voiceofsandiego.org: Slop... New Charger Stadium? Ain't Happening
an independent nonprofit |
We depend on your donations. Consider joining us today.

New Charger Stadium? Ain't Happening

Published: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 12:36 PM PDT



Jeepers.

If you are at all interested in the issue of whether the Chargers will ever have a new stadium in the San Diego area at all, you should read this story in yesterday's New York Times.

There are some jaw-dropping numbers in this piece.

The story centers around the ticket prices fans of the Yankees, Jets, Giants and Mets will have to pay to watch their teams in their various new facilities. Try to ingest this paragraph.:

The teams are confident market research supports the increases, but season-ticket holders say the price they are being asked to pay in the new stadiums -- the Mets’ $800 million Citi Field, the $1.3 billion Yankee Stadium and the $1.6 billion (and climbing) Jets-Giants stadium -- is turning them into something other than fans. Instead, interviews with two dozen fans indicated, they are starting to feel like unwitting bankers.


Whoa. $1.6 billion for a new Jets-Giants stadium? And the price tag is climbing!!??

The latest figures from Dallas claim the new stadium there is going to cost a total of $1.1 billion. It had the advantage of going through earlier than the New York project. The Dallas facility is incredible: Look at this place.

OK, take a second to process this. A San Diego discussion continues among those hoping to build the Chargers a new stadium to compete with these big beasts of the sports world in Texas and on the East Coast. The conversation left off in Chula Vista -- a city dealing with brutal internal politics, a major fiscal crisis and a much more pronounced desire to build a convention center on the bay front than a stadium. That city, however big of football fans its residents may be, is kind of shrugging its shoulders at the idea of a stadium.

Also, let's remember that there's a huge power plant right where any stadium would go on the Chula Vista bay front.

So if it costs $1.6 billion to build a stadium in New York -- and $1.1 billion to build one a few years earlier in Texas, where there's almost as much land as air -- how much can we imagine a Chula Vista bay front stadium costing in a few years? I mean, they can't even start building until the power plant is gone. And it's not even being taken down yet.

So here it is: With the dollar collapsing, construction costs and inflation soaring, is there any way in the world that a new stadium on bay-front land could cost anything less than $2 billion?

Wrap your mind around that figure for a second. The Chargers had a proposal to build a new stadium at Qualcomm for maybe $600 million at most. And it wouldn't pencil out for investors. That much, a measly $600 million, wouldn't work out for the housing developers who were supposedly going to build it in exchange for the chance to build some condos.

That's $600 million. Imagine this region trying to finance a $1.5 billion-to-$2 billion dollar construction project.

No way. It ain't happening.

Look at the Giants-Jets proposal. It's being done without government funding. Hurray, right? It can be done.

But look at it: These are two teams partnering up to build the thing. Both teams are taking on $650 million in debt each. How are they going to pay the debt off? They're passing the costs to season-ticket holders who will have to pay $1,000 to $20,000 just to keep their rights to their tickets.

Again, these are two NFL teams that will play twice as many games at their home stadium than the Chargers would. And both teams each have arguably bigger fan bases that the Chargers (no question the Giants have a bigger following. The Jets? It's probably a close call).

So unless San Diego gets another football team, (the Escondido Wildfires anyone?) it will have to close the funding gap with something else.

What? Taxpayer dollars.

OK, the fact is, whatever public funding the Chargers are able to squeeze out of local government would have to be immense just to make the project possible. I mean, hundreds and hundreds of millions. And yet, unlike Dallas or Denver or Phoenix, it is virtually impossible in San Diego to pass a special tax to finance a new stadium. In those places, you merely ask people to vote and see if you can get a majority. In San Diego, you'd have to get a super majority of two-thirds support.

Ain't happening.

So the Chargers would have to finance it. Look at this news out of New York, Charger fans, you want a stadium, you're going to have to pony up: at least double what fans in New York are going to cough up. Are you prepared to pay $2,000 to $40,000 just to maintain your right to purchase Charger season tickets (which themselves would cost double)?

