How a Chargers Stadium and a Convention Center Mix

How a Chargers Stadium and a Convention Center Mix

Photo by Sam Hodgson

The site of a proposed Chargers stadium development is just blocks from the Convention Center, which officials are hoping to expand. Now, there's talk of melding the two plans.

 

It was only a matter of time before plans for a Convention Center expansion and new Chargers stadium intersected. Both projects are within blocks of each other downtown, both are looking at some of the same funding sources and both are on Mayor Jerry Sanders’ agenda for his term’s final 18 months.

Only one of the projects has taken demonstrable steps forward in the past two years. The $550 million Convention Center expansion is moving toward a financing plan, and has design contracts and consultants and a strong push behind it. In the meantime, the $800 million stadium project is languishing. The Chargers just saw their preferred revenue source, redevelopment dollars, dry up and now are eyeing their project as a part of the Convention Center deal.

“One idea that is getting some traction is the creation of a new Sports and Entertainment District that would tie closely into the existing Convention Center – and perhaps become part of the proposed Convention Center expansion,” Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani said on the team’s website last weekend.

In the broad sense, Fabiani is talking about a domed football stadium that would house conventions and other events. It would anchor a new restaurant-and-retail-heavy neighborhood likely extending the half-mile from the new stadium to the Convention Center.

Beyond that, nothing else is clear. It’s not even apparent if he’s talking about making a Convention Center expansion and stadium into one facility or building the stadium and expanding the center but financing it together. (Fabiani declined to comment for this story.)

Subscribe to the Morning Report.
Join thousands of San Diegans who get the day’s news in their inboxes every morning. Get the Morning Report now.

Still, with the possibility of a combined Convention Center expansion and stadium in the public eye, here’s a closer look at what’s working against the possibility, and a couple of reasons why it could still end up happening.

How the Combined Center/Stadium Doesn’t Happen

1) The mayor doesn’t want it.

Sanders, his Convention Center expansion point man, a key hotel leader and the Convention Center’s spokesman all consider the expansion and the stadium two separate projects. They have said that a new domed football stadium could supplement an expanded center, but not replace it. Even Fred Maas, the mayor’s stadium advisor, hasn’t embraced the idea.

“You don’t want to cannibalize what’s happening at the Convention Center for a concept at the stadium,” Maas told me last week.

Combining the two facilities into one, or even restarting the development of a financing plan, would take a major shift from the Mayor’s Office and everyone else who is working toward expanding the center. The only key player making a case for it right now is Fabiani.

2.) Conventioneers don’t want it.

Whenever Fabiani mentions combining the two projects, Convention Center boosters point out that they’ve already dismissed the idea. The expansion task force tossed out a location near the proposed stadium site out because conventioneers have said they want one contiguous facility. Two separate sites a half-mile apart don’t work, the task force was told.

3.) Los Angeles.

It’s no secret that two major developers in Los Angeles have stadium projects in the works and need a team. The Chargers, who can break their lease easier than anyone in the NFL, always appear on the top of the Los Angeles list. Imagine San Diego links the Convention Center expansion to the stadium, goes through the years-long process of financing and permitting the facility and then the team bolts for a better deal in Los Angeles. In that scenario, neither project happens.

4.) Complexity.

The more you add to a project, the more difficult it is to pull off. Consider the simple question of who runs the new facility. The Chargers have said they want to operate and maintain the new stadium and book its events. The city already has a nonprofit that runs the Convention Center and a nonprofit that promotes tourism. Just who would take charge of the new place is enough to create headaches.

5.) The vote.

Sanders and the Chargers have committed to a public vote for a new stadium. Convention Center expansion backers are doing everything they can to avoid a public vote for their project. The Chargers have indicated they’re willing to back off a vote once planned for next November. The mayor wants the Convention Center to break ground by next December. These don’t mix.

How the Combined Center/Stadium Actually Could Happen

1.) They might just end up needing each other.

The Convention Center expansion is far from a done deal. Backers are counting on 75 percent of the funding coming from increased hotel-room taxes, but need hoteliers to sign off. They also are searching for the rest of the money, including eyeing the same redevelopment dollars as stadium backers. Sanders’ Convention Center advisor has said he’s “scraping the barrel” to come up with the remainder of the funds needed.

Even if a new stadium will cost more than just an expanded center, there are more potential sources of revenue. The Chargers have said they’d kick in $300 million for the existing project and the city could sell the existing Qualcomm Stadium and Sports Arena sites for more money. A sports and entertainment district, which could attract a private developer and new restaurant and retail space, could create more redevelopment dollars to finance a combined facility or help fill gaps for two separate ones.

2.) Conventioneers may be fine with a stadium that doubles as a Convention Center.

In snowy Boston, convention-goers might not like having to walk a few blocks between venues, but in sunny San Diego it might not be so bad. Heck, there would be a $27 million pedestrian bridge between the two. The Convention Center expansion task force concluded an expansion needed to be part of the existing location, but not all meeting and event planners said so.

