I read the draft proposal. How much money has the current convention center made each year the past ten years or so. I don't think think its made enough to pay for any large bond issues. The draft was short on substance. The committee used very few facts to bolster the point fo spending 750 million and getting free water front land from the port, at least a billion dollar project. A fraction of this amount invested in diverse projects such as research centers, infrastructure projects, improving our tourist destinations would diversify our community attractions. This would help insulate us better from economic downturns better that building the biggest and baddest convention center.

Posted by Roy Gash | reply to this comment
August 5, 2009 8:07 pm

How would you spend the money, Scott? How would you invest $750 million to make San Diego better. And how would you make San Diego sustain itself?

Posted by ann | reply to this comment
August 5, 2009 8:23 pm

What do you mean "how would you spend the money"? Have you stopped to consider that the correct answer may be to NOT spend the $750 million at all? Maybe the correct answer is to NOT build a library (when we already have a serviceable one), and to NOT build a new stadium (when we have a serviceable one), and to NOT build a new city hall (when commercial real estate is crumbling and long term leases are cheap), and instead to get our financial house in order and then when we do have some money, to address our water situation and actually perform some of our long deferred maintenance? That would make the city a better (and wealthier) place overall, but wouldn't do enough to line the pockets of the small group of the wealthiest political donors, so I guess my idea is off the table.

Posted by Paul | reply to this comment
August 5, 2009 9:46 pm

You are right on the money, Paul. The problem is that the nincompoops in city hall see nothing wrong with spending like there is no tomorrow. Well, after all, it isn't their money, so what's to worry? I repeat myself (so what; there are worse things in this world), but the inmates have taken over administration of the insane asylum. Next, the fiscal monkeys will be running the zoo. It's a crazy place in which we live.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 3:59 pm

Scott, you continue to delight us with your common sense questions. Keep it up! We know the answers already. 1-Yes, there are far better uses for this money. 2-No, the economic benefits DO NOT justify the costs. 3-The money will come from the general fund, pushing down the accelerator as we race toward the financial cliff. The "Head in the Sanders" who got appointed to this board have zero motivation to be impartial or honest. These are the same liars who got us where we are today. Enough of this charade already.

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
August 5, 2009 10:43 pm

Is there any information on what difference the last expansion made? That is, what increase in total conventions/visitors occurred after the last expansion... I personally lean toward considering this as an option since it is a major source of revenue for the city, but the numbers for yet another expansion need to sketch out. And one convention, Comic-Con, shouldn't drive this even though it is huge and brings a lot of people, money and positive attention to the City. One thing to consider, however, is that it seems most of the downtown investments (Horton, Ballpark) have paid off in both revenues and reinvigorating downtown. At the time of their proposals, these projects were also called too expensive and not good ideas by naysayers. So are we just lacking vision in our skepticism, or is an expansion of the Convention Center different?

Posted by Desdichado | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 12:34 am

The ballpark does NOT bring the city any money. Instead, the general fund is spending tens of millions a year to pay off the bonds that benefited only John Moores, his condo development company JMI, and his political cronies. Nobody could call the East Village "reinvigorated" with a straight face. It's more of a ghost town now than it ever was, now filled with see-through vacant buildings we all subsidized with our tax dollars.

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 7:33 am

Yes. Here is a link to a chart link that shows a comparison of what the consultants projected the performance of the last expansion vs. actual performance. While I appreciate the healthy skepticism about buying what the consultants say, the actual performance shown in this chart speaks for itself.

Posted by Steven Johnson | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 7:36 am

Excuse my skepticism about these numbers, Steve, but they were prepared by the Convention Center Corporation. I'd be more impressed if they had been done by a less self-interested body. They have a habit of claiming credit for all the convention business done by the many hotels and other facilities in town besides the convention center who host events, e.g., the Catamaran, the Town and Country, etc. I'll bet you that Bernie Madoff's financial reports to his investors looked great too, until he was arrested.

Posted by Bill Bradshaw | reply to this comment
August 8, 2009 1:59 pm

The ballpark project has brought in only a fraction of the amount the city must spend on operating costs and to service the bond park debt every year. While there has been great wealth created, most of it has gone to private property owners and, to a smaller extent, the Redevelopment Agency (which is separate from the city and whose money can only be used on other redevelopment projects, not the city's General Fund, from where the bond payments are funded)

Posted by Vlad | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 2:19 pm

A few questions. First, where is the 750 million coming from? Second, if the Mayor believes that this is a great idea, is it because it will truly increase GENERAL public revenues; or, is this simply a political pay off for a portion of his support group? Third, why doesn't the Mayor jump in front of project like this make his case? And, make it strongly. He consistently sets up these "advisory" groups/commissions to "evaluate" projects. The members of these groups all benefit from the conclusion of "We should move forward." Why doesn't he just get in front of these things and make a solid case before the public? He might like the results. Instead, he bobs and weaves and it automatically creates the perception that he is orchestrating a shell game.