If so, maybe we can work something out.

But the wildly inflating prices of new stadiums in this country, and San Diego's inability to pass a special tax to subsidize it, make it almost certain that there's going to be no deal. Heck, even if the local governments, as the result of some kind of unexpected Kumbaya moment and were able to throw in as much as $500 million to the project, the Chargers and their fans would still have to come up with well more than $1 billion.

Both these things happening are equally unlikely. Without a dramatic and unimaginable shift in local fortunes, the Chargers will not be getting a new stadium in the next decade. If this fact means the team will leave, that's something the fans should get used to.

-- SCOTT LEWIS




Editor´s Choice
The reader comments you won't want to miss. (Editor's Choice selection do not represent the views of the editors. They are comments that seem to add to the discussion as opposed to less productive insults or arguments.)

As usual, there are major flaws in this biased story. The reason why both the new stadiums being built in NY and Dallas are so expensive is because both will have retractable roofs. It's estimated that the roof on the Dallas stadium is making up about 40% of the total cost of the project. And never mind that Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has thrown in about $400 Million in 'add-ons' to the project since it began. After all, everything's supposed to be bigger in Texas. San Diego will not need a covered stadium, nor will they need to have the biggest, baddest facility on the planet to compensat e for their owner's ego. The Chargers stadium would be less expensive than these other two given a similar timeline. So the $2 Billion estimate is complete BS. Oh, and the Chargers are trying to privately finance the stadium. This 'subsidy' argument is BS too.

Posted by Daron | reply to this comment
August 27, 2008 7:01 am

It's time to revisit renovating Qualcom. The Q was built to last at least as long as the Roman Coliseum. If the Q needs some TLC and upgrading, the numbers I've seen to do this would make the final project far cheaper than a new playpen. It might even be affordable. But if the Chargers are adamant that the Q will not work for them, it may be time for them to move--all the way out of the County.

Posted by JWE | reply to this comment
August 28, 2008 7:31 am

15 Comments so far on this story...

WHY should TAXPAYERS subsidize a BILLIONAIRE????? If Spanos wants a new stadium, cool, he can build it with HIS BILLIONS! The stadium scam is ending. Not many jurisdictions are falling for the baloney lines that milk million so f taxpayers to benefit a few billionaire owners. This game ois OVER, certainly for San Diego.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
August 26, 2008 2:56 pm

Hey Bully. Found this little tidbit and wanted to share it with all the conspiracy theorists at the Voice. It's from the your pea-brained City Attorney on March 12, 2007: "According to Aguirre, part of the on-going $10 million subsidy to keep the Chargers playing at Qualcomm Stadium is derived from annual transfers of revenue generated from the San Diego Sports Arena and the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), see Chargers’ Stadium Revenue Table. These funds are placed in the Qualcomm Stadium Operations Fund."--------Don't see any names like Billy, Edgar, Steve, Fred, or CoastWatcher in the report. Did you guys subsidize via cash, or check? Or do you all live in the hotels? Which is it fellas? How much do you pay to subsidize your country clubs and other private, for-profit businesses in the City? You guys must be flat broke.....LOL! Get real.

Posted by Aaron Wright | reply to this comment
August 27, 2008 11:32 am

Hey Aaron Wrong is back. Or at least not posting under his "Bolts" handle! Stick a fork in the new staium plan-because it is DONE! ... BTW, I paid cash!

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
August 27, 2008 3:36 pm

I don't hide behind my handle Bruce. If anyone asks me to reveal my identity on any other blog, I do it. BTW, you didn't pay enough. It's time for your fleecing.....just wait till your best buddy Aguirre leaves. It's gonna happen. And when it does, you're going to be giving the welfare queens ALL your pennies....HAHA.

Posted by Aaron Wright | reply to this comment
August 28, 2008 2:02 pm

Let's see, Chargers have no stadium, are not getting a stadium, and everyone wants them to go! Hmmm...... looks like I WIN!! Stick a fork in em, they are DONE!