“[C]onsensus among interviewees is that San Diego holds such strong market appeal, that many large groups would be willing to work with non-contiguous exhibit space,” a May 2009 report by a task force economic consultant said.

♦♦♦

The bottom line is it’s hard to see how a Convention Center expansion and a Chargers stadium fit together, especially as one building.

It would take:

• a major change in expansion planning,

• a major sales job to hoteliers to help fund a stadium,

• a major show of trust in the Chargers to see the process through, and

• a major fight at the ballot box.

The only way it appears that a combined project works is if funding for both the expansion and the stadium run short.

Liam Dillon is a news reporter for voiceofsandiego.org. He covers San Diego City Hall and big buildings. What should he write about next?

Please contact him directly at liam.dillon@voiceofsandiego.org or 619.550.5663.

Like VOSD on Facebook.

Voice of San Diego is a nonprofit that depends on you, our readers. Please donate to keep the service strong. Click here to find out more about our supporters and how we operate independently.


Liam Dillon

Liam Dillon

Liam Dillon is senior reporter and assistant editor for Voice of San Diego. He leads VOSD’s investigations and writes about how regular people interact with local government. What should he write about next? Please contact him directly at liam.dillon@voiceofsandiego.org or 619.550.5663.

  • 916 Posts
  • 3
    Followers

Show comments
Before you comment, read these simple guidelines on what is not allowed.

25 comments
Richard Ross
Richard Ross subscribermember

Typically "Squanders" will be leaving office in 2012 and will leave the taxpayers to pick up the tab for all unfunded liabilities. Need one mention all the deferred city maintenence including $240 million at Balboa Park. Oh and the non-operational new software system with its huge cost overrun and the costly lawsuit won by the terminated former supplier. Jerry "Squanders" just smiles at all of this and goes to his next photo opp.

Activist
Activist

Typically "Squanders" will be leaving office in 2012 and will leave the taxpayers to pick up the tab for all unfunded liabilities. Need one mention all the deferred city maintenence including $240 million at Balboa Park. Oh and the non-operational new software system with its huge cost overrun and the costly lawsuit won by the terminated former supplier. Jerry "Squanders" just smiles at all of this and goes to his next photo opp.

David Cohen
David Cohen subscriber

A public vote (in 2012 or otherwise) on anything like what Fabiani (Spanos) is hoping for will almost surely fail. The only way public funding for even part of a new stadium can be secured is for another Jacobs-Sanders-like scam where the City Council declares that it is not necessarily opposed to the Fabiani scheme and finds itself locked in legally to approving the funding without such a vote.

fryefan
fryefan

A public vote (in 2012 or otherwise) on anything like what Fabiani (Spanos) is hoping for will almost surely fail. The only way public funding for even part of a new stadium can be secured is for another Jacobs-Sanders-like scam where the City Council declares that it is not necessarily opposed to the Fabiani scheme and finds itself locked in legally to approving the funding without such a vote.

Bob Jones
Bob Jones subscriber

This wacky thinking baffles most citizens until they come to the conclusion that those elected politicians DO NOT REPRESENT the tax-payers. They have other interests and motivations driving them. Like an office in Sacremento maybe?

rwj5125
rwj5125

This wacky thinking baffles most citizens until they come to the conclusion that those elected politicians DO NOT REPRESENT the tax-payers. They have other interests and motivations driving them. Like an office in Sacremento maybe?

joshuajay619
joshuajay619

Here's a statement to fact check: "The Chargers, who can break their lease easier than anyone in the NFL, always appear on the top of the Los Angeles list."

Dale Peterson
Dale Peterson subscribermember

Need someone in city leadership (current, or future) to broadcast credible numbers. And, I'm begging these folks----please, not another self-serving commission, no more Fabiani spin (the guy isn't credible), and a REPUTABLE representation of benefits to the community would be useful.

Dale Peterson
Dale Peterson

Need someone in city leadership (current, or future) to broadcast credible numbers. And, I'm begging these folks----please, not another self-serving commission, no more Fabiani spin (the guy isn't credible), and a REPUTABLE representation of benefits to the community would be useful.

Jeff Baymiller
Jeff Baymiller subscriber

I am of the strong opinion that if the Chargers want a new stadium let Alex Spanos come up with the money. He has enough contacts based on the nature of his business that doing so should be a piece of cake.

shawnsdad
shawnsdad

I am of the strong opinion that if the Chargers want a new stadium let Alex Spanos come up with the money. He has enough contacts based on the nature of his business that doing so should be a piece of cake.

Murtaza Baxamusa
Murtaza Baxamusa subscribermember

In the order of impediments, it is the stadium deal in LA that in my opinion is the key holdup. All the rest of the issues (including a December 2012 vote) can only be addressed if we know whether the Chargers are committed to staying.

