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 Release Downtown Stadium Plan

Discussion in 'Chargers Fan Forum' started by reddenedbeard, May 20, 2010.

  1. reddenedbeard

    reddenedbeard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,939
    Ratings:
    +112
  2. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,482
    Ratings:
    +629
    I don;t see anything getting done without a very strong possibility of being on a 4-5 years SB rotation. That will be the selling point for the $500mil in public financing. Without the SB, that will really put a dent in the ability to pay back the bonds.

    Plus the proposal calls for the NFL to pay $100 mil. I doubt the NFL pays a penny if they don't plan to put a SB in SD every couple years
     
  3. Harley

    Harley BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2006
    Messages:
    543
    Ratings:
    +82
  4. nickelbolt

    nickelbolt Fuggedaboutit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    6,167
    Ratings:
    +886
    [​IMG]

    If they build it... I will come.

    literally.



    :icon_shrug:


    :icon_party:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. MasterOfPuppets

    MasterOfPuppets Charger fan since 1979

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,053
    Ratings:
    +636
    good, as long as you don't mispell "come" :icon_eek: (and if you do, don't tell us about it :lol: )
     
  6. RM24

    RM24 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,109
    Ratings:
    +264
  7. reddenedbeard

    reddenedbeard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,939
    Ratings:
    +112
    I thought the NFL wants more than 70k seating for superbowls at a minimum.. Unless there is more to it than the commish has said. Unless the 62k is expandable (ie: folding seats) .. ;)
     
  8. Harley

    Harley BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2006
    Messages:
    543
    Ratings:
    +82
    i wonder if the suite occupancy is accounted for in the 62k?
    either way i don't think the nfl would want SD to build a stadium that would not meet the needs of a SB. the nfl loves SD for the SB and especially if the stadium was downtown.
    whatever, i just hope it happens. bein' a traveler to games, i love the idea of stay'in in the lamp and walk'in to the games. although i feel the pain of the tailgater, somehow i bet those fans will figure it out.
     
  9. Buck Melanoma

    Buck Melanoma Guest

    Ratings:
    +408
    The majority of voters are going to focus on the term "public funds" & vote a resounding no.

    They'll be at the Q until they're gone if this is the best that the ownership can come up with.
     
  10. Harley

    Harley BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2006
    Messages:
    543
    Ratings:
    +82
    perhaps, but i would imagine the issue would'nt see the ballot if it didn't have a decent chance of passing. the early polling would help determine if it was even worth the hassle.
    from wiki on the public funding source (Tax Increment Financing):
    TIF is a tool to use future gains in taxes to finance current improvements (which theoretically will create the conditions for those future gains). When a public project such as a road, school, or hazardous waste cleanup is carried out, there is often an increase in the value of surrounding real estate, and perhaps new investment (new or rehabilitated buildings, for example). This increased site value and investment sometimes generates increased tax revenues. The increased tax revenues are the "tax increment." Tax Increment Financing dedicates tax increments within a certain defined district to finance debt issued to pay for the project. TIF is designed to channel funding toward improvements in distressed or underdeveloped areas where development might not otherwise occur. TIF creates funding for "public" projects that may otherwise be unaffordable to localities, by borrowing against future property tax revenues.
     
  11. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,482
    Ratings:
    +629
    To bad most of the public are morons. They think the city is paying for a stadium and just handing over the keys to the Chargers. If the facts are presented to the people, the Chargers will be renting the stadium for the city, and the city will have the ability to rent it out to who ever they want during the off season, plus the city will be able to sell the Qualcomm site land to offset the cost, and it will save the city the $17 mil a year they are losing on Qualcomm right now. Every sign says it if financially smarter for the city to build it, than to let the Chargers walk. But the people will not see the facts, and will look at it completely twisted, which menast he Chargers will be playing on LA by 2020
     
  12. Buck Melanoma

    Buck Melanoma Guest

    Ratings:
    +408
    There is quite likely a reasonable compromise that can be struck where the proposal will pass. I'm just not at all sure that many will listen beyond the 500 million sound bite. It grabs your attention.

    The battle is very much uphill. I wish us all good luck, but I'm withholding any jubilation.

    Syd - were you at the last meeting w/Fabiani?
     
  13. LightEmUp

    LightEmUp Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    568
    Ratings:
    +11
    Public funds? From SD? During this immigration ordeal? G-Luck!!


    One last attempt from the organization before it makes plans to leave....
     
