game-day activities;

    Replace the roughly 1,200 parking spaces at Tailgate Park, which would be redeveloped for the project — the Chargers’ conceptual plan calls for building that many spaces beneath the stadium;

    Protect the city’s general fund from making up any shortfall in paying back about $1 billion in bonds from the hotel tax.

    Sanders said the chamber remains committed to a contiguous expansion of the present convention center.

    “However, with that route indefinitely stalled in litigation and without any identifiable funding source, it’s simply not a viable option right now,” he said. “We see the Chargers’ initiative as a new opportunity to continue moving forward while keeping the option open for contiguous expansion.”

    Faulconer was out of town but his office issued a statement saying city staff continue to analyze financial issues not addressed in the Chargers’ initiative.

    “We are looking forward to additional analysis and information that is coming that will give greater clarity on the project’s finances and, ultimately, whether this is a fair deal for taxpayers,” the statement said.

    In a message to last week’s Comic-Con attendees, Comic-Con President John Rogers reiterated opposition to the Chargers’ noncontiguous expansion plan.

    Chargers consultant Fred Maas said after the press conference that he intends to press the team’s case as soon as possible with Comic-Con leadership.

    “They have been a very important part of the fabric of this community,” Maas said. “We don’t want to do anything that would stifle or not encourage the growth and stability of Comic-Con. We hope that when we fully get to make our case, they’ll understand the enormous benefits that accrue to a facility like ours and how it can augment their existing campus environment.”

    Tourism Authority Chairman Ted Molter also cited Comic-Con’s opposition and expressed disappointment in the chamber’s action.

    “This could threaten San Diego’s ability to keep our major event customers here in the future,” Molter said in a statement. “The Tourism Authority remains committed to a contiguous expansion of the existing center.”

    He also noted that the higher hotel tax would make it one of the highest in the nation and “would only add to the challenges of attracting conventions and visitors in this highly competitive marketplace.”
     

Share This Page