1. Welcome to Los Angeles Chargers NFL Football Podcast and Forum!

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

    Sign Up 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

Spanos says Chargers want to stay in San Diego

Discussion in 'American Football' started by CoronaDoug, May 22, 2013.

  1. boltssbbound

    boltssbbound Well-Known Member

    Jun 16, 2006
    But this is not reality. There is no way to put a tax in place that taxes only Chargers fans. You could have personal seat licenses for season ticket holders, but to fund a stadium the PSLs would be so obscenely high that it would make zero economic sense. It's naive to act like only Charger fans benefit from having a new stadium. San Diego would get to host a Super Bowl every 4-5 years if they had a new stadium. Would all that revenue only go to Chargers fans? I think not. The economic impact of a new stadium for the city is huge. Obviously, the city can get shafted if they give to much to the owners in a stadium deal. But there are ways to do a stadium deal that benefits the city economically while also making fiscal sense for owners. It can be done. It has been done elsewhere. To simply dismiss out of hand any taxpayer funds going to a new stadium is ignorant and shortsighted. I understand that you don't want to see the city or taxpayers get screwed over. But that's a reason to fight for a fair deal. Not to scream your head off about the only fair deal being no deal that involves public dollars. The negative economic impact for the city if the Chargers leave is not insignificant. I think the Spanoses have been pretty fair and patient in their attempts to get a deal done. Sure, some of that has been dictated by the fact that other cities like LA have not stepped up with viable alternatives. But after a decade with no progress they continue to try to work something out.

    The deal proposed by the Spanoses a decade ago continues to look exceedingly fair. Frye and her ilk seemed to forget that land has no real value until someone is actually willing to buy it and develop it. The Spanoses proposed a deal that, looking back, would probably not been very good for them, since the recession would have meant much of their mix used development around the new stadium would probably stand vacant today. But it would have meant increased tax revenue for the city, a slew of good paying construction jobs for a sector that's been struggling and a state of the art stadium that they'd be able to rent out for all manner of events and probably at least two Super Bowls by now, with many more to come in the future.
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Jan 24, 2010
    Sorry, it went right over my head. I didn't put 2 and 2 together and realize that them you said Riff Raff, that you mean the person. I thought you mean riff raff as in the the poor
  3. Lance19

    Lance19 BoltTalker

    Oct 2, 2011
    I too have struggled with that particular distinction. ;)

    (and what of those whose deficit is not of money, so much as logic?...oh, Riffy...)
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page