Posted by Dale Peterson | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 6:09 am

That Ms. Lutar is on the task force makes me feel a little better about this process. But I'm serious about the fact that this task force is no 'citizen' task force - it's a VIP task force, no offense Ms. Lutar. Since the citizens would have to live with and pay for this project, the mayor should convene a task force of "real" community and planning group members representative of regular taxpayers and the various geographical areas of our city to review the findings of the VIP, no offense Ms. Lutar, task force. The mayor should understand that a project of this magnitude, with this kind of impact to our taxpayer base, should demand a thorough vetting out by "real" community members/taxpayers and not just VIPs, no offense Ms. Lutar, who probably don't even have to pay for their own breakfasts, lunches, and dinners. No offense Ms. Lutar. ;)

Posted by Concerned Taxpayer | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 6:50 am

Concerned Taxpayer: No offense taken. You raise a valid concern.

Posted by Lani Lutar | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 9:09 am

My answer to the questions is a question: Why is City of San Diego in the tourist business? The city government can't handle its own affairs.

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 7:26 am

San Diego should be MORE in the tourist business. What's the downside of investing in the local economy in order to attract tourist dollars to the town? I've always thought the City should place more emphasis on this. Get those people in here to enjoy our beaches, bays, zoo, and other attractions. They spend their money and then go home. Why would we not want that? Even with comic-con, stats say that two-thirds of the attendees are from out of town.

Posted by Ann | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 8:49 am

Because, Ann, Joe Blow Taxpayer is being asked to pony up the funds to underwrite these kinds of self-interest projects. Those who reap the sole financial benefits need only throw a few coins in the hat. Where is the logic in that? Oh, I know. The good of the community, blah, blah, blah. BS! The incontrovertible fact is that someone -- not the taxpayer, that is for sure -- will be making money hand over fist from each of these projects. All the rest of us will get out of this wild spending is the right to drive by and oooh and aaah at the pretty new buildings (but never even be invited in, mind you). These hogs must really see the taxpayers as morons ... and they are, if they fall for it.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 4:05 pm

Thank You, Edgar. 'Couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
August 7, 2009 7:51 am

"It's San Diego's thing, he said. ... Given our climate, entertainment and cultural amenities and proven ability to outperform competitor cities, expansion of the convention center is smart and timely." The problem is that it is NOT "San Diego's thing", it is Bob's thing (and his backers)! Here is a challenge for Bob: Go to the top economic engines of San Diego: UCSD, SDSU, USD, Qualcomm, SAIC, Northrop, Raytheon, NASSCO, Solar, Jack in the Box, etc, plus the many smaller tech companies fed by our universities) and tell them you have $750 million to spend on a project to spur the economy in San Diego, and ask them for their top five ideas. Let me know how many of them list expanding the Convention Center.

Posted by Paul | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 9:16 am

Unfortunately the taskforce has not, at least formally, ever addressed the question about "opportunity" costs that your question #1 implies. A question in this vein, for example, would ask whether the region would be better off using the $750 million to seed a mezzanine financing instrument to help technology/biotechno companies survive and thrive in the new world of post-venture capital financing. The taskforce members shouldn't claim that they have actually started to the clean economic development slate - instead they focused on a narrower question - if the center is expanded do we think it will increase room nights (and in turn the taxes and economic impact associated with them). Too bad - a city-wide discussion of where we really should be putting significant investment would have been good.

Posted by Erik | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 9:37 am

Exactly. Nobody even asked the question of whether an expansion was justified, let alone whether it was the top priority if we had $740 million to spend. Seeding small tech companies has merit. We also should expand our current gray water plants to capacity and extend the purple pipe system so that it actually reaches people. Another relatively small investment that would generate a huge return would be aggressive implementation of AB 811 to provide low cost loans for solar panels which would be paid off as part of your property tax. That small investment would remove the need for Sunrise, along with the $2 billion in additional fees that SDG&E is planning on charging San Diego ratepayers to pay for it. Oops, that would reduce Sempra profits, so I guess we can't do that. This is still San Diego, after all.

Posted by Paul | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 10:07 am

Erik - I actually raised the issue of opportunity cost at several task force meetings. I kept asking the question because the answer was not clear. Ultimately, a decision was made to only look at funding sources with a nexus to the convention center which would narrow the opportunity cost. In other words, then you would only compare what else you could've invested in from new taxes and fees from hotel/restaurants/re cars/etc. The thought being that the industries would not support, for example, a hotel tax to support the biotech industry. See my other posts in Part I for my additional thoughts on financing and funding sources. I agree with you that the starting point was flawed.