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
August 29, 2008 10:32 am

The competition among team owners is not on the field any more--it's who can get the most out of their local government to build a stadium. This is way too rich a game for San Diego to play.

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
August 26, 2008 3:19 pm

Hey Scott- are you aware the NY deal is being investigated by Congress? The no interest bonds only benefit the team NOT the City. Goawaychargers.com We don't need the Chargers and don't want to pay for a private for-profit business to line their pockets with more gold. Thanks for the article.

Posted by Coast Watcher | reply to this comment
August 26, 2008 10:08 pm

Bruce Henderson was right all along. We already gave well over $100 million to the Chargers, and they jerked us around. Let's face facts...San Diego has many priorities of far more importance than giving Spanos more of our money. Most San Diegans have little interest in football...we have better ways to spend our time. We KNOW we cannot trust them to do what is right. Those who support wasting even more of our money, like Chula Vista's insipid and economically ignorant John McCann, ought to be permanently removed from public office.

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
August 27, 2008 5:30 am

Editor´s Choice
As usual, there are major flaws in this biased story. The reason why both the new stadiums being built in NY and Dallas are so expensive is because both will have retractable roofs. It's estimated that the roof on the Dallas stadium is making up about 40% of the total cost of the project. And never mind that Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has thrown in about $400 Million in 'add-ons' to the project since it began. After all, everything's supposed to be bigger in Texas. San Diego will not need a covered stadium, nor will they need to have the biggest, baddest facility on the planet to compensat e for their owner's ego. The Chargers stadium would be less expensive than these other two given a similar timeline. So the $2 Billion estimate is complete BS. Oh, and the Chargers are trying to privately finance the stadium. This 'subsidy' argument is BS too.

Posted by Daron | reply to this comment
August 27, 2008 7:01 am

Use the inevitable taxpayer bailout funds to, instead, pay the auditors checking on what happened to all the previous and current scams for which "America's Finest City" has become notorious. If another stadium is ever built, name it the US National Bank Memorial Stadium..

Posted by williwaw | reply to this comment
August 27, 2008 7:29 am

Incidentally, did anyone else notice that the Bird's Nest, the Olympic Stadium in Beijing "only" cost $500 million to build? I understand that materials costs are way up (though I also suspect they will drop as our local building industry implodes) and Chinese labor is probably a bargain but has anyone seen an explanation of what is actually going into these facilities and how much is in the nature gold-plated plumbing? Just having a bottom line price tag isn't that useful for comparison purposes. I'd like to see full budgets and comparisons with other similar projects. Like, say, the Bird's Nest.

Posted by Brant | reply to this comment
August 27, 2008 9:37 am

"Chinese labor is probably a bargain"?? PROBABLY?? If government puts any money into subsidizing a San Diego stadium, the construction labor force would have to be paid prevailing wage. With benefits that can come to $35 an hour for unskilled and semiskilled labor. The Chinese probably pay at most $3 an hour. The Birds Nest would cost AT LEAST $1.5 billion to build here. AT LEAST. Furthermore, look back at previous countries' Olympic showcase stadiums. Usually they were not well built, and fall apart quickly. I suspect we'll see the same over time with the vaunted Bird's Nest.

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

Editor´s Choice
It's time to revisit renovating Qualcom. The Q was built to last at least as long as the Roman Coliseum. If the Q needs some TLC and upgrading, the numbers I've seen to do this would make the final project far cheaper than a new playpen. It might even be affordable. But if the Chargers are adamant that the Q will not work for them, it may be time for them to move--all the way out of the County.

Posted by JWE | reply to this comment
August 28, 2008 7:31 am

Time is wasting, and the present Qualcom site now stand idle 90% of the year. This property has and will remain a huge drain on the city, loosing millions of dollars a year. Now that the Padres have a new downtown park there are only two major tenants, with the Chargers and Aztecs. Qualcom was originally built as a multi purpose venue and without the Padres what was a small deficit has become a financial disaster. This property needs to generate revenue. Yet in order to make money your must soend money. The end result is all positive. Also, one thing no one has mentioned, is the going rates for naming rights. The last two new stadiums went for over $100mil. for the name alone. Half of which returns to the city.

