The revenue/ TA bond concept is flawed because neither the Jack Murphy Duece (qualcom) or the levitadium (10th street terminal) being floated is to my knowlegde in a RDA project area. Also complicating it is that revenue bond would need a pledged revenue source to fund the bond and I doubt that the Chargers would pay for 75% of the construction and then pay rent to the City after that. The notion of a public subsidy through a simple land conveyance is interesting because absent some form of redevelopment, Jack Murphy 1 is a money pit and no football team would just further compound an upcoming blight problem in Mission Valley. With all the hotel capacity coming online in Downtown how successful will that area be with no anchor? The future of mission valley should really be part of this discussion.

Posted by Basic Civics | reply to this comment
August 27, 2008 9:39 am

the one other slightly important issue that is at the forefront is: In this terrible economy who is going to pay the price for these seats? Of course you will have your stalworths but with our local economy in the dumps and new job growth almost non existant where will they get the fans to plunk down the type of money they will need to meet their projections. i can tell you as a long time padre full season ticket holder (0ver 20 years) my company will not be paying the over $6000 to purchase two full season tickets for next year. I can't afford it these days and with the team on a spirl downwards i beleive many ticket holders will do the same. The Padres and Petco are going to be in a world of hurt starting next year to finance their guaranteed contracts.

Posted by steve | reply to this comment
August 27, 2008 5:00 pm

I don't care about the Spanos family, I care about the City I live in. Right now, the stadium is costing the City money without respect to the Chargers. In exchange for 66 acres, the Chargers offered to clean up the oil plumes under the land, build a new stadium, put in mixed-development of housing and commercial space, creat a public park along the river, all of which would create jobs and tax revenue that we aren't getting now. And this is for 66 acres of parking lot no one else is asking for. People need to grow up and understand private developers are not in the business of charity work for cities, and that Cities can benefit greately from such partnerships if done properly. Until we abandon our small-town attitude, we'll never be the world-class city we aspire to be.

Posted by Rock On | reply to this comment
August 28, 2008 7:54 am

This brings up a key question in all of San Diego's sports economics - given the dearth of the kind of businesses in San Diego that get ROI from hosting clients at sporting events and a corporate culture that only partially embraces atheletics as a place to get business done, is there a disconnect between where sports are going in US and the trajectory of the SD economy?

Posted by CMR | reply to this comment
August 28, 2008 10:30 am

Revenue bonds are a cruel way to impose bonds on the public under the guise that taxpayers won't pay -- only the users of the facility will pay. It's not true. These bonds end up being guaranteed by the taxpayers. I remember Susan Golding telling me that I should not contest in court their Charger deal because taxpayers won't pay -- saying to me that "if you don't buy a hot dog at the stadium, you won't be paying." Of course, as it turned out, we did pay -- about $5 million a year -- plus $2 million a year of city revenue quietly transferred from the city's shopping center leases in the Sports Arena area.

Posted by Richard Rider, Chair, San Dieg | reply to this comment
August 29, 2008 5:40 am

Editor´s Choice
The revenue/ TA bond concept is flawed because neither the Jack Murphy Duece (qualcom) or the levitadium (10th street terminal) being floated is to my knowlegde in a RDA project area. Also complicating it is that revenue bond would need a pledged revenue source to fund the bond and I doubt that the Chargers would pay for 75% of the construction and then pay rent to the City after that. The notion of a public subsidy through a simple land conveyance is interesting because absent some form of redevelopment, Jack Murphy 1 is a money pit and no football team would just further compound an upcoming blight problem in Mission Valley. With all the hotel capacity coming online in Downtown how successful will that area be with no anchor? The future of mission valley should really be part of this discussion.

Posted by Basic Civics | reply to this comment
August 27, 2008 9:39 am

A new stadium sounds like a great deal, a real money maker. Let the Billionaire Spanos finance it if it is such a grat deal AND rain maker. The fact is NO pro sports team is going to be getting free money-at least not in San Diego. Those days are long gone. it just aint going to go over today. Too many other problems.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
August 27, 2008 10:15 am

Once again Billy spouts off with ill-informed posts. You are only one person (with many personalities and logins). You alone do not determine the fate of anything or anyone. It will be up to the THOUSANDS of voters in CHULA VISTA. So be quiet, sit back and watch the Chargers prove you wrong...as usual.

Posted by Aaron Wright | reply to this comment
August 28, 2008 7:30 am

I think we already had this conversation--so I'm sitting this one out--'Just wanted to say: Best Regards, AAron.