Posted by Lani Lutar | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 10:07 am

Lani - I really want to thank you about asking the question about opportunity costs. I do have to say the logic of the other members is flawed (though a nice political sleight of hand). Taxes fall all the time on groups/industries and then used for purposes that are not that closely aligned. Unfortunately the consultants to the taskforce didn't even answer the more narrow question. In a tourism market with STRONG seasonality our goal should be putting heads in bed during the Winter, late Fall, and early Spring. We don't have A big (any?) problem putting folks into hotels in August. It is why the Comi-Con argument is so flawed....it happens at the "worst" time of the year when most (all?) of the rooms taken up would normally be filled by other visitors. (continued)

Posted by Erik | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 11:23 am

(Continued). I never saw data in the documents that identified the 'at risk" conventions and whether they occured during our down time. Perhaps in closed session if the COnvention Center was worried about tipping hand to would be competitors? The slightly larger question would be driving demand outside of summer. That might, for example, argue STRONLGY in terms of a bigger subsidy to Disney to get them to move the soon to be West Coast based ship from Disney Cruise to San Diego. It might argue for additional festivals during the Spring. Perhaps beefing up marketing targeting these down times. Maybe it DOES argue for superbowls. But I think the biggest point is that these kinds of analyses were never done. So we shouldn't kid ourselves that the question was ever answered (and again thanks for raising)

Posted by Erik | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 11:29 am

There's only one reason anyone is talking about yet another expansion of the already humungous convention center, Carol Wallace's ego. This is someone whose organization has always depended on corporate welfare. The convention center corporation has never been a money maker. Even today it still goes to the city every year for millions of dollars in subsidies from the city's general fund. The original convention center construction was funded by the Port. The first expansion was funded by the Port via bonds which we'll be paying off for decades. Now Wallace and her corporate board members want city taxpayers to provide them yet another subsidy, in the form of higher hotel, restaurants or car rental taxes. All this so they can expand their center yet again in order to hold onto one convention, Comi Con. Jerry Sanders need to tell Wallace no, just like he has city workers.

Posted by Watcher | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 1:28 pm

Forget catering to the chimera of Comicon. Any spare seven-hundred-fifty millions this City has ought to be spent beautifying our bayfront, parks, beaches, and streetscapes so that they look like Geneva Switzerland in the summertime. We need improvements that serve residents first, and tourists will follow. Our claim to fame is a beautiful natural location and a year-round temperate climate. There is much we could do to gild the lily we've been given. The Embarcadero is an ugly swath of concrete honky-tonk. Balboa Park is allegedly suffering so much they want to privatize its oversight. Sidewalks are gummy, stained and broken. The roads are rough, potholed and black-topped rather than made of lighter-colored concrete. Money could pay for a plan to reroute cars away from bayfront promenades and develop pedestrian walks made of stone or brick with benches, outdoor cafes, uniform attractive signage, public art and music.Get busy.

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 3:06 pm

Three of our four largest business sectors exist here solely because of location, topography and climate; our own natural resources. They are real estate, tourism and the military. The fourth, the now-called innovation industry, is here by choice. The other major sectors: healthcare, retail, education and even government survive on the production of the top four, although, ironically, government also allocates the natural resources needed by the top three. (This is why these sectors are at the heart of every major civic dust-up.) Sure it's right to expend billions of bytes on who may be behaving badly on this one but to deny expansion of the convention center would be to deny expansion of a natural, and by the way, free, local industry with unlimited worldwide appeal.

Posted by Bob | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 5:13 pm

Not free to the people paying for this thing, Bob -- and getting zip in return.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 6:42 pm

The irony is that, like real estate and the navy, tourism in San Diego is a natural draw due to location and weather and doesn't need to be subsidized, yet you argue for a huge subsidy. I understand a huge subsidy in Cleveland to convince people to go there rather than San Diego, but how difficult is it really to convince someone to go to San Diego instead of Cleveland? The various high tech industries (and defense, which apparently you lumped under "navy") are the ones that need to be cultivated. There is a certain critical mass necessary to get them to stay, and they provide much higher paying jobs for San Diegans than does the tourist industry. My standing question is what is the realistic projected net difference in overnight stays with and without the expansion? Can anyone answer that for me?

Posted by Paul | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 8:27 pm

Bob (Nelson?) is correct that we benefit from our natural surroundings...but he's wrong to conclude that those have to be exploited to the advantage of the tourism industry. Do we want San Diego to be a city of waiters and waitresses, maids and tourguides? Enough already. Clean the beaches and bays for the RESIDENTS of San Diego to use and enjoy. Repair our decrepit infrastructure and keep parks and libraries open for the RESIDENTS. Stop giving our tax dollars to the developers who hire bogus consultants, PR agents, former staffers and termed-out politicians to tout their cause.

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
August 6, 2009 8:19 pm

• 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.