34 posts
  • 2 / 4
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
 by den-the-coach
1 decade 3 weeks ago
 Total posts:   870  
 Joined:  May 22 2015
United States of America   Fifty-four Forty or Fight
Veteran

BuiltRamTough wrote:
My 2 cents and again I called this months ago and I went on record and no I'm not bragging but Spanos and Kroenke are friends and there's no beef. This is all set up so we all think that Carson and Inglewood is a race. I don't buy it.


Well, they (Spanos & Kroenke) sure seemed chummy when the Rams played against the Chargers in San Diego. In the end if the Chargers stay in San Diego and the Rams are the only game in Tinseltown come 2016 then I have to applaud both owners because the dog & pony show was quite an attraction.

 by BuiltRamTough
1 decade 3 weeks ago
 Total posts:   5357  
 Joined:  May 15 2015
Armenia   Los Angeles
Hall of Fame

den-the-coach wrote:
BuiltRamTough wrote:
My 2 cents and again I called this months ago and I went on record and no I'm not bragging but Spanos and Kroenke are friends and there's no beef. This is all set up so we all think that Carson and Inglewood is a race. I don't buy it.


Well, they (Spanos & Kroenke) sure seemed chummy when the Rams played against the Chargers in San Diego. In the end if the Chargers stay in San Diego and the Rams are the only game in Tinseltown come 2016 then I have to applaud both owners because the dog & pony show was quite an attraction.

Exactly Den, they were on the field laughing together. I just think there's so much money involved with these things and the NFL wouldn't let things get dirty. It seems like we're all getting played. Spanos says he was surprised when Stan announced the Inglewood project and he was blind sided, come on man there's no way. He bought the land in 2014 and SD is 2 hours away you would of though he heard or seen something. Idk but everything seems fishy to me. As far as the Raiders go, I think they'll get a deal done and stay in Oakland. It's just my gut feeling. I've been wrong many times before so will see. The bottom line is that I can't see 2 seems in LA at the same time. That's a tough sell.

 by Hacksaw
1 decade 3 weeks ago
 Total posts:   24523  
 Joined:  Apr 15 2015
United States of America   AT THE BEACH
Moderator

BuiltRamTough wrote:
den-the-coach wrote:
BuiltRamTough wrote:
My 2 cents and again I called this months ago and I went on record and no I'm not bragging but Spanos and Kroenke are friends and there's no beef. This is all set up so we all think that Carson and Inglewood is a race. I don't buy it.


Well, they (Spanos & Kroenke) sure seemed chummy when the Rams played against the Chargers in San Diego. In the end if the Chargers stay in San Diego and the Rams are the only game in Tinseltown come 2016 then I have to applaud both owners because the dog & pony show was quite an attraction.

Exactly Den, they were on the field laughing together. I just think there's so much money involved with these things and the NFL wouldn't let things get dirty. It seems like we're all getting played. Spanos says he was surprised when Stan announced the Inglewood project and he was blind sided, come on man there's no way. He bought the land in 2014 and SD is 2 hours away you would of though he heard or seen something. Idk but everything seems fishy to me. As far as the Raiders go, I think they'll get a deal done and stay in Oakland. It's just my gut feeling. I've been wrong many times before so will see. The bottom line is that I can't see 2 seems in LA at the same time. That's a tough sell.


Rams to LA. SD comes in a couple of years giving Stan the keys to all the cooperate sponsors and big money box sales. If they work it out in SD (which seems more possible now that they are meeting as a result of the leverage Carson provided) even better.
Golf buddies yucking it up at the game. c'mon. I guess they were only talking about their back swing.

Oakland is the northern bay area team and need to stay where they are. They fit there perfectly and wore out there welcome in LA due to the thuggery their fans brought to the game. If the NFL shares some of Stan's relocation jack with Oakland and offers the G-3 (4?), then perhaps they can get something done there.

Rams should have never been in St Louis Mo in the first place no matter how nice some of the folks there are.

 by Elvis
1 decade 3 weeks ago
 Total posts:   41502  
 Joined:  Mar 28 2015
United States of America   Los Angeles
Administrator

BuiltRamTough wrote:Exactly Den, they were on the field laughing together. I just think there's so much money involved with these things and the NFL wouldn't let things get dirty. It seems like we're all getting played. Spanos says he was surprised when Stan announced the Inglewood project and he was blind sided, come on man there's no way. He bought the land in 2014 and SD is 2 hours away you would of though he heard or seen something. Idk but everything seems fishy to me. As far as the Raiders go, I think they'll get a deal done and stay in Oakland. It's just my gut feeling. I've been wrong many times before so will see. The bottom line is that I can't see 2 seems in LA at the same time. That's a tough sell.


The cat has been out of the bag at least since Kroenke tried to buy the Dodgers, hard to imagine SK surprised his golf buddy all that much...

 by den-the-coach
1 decade 3 weeks ago
 Total posts:   870  
 Joined:  May 22 2015
United States of America   Fifty-four Forty or Fight
Veteran

Hacksaw wrote:
BuiltRamTough wrote:
I've been wrong many times before so will see. The bottom line is that I can't see 2 seems in LA at the same time. That's a tough sell.