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
August 29, 2008 12:26 pm

Editor´s Choice
the one other slightly important issue that is at the forefront is: In this terrible economy who is going to pay the price for these seats? Of course you will have your stalworths but with our local economy in the dumps and new job growth almost non existant where will they get the fans to plunk down the type of money they will need to meet their projections. i can tell you as a long time padre full season ticket holder (0ver 20 years) my company will not be paying the over $6000 to purchase two full season tickets for next year. I can't afford it these days and with the team on a spirl downwards i beleive many ticket holders will do the same. The Padres and Petco are going to be in a world of hurt starting next year to finance their guaranteed contracts.

Posted by steve | reply to this comment
August 27, 2008 5:00 pm

Editor´s Choice
This brings up a key question in all of San Diego's sports economics - given the dearth of the kind of businesses in San Diego that get ROI from hosting clients at sporting events and a corporate culture that only partially embraces atheletics as a place to get business done, is there a disconnect between where sports are going in US and the trajectory of the SD economy?

Posted by CMR | reply to this comment
August 28, 2008 10:30 am

Editor´s Choice
I don't care about the Spanos family, I care about the City I live in. Right now, the stadium is costing the City money without respect to the Chargers. In exchange for 66 acres, the Chargers offered to clean up the oil plumes under the land, build a new stadium, put in mixed-development of housing and commercial space, creat a public park along the river, all of which would create jobs and tax revenue that we aren't getting now. And this is for 66 acres of parking lot no one else is asking for. People need to grow up and understand private developers are not in the business of charity work for cities, and that Cities can benefit greately from such partnerships if done properly. Until we abandon our small-town attitude, we'll never be the world-class city we aspire to be.

Posted by Rock On | reply to this comment
August 28, 2008 7:54 am

Rock On is right. The Spanos family offered a solution that benefitted the city. And as I recall, the land was not to be provided for free, but as a 99-year lease. Isn't that right? Personally, I only praise the Spanos family as they have donated to Cal Poly and University of the Pacific... for basketball and football. I am unaware of any activity locally, but wouldn't be suprised. I am not a Charger fan, but the city would loose much if they left; name recognition, national identity, and the local economy would suffer. Although the cost of a stadium may be $1.5-$2 billion, what would be the economic impact over the life of the stadium if they were to leave? I suspect that stadium cost would be nominal relative to teh benefits.

Posted by Brandon F | reply to this comment
August 28, 2008 2:11 pm

Rock On is dead on. Also, to your last statement about the original project not penciling out for investors....not so. Investors were scared off by the untrustworthy and foolish City government. It sure was a lot easier for the City to take property from private land owners and give it to John Moores than to find a way to move 66 acres of unproductive , government owned land for the Spanos's and us Chargers fans. I've lived here for 16 years and I can't figure out why people hate the Spanos family so much but will roll over for a crook like Moores.

Posted by NJSurf | reply to this comment
August 28, 2008 1:18 pm

Hahaha...I see the same old Spanos tree hugger seems to be posting under several different handles again. The CHargers can take a hike. If they want the MV land THEY CAN PAY FOR IT. Charger tree huggers need to grow up and understand private taxpayers are not in the business of charity work for billionaires.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
August 28, 2008 3:18 pm

Revenue bonds that cheat the city of any interest ARE a guarantee to bankruptcy. Scott you pegged it perfectly. The Yankee deal is being investigated now as a gift of public funds among other things.

Posted by Coast Watcher | reply to this comment
August 28, 2008 3:32 pm

Editor´s Choice
Revenue bonds are a cruel way to impose bonds on the public under the guise that taxpayers won't pay -- only the users of the facility will pay. It's not true. These bonds end up being guaranteed by the taxpayers. I remember Susan Golding telling me that I should not contest in court their Charger deal because taxpayers won't pay -- saying to me that "if you don't buy a hot dog at the stadium, you won't be paying." Of course, as it turned out, we did pay -- about $5 million a year -- plus $2 million a year of city revenue quietly transferred from the city's shopping center leases in the Sports Arena area.

Posted by Richard Rider, Chair, San Dieg | reply to this comment
August 29, 2008 5:40 am

Two solutions. Let all the real Chargers fans in the county just send the Spanos family a check for $100,000 each to help buy the family a new stadium. Or the Spanos family could take the Chargers public and allow fans to buy stocks and bonds in the team's operations. That will never happen because the Spanos mob wants to keep all the profits themselves, instead of sharing them with stockholders. Spanos has made many billions of dollars paving over the Central Valley with condofarms and housing subdivisions. Let him buy land and pay for his own damn stadium if he really wants one. He could pay for it out of the family's spare change. He does not need anymore corporate welfare from the taxpayers, in any way, shape or form.

Posted by Watcher | reply to this comment
August 29, 2008 9:27 am

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.