  14. Aggieman

    Aggieman I bleed blue and gold

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,363
    Ratings:
    +194
    pft! Public financing...

    Denverbolt, the land around Qualcomm is close to invaluable with the massive terminals next door. Unless a refinery/terminal wants to move into that toxic mess, the county will not be able to recoup the losses from selling Qualcomm. TIFs ARE a sham, speculation for the sake of financing with very little to no accountability. They were designed to encourage development in UNdeveloped areas, not places like Downtown SD. Actually, current California law mandates this. And still the state operates at $28.5 long-term debt in TIF diversion funds.
     
  15. Retired Catholic

    Retired Catholic BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,894
    Ratings:
    +347
    Invaluable is a newly discovered Rembrandt. Worthless is the word you're looking for. Demolishing Qualcomm just might make the clean up a whole lot simpler. Just scrape it all out. There would probably be federal money to defray a lot of the cost, as well as money from those responsible for the problem.
     
  16. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,482
    Ratings:
    +629
    It isn't public financing. It will be financed by selling bonds to inverters, which will be repaid by income from the stadium. It won't come out of the tax payers pocket unless they are going to the game and paying the increased ticket prices
     
  17. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,482
    Ratings:
    +629
    Qualcomm would have to be leveled. The city can't afford to keep up with the maintenance on it without the Chargers paying their several million dollar a year rent (Probably around $15-20mil per year).

    Now the city should feel even dumber since part of the Chargers proposal in 02/03 which asked from no tax dollars, included the chargers paying for all the clean up costs
     
  18. turbo_turtle

    turbo_turtle In Disguise

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    7,685
    Ratings:
    +890
    Where does it say that the Spanos will pay for clean up of the Q after it is demolished if they are not going to use that location but use either Downtown or LA?

    I have been trying to look it up on the Internet and there is nothing at all that I am finding. :icon_huh:

    The only things I found are if the Chargers were to Stay at the Q and rebuild a Stadium there then there would be the clean up from the Spanoses and other parts of the City of San Diego.
     
  19. Buck Melanoma

    Buck Melanoma Guest

    Ratings:
    +408
    I've never seen the Chargers or anyone else pony up for that expense to date, not even the folks who caused the contamination.
     
  20. HollywoodLeo

    HollywoodLeo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    15,202
    Ratings:
    +2,413
    Damn. I was hoping he'd make the roster this year. :tdown:
     
  21. MasterOfPuppets

    MasterOfPuppets Charger fan since 1979

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,053
    Ratings:
    +636
    I think it's pretty clear that he meant that in the old proposal (building a new stadium in part of the qualcomm site) the Chargers would have paid for the clean up
     
  22. MasterOfPuppets

    MasterOfPuppets Charger fan since 1979

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,053
    Ratings:
    +636
    :lol: let's just hope they don't bring in that UFA from LA to take his place :no:
     
  23. turbo_turtle

    turbo_turtle In Disguise

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    7,685
    Ratings:
    +890
    The way I was understanding it is the Spanos family would have to clean up the Q site and as well the new Downtown site after both sites were demolished to include the clean up after the demolition. To me that would be too much for them to pay for. It might run to a Billion Dollars easy if not more.

    I just hope that all the Spanos Family has to pay for is the clean up of the Downtown site so they can build the Stadium there.
     
  24. MasterOfPuppets

    MasterOfPuppets Charger fan since 1979

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,053
    Ratings:
    +636
    again, I think DenverBolt meant the 2002/2003 proposal (when they wanted to build in the qualcomm site) not the current proposal
     
  25. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,482
    Ratings:
    +629
    The proposal they presented to the city in 02/03 included the Chargers paying for the land cleanup. I am not talking about the current idea, I am talking about the actual proposal the Chargers sent the city in 2002/3 which was to rebuild on the current qualcomm site
     
  26. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,482
    Ratings:
    +629
    Exactly
     
  27. AnteaterCharger

    AnteaterCharger Calibrating Bolttalk, Podcast by Podcast Staff Member Super Moderator Podcaster

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,110
    Ratings:
    +2,929
    This stuff just sounds like horse-trading; someone does x, someone else does y, and another does Z with people A, B & C contributing to the doing of XYZ.

    There's no statements about one side HAS TO or MUST pay somehting off, so there's some room for negotiations
     
  28. nickelbolt

    nickelbolt Fuggedaboutit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    6,167
    Ratings:
    +886
    Is this thing built yet? I'm antsy.


    No offense, Ant. [​IMG]
     

Share This Page