Rams should have never been in St Louis Mo in the first place no matter how nice some of the folks there are.


I believe that Spanos wanted San Diego, but now, does he feel L.A. is better? Overall ESK has the money and the better project hands down for Los Angeles and a West Coast Head Quarters for NFL Network. Davis is the red headed step child, Spanos needs to go away and hopefully, he stays in San Diego and ESK takes the Rams back with they belong and Hacksaw so astutely points out!

 by Elvis
1 decade 3 weeks ago
 Total posts:   41502  
 Joined:  Mar 28 2015
United States of America   Los Angeles
Administrator

http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015/06/ ... dium-plan/

Could San Diego petition NFL for more time on stadium plan?

Posted on June 9, 2015 by Vincent Bonsignore

On Monday, San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer detailed a new timeline he thinks could satisfy the NFL’s deadline for an approved Chargers stadium plan by the end of 2015.

After meeting with Chargers owner Dean Spanos for the second time in less than a week, Falconer said that, should San Diego and the Chargers come to an agreement on the financing and site for a new stadium, the city council could call a special election for mid December, 2015, to ratify the plan.

Keep in mind, the NFL hopes to finalize plans on Los Angeles relocation by the end of the year. That means deciding between the Chargers and Oakland Raiders Carson stadium plan or St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s Inglewood stadium or perhaps the three teams working together to come up with a resolution in which everyone comes away satisfied.

Which brings us back to San Diego and the hope of getting a new stadium approved by the end of 2015.

The mayor’s thinking seems to be the typical – and lengthy – California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process associated with a project of this magnitude can be circumvented by declaring that the stadium is “categorically exempt” from CEQA. Essentially, this means the City will argue that CEQA does not apply to the new stadium because it is simply replacing the old stadium.

It sounds interesting, but there are legitimate concerns that taking this route might leave the project vulnerable to lengthy court battles. If so, the NFL’s 2015 deadline will come and go and the Chargers may end up with no stadium plan in San Diego and no fallback plan in Los Angeles.

In other words, risky business.

Without boring you with too many of the details, the primary concern is that “categorical exemptions” disappear whenever you can show that a project will have “unusual environmental impacts.”

And what sort of unusual environmental impacts might be associated with building an NFL stadium?

Truck traffic in the surrounding neighborhoods during construction. Parking and congestion impacts in the surrounding neighborhoods when, for the three years of construction, more than a third of the existing parking lot will be unavailable. Dewatering impacts, which means that during construction water will be used to compact soil and for other purposes, which means that the water will sink into the existing toxic plume under the site, disturbing the plume.

And with the new stadium being on a different part of the site than the existing stadium, it will be closer to homes and a fuel tank farm. That means noise, light, traffic and potential safety concerns.

Long story short, it’s not hard to imagine someone stepping forward with any or all of these concerns and challenging the projects “categorical exemptions” status with a lawsuit.

And keep in mind, all of this is still contingent on San Diego and the Chargers brokering a satisfactory financing plan.

As you can see, between the financing concerns and the strong potential for lawsuits, it would be a tremendous leap of faith on the Chargers and NFL part to sign off on such a plan.

So my question is, rather than foolishly cutting corners and leaving the plan dangerously vulnerable – just to meet a deadline – why doesn’t San Diego petition the NFL to give the city an extra year to work on this?

That would mean doing a proper EIR and complying fully with CEQA.

And having a November 2016 election – even if it means one that will ask San Diego city and county residents to approve a tourist tax such as a hotel tax, or car rental tax, to try to generate new revenues to pay for the project?

The bottom line, buy more time to get this right.

After doing some poking around this morning, this is what San Diego needs to show to possibly slow this train down a bit:

1. Show real progress and actions that proves the effort is serious.

2. Create a project that interests the team.

But there are provisions.

1. There needs to be a clear recognition that a failure would probably result in the team moving. In other words, no third chances.

2. A Los Angeles site with one team is put in place, with a clear path for a second team to join in one year.

It might not be the perfect solution for everyone involved – and for sure the Chargers will have to think long and hard about losing leverage in Los Angeles and negotiating power to deal with Stan Kroenke.

But if you are San Diego isn’t it worth a shot?

 by BuiltRamTough
1 decade 3 weeks ago
 Total posts:   5357  
 Joined:  May 15 2015
Armenia   Los Angeles
Hall of Fame

Elvis wrote:http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015/06/09/could-san-diego-petition-nfl-for-more-time-on-stadium-plan/

Could San Diego petition NFL for more time on stadium plan?

Posted on June 9, 2015 by Vincent Bonsignore

On Monday, San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer detailed a new timeline he thinks could satisfy the NFL’s deadline for an approved Chargers stadium plan by the end of 2015.

After meeting with Chargers owner Dean Spanos for the second time in less than a week, Falconer said that, should San Diego and the Chargers come to an agreement on the financing and site for a new stadium, the city council could call a special election for mid December, 2015, to ratify the plan.