Murtaza
Murtaza

In the order of impediments, it is the stadium deal in LA that in my opinion is the key holdup. All the rest of the issues (including a December 2012 vote) can only be addressed if we know whether the Chargers are committed to staying.

timothy villalobos
timothy villalobos subscriber

As far as I'm concerned, the Chargers have already burned their bridges with the ticket guarantee of the past. Tax dollars going to Charger players and management. Tax dollars that would be nice to have right now but oops, they went to fund a players new Mercedes and a managers vacation in Bermuda, etc etc. That while libraries close, fire stations got browned out, and cops have to take pay cuts in order to fund their retirement and medical insurance, etc. My memory isn't that short. I have lived here all of my 50 years and my institutional memory is just fine thanx. Maybe after you leave, the city could afford to fill some of the potholes around town instead of having to post police at your football games and pay them overtime to do it...

tim19620
tim19620

As far as I'm concerned, the Chargers have already burned their bridges with the ticket guarantee of the past. Tax dollars going to Charger players and management. Tax dollars that would be nice to have right now but oops, they went to fund a players new Mercedes and a managers vacation in Bermuda, etc etc. That while libraries close, fire stations got browned out, and cops have to take pay cuts in order to fund their retirement and medical insurance, etc. My memory isn't that short. I have lived here all of my 50 years and my institutional memory is just fine thanx. Maybe after you leave, the city could afford to fill some of the potholes around town instead of having to post police at your football games and pay them overtime to do it...

Bob Jones
Bob Jones subscriber

NFL really stands for: NOT FOR LONG will your city be financially solvent when dealing with the National Football League.

rwj5125
rwj5125

NFL really stands for: NOT FOR LONG will your city be financially solvent when dealing with the National Football League.

joseph olivas
joseph olivas subscriber

Mark Fabiani wants the new stadium paid for the taxpayers of San Diego. Do you think he will roll over and play dead if he does not get it? The taxpayers of San Diego have been taken by bad deals that sound good at the time. Remember Petco Park. It does not look as good now as it did then. How about the Qualcomm renovation? How about the guaranteed ticket deal? We need to get used to the idea that the Chargers want something for nothing, and they want it from the taxpayers of San Diego!

josepho858
josepho858

Mark Fabiani wants the new stadium paid for the taxpayers of San Diego. Do you think he will roll over and play dead if he does not get it? The taxpayers of San Diego have been taken by bad deals that sound good at the time. Remember Petco Park. It does not look as good now as it did then. How about the Qualcomm renovation? How about the guaranteed ticket deal? We need to get used to the idea that the Chargers want something for nothing, and they want it from the taxpayers of San Diego!

David Crossley
David Crossley subscriber

Let's look at #4 above, under "complexity". "...The Chargers have said they want to operate and maintain the new stadium, and book its events..." A perfect solution to that would be for the Chargers to build it themselves, or with other private investment. The Chargers own it; they can do whatever they want with it. Yet, they want the majority of the funding of the over $1 BILLION stadium (don't worry, by the time it would be completed, it would cost that much, if not more) covered by the taxpayers, and they still want to operate and maintain it. Pretty ballsy of them, I must say.

aardvark6
aardvark6

Let's look at #4 above, under "complexity". "...The Chargers have said they want to operate and maintain the new stadium, and book its events..." A perfect solution to that would be for the Chargers to build it themselves, or with other private investment. The Chargers own it; they can do whatever they want with it. Yet, they want the majority of the funding of the over $1 BILLION stadium (don't worry, by the time it would be completed, it would cost that much, if not more) covered by the taxpayers, and they still want to operate and maintain it. Pretty ballsy of them, I must say.

Joe Schmitt
Joe Schmitt subscriber

They say they don't have the right infrastructure in Mission Valley -- Hey, the infrastructure that exists downtown is ordinary city streets and inadequate parking available. Then they tell us that this new stadium will be smaller than Qualcomm because of space limitations. How can this whole scheme possibly make sense to anyone???

OKifIcantuseminegivemeanyscreename
OKifIcantuseminegivemeanyscreename

They say they don't have the right infrastructure in Mission Valley -- Hey, the infrastructure that exists downtown is ordinary city streets and inadequate parking available. Then they tell us that this new stadium will be smaller than Qualcomm because of space limitations. How can this whole scheme possibly make sense to anyone???

Bill Bradshaw
Bill Bradshaw subscribermember

I don't know how this kabuki dance will end, but I doubt it will involve a new stadium. Take a good look at Qualcomm, and see what can be done to improve the venue. There are more important priorities for this city than this charade.

toulon
toulon

I don't know how this kabuki dance will end, but I doubt it will involve a new stadium. Take a good look at Qualcomm, and see what can be done to improve the venue. There are more important priorities for this city than this charade.