Posted by rex | reply to this comment
September 10, 2008 9:18 am

Let me add one important item. Look to the new Qualcom budget, the deficit is $10,852,000.oo for 2009. These wasted tax funds over the next decade are more than the needed commitment from the community now. A swing that will more than cover itself in ten years and give us much more than just a stadium. Or do we do nothing; lose 100 million in tax revenue and the Chargers. We need to build this property or admit to stupidity.

Posted by rex | reply to this comment
September 10, 2008 11:54 am


Reader feedback
  • 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.
Post a comment
Name:
Email:
Comments:
Current Word Count: Verification Code
d05c3c9

Scott Lewis on Politics

The Scott Lewis on Politics blog, abbreviated cleverly as SLOP, is a collection of observations, insights and the occasional scoop on public affairs in San Diego. Please feel free to e-mail Scott at scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org.

'Outrageous':

 

What CCDC's board members said when Nancy Graham first addressed conflict-of-interest allegations.

Monday, September 8 -- 5:26 pm

The Un-Refuted Claim:

 

No CCDC staffers challenged Nancy Graham when she told the agency's board that she didn't negotiate a deal.

Monday, September 8 -- 4:41 pm

Council Approves Notice for Water Rate Increases:

 

Added revenue would pay for pilot program for sewage recycling.

Monday, September 8 -- 4:21 pm


Sponsored By

MOST POPULAR STORIES:

SURVIVAL IN SAN DIEGO

More on Vantage Pointe :

 

A take from a guy who pulled out of the building.

Friday, September 5 -- 11:50 am

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Prop D: Ender of Benders:

 

Kick back with an O'Doul's, it's time to vote on the booze ban.

Monday, September 8 -- 3:36 pm

CAFÉ SAN DIEGO

Quid Pro No:

 

Prop S will cast its heaviest financial burdens on those least-equipped to deal with it -- young first-time homebuyers.

Thursday, September 4 -- 1:28 pm

COMMENTARY: SLOP

Like Graham, Minus the Lies :

 

What CCDC wants from its next prez.

Friday, September 5 -- 2:24 pm

COMMENTARY: RICH TOSCANO

Monthly House Payments, Rents, and Incomes :

 

Monthly payments are less out of whack than home prices themselves -- but this could be deceiving.

Thursday, September 4 -- 9:49 pm

Sponsored by

This Just In

Which Schools Serve the Most Lunches:

 Hoover tops the list and La Jolla is last. » Jan. 8 -- 2:09 pm



Frye: What's So Secret?:

 Councilwoman wants talks on retirement benefits.

Jan. 8 -- 2:03 pm


Guam Feels Our Pain, Too:

 EPA refuses the territory the same sewage-treatment waiver it gave San Diego.

Jan. 8 -- 8:34 am


SURVIVAL IN SAN DIEGO

'A Fire Sale Isn't the Answer':

 A peek inside the under-construction Vantage Pointe.

Jan. 7 -- 2:58 pm



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Eww de Toilet:

 Want to drink recycled sewage? Don't forget to factor human error into the equation.

Jan. 8 -- 2:11 pm



CAFÉ SAN DIEGO

MPA Success Stories:

 Here's a look at the tangible results MPAs have yielded.

Jan. 6 -- 4:30 pm



COMMENTARY: SLOP

You're Corrupt? Get Out of Jail!:

 Convicts find freedom, the former city manager of Chula Vista heads to Iraq, and more tidbits.

Jan. 6 -- 7:22 pm



COMMENTARY: RICH TOSCANO

Another Resale Home Price Drop in December:

 The median-based price indicators closed out a dismal 2008 with another monthly decline.

Jan. 6 -- 4:06 pm


Copyright © 2008 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.