Keep in mind, the NFL hopes to finalize plans on Los Angeles relocation by the end of the year. That means deciding between the Chargers and Oakland Raiders Carson stadium plan or St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s Inglewood stadium or perhaps the three teams working together to come up with a resolution in which everyone comes away satisfied.

Which brings us back to San Diego and the hope of getting a new stadium approved by the end of 2015.

The mayor’s thinking seems to be the typical – and lengthy – California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process associated with a project of this magnitude can be circumvented by declaring that the stadium is “categorically exempt” from CEQA. Essentially, this means the City will argue that CEQA does not apply to the new stadium because it is simply replacing the old stadium.

It sounds interesting, but there are legitimate concerns that taking this route might leave the project vulnerable to lengthy court battles. If so, the NFL’s 2015 deadline will come and go and the Chargers may end up with no stadium plan in San Diego and no fallback plan in Los Angeles.

In other words, risky business.

Without boring you with too many of the details, the primary concern is that “categorical exemptions” disappear whenever you can show that a project will have “unusual environmental impacts.”

And what sort of unusual environmental impacts might be associated with building an NFL stadium?

Truck traffic in the surrounding neighborhoods during construction. Parking and congestion impacts in the surrounding neighborhoods when, for the three years of construction, more than a third of the existing parking lot will be unavailable. Dewatering impacts, which means that during construction water will be used to compact soil and for other purposes, which means that the water will sink into the existing toxic plume under the site, disturbing the plume.

And with the new stadium being on a different part of the site than the existing stadium, it will be closer to homes and a fuel tank farm. That means noise, light, traffic and potential safety concerns.

Long story short, it’s not hard to imagine someone stepping forward with any or all of these concerns and challenging the projects “categorical exemptions” status with a lawsuit.

And keep in mind, all of this is still contingent on San Diego and the Chargers brokering a satisfactory financing plan.

As you can see, between the financing concerns and the strong potential for lawsuits, it would be a tremendous leap of faith on the Chargers and NFL part to sign off on such a plan.

So my question is, rather than foolishly cutting corners and leaving the plan dangerously vulnerable – just to meet a deadline – why doesn’t San Diego petition the NFL to give the city an extra year to work on this?

That would mean doing a proper EIR and complying fully with CEQA.

And having a November 2016 election – even if it means one that will ask San Diego city and county residents to approve a tourist tax such as a hotel tax, or car rental tax, to try to generate new revenues to pay for the project?

The bottom line, buy more time to get this right.

After doing some poking around this morning, this is what San Diego needs to show to possibly slow this train down a bit:

1. Show real progress and actions that proves the effort is serious.

2. Create a project that interests the team.

But there are provisions.

1. There needs to be a clear recognition that a failure would probably result in the team moving. In other words, no third chances.

2. A Los Angeles site with one team is put in place, with a clear path for a second team to join in one year.

It might not be the perfect solution for everyone involved – and for sure the Chargers will have to think long and hard about losing leverage in Los Angeles and negotiating power to deal with Stan Kroenke.

But if you are San Diego isn’t it worth a shot?

This makes sense. The Chargers could use Inglewood as leverage against SD next year.

 by moklerman
1 decade 3 weeks ago
 Total posts:   7680  
 Joined:  Apr 17 2015
United States of America   Bakersfield, CA
Hall of Fame

BuiltRamTough wrote:This makes sense. The Chargers could use Inglewood as leverage against SD next year.
As could the Raiders. Rams will be the only team to move next year IMO. Inglewood is being built so that it can accommodate two teams. The NFL does not want to quit using LA as leverage and that's why Stan's plan is the one they will go with.

I don't see how expansion isn't on the horizon. St. Louis, San Antonio and LA will all have viable vacancies soon and I don't think the Chargers are moving away from SD. Spanos may want LA but even more, he doesn't want someone else to have San Diego. I'm not sure about the Raiders. Maybe Oakland gets something done with San Antonio and LA being threats to take the Raiders.

 by Hacksaw
1 decade 3 weeks ago
 Total posts:   24523  
 Joined:  Apr 15 2015
United States of America   AT THE BEACH
Moderator

As soon as I heard the Inglewood plan called for two team potential this is the scenario I thought would play out. efforts in San Diego are about a year behind the current NFL la relocation deadline. it sounds like San Diego City does not want the Chargers to leave. I really never felt Spanos or his dad wanted them to either. This scenario give Stan what he wants and Spanos his back out plan. brilliant!!

I'm just curious what they're talking about CEQA with regard to Mission Valley. Then Vinny goes on to discuss toxicity in the soil when conpacting with water. Is the area of the Q is located on a former dump site also?

and am I correct in not remembering CEQA report for Carson? if ever an environmental impact study should be required it would be in Carson.

 by den-the-coach
1 decade 3 weeks ago
 Total posts:   870  
 Joined:  May 22 2015
United States of America   Fifty-four Forty or Fight
Veteran

BuiltRamTough wrote:This makes sense. The Chargers could use Inglewood as leverage against SD next year.


Let's hope this is the direction they go in!
Image

  • 2 / 4
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
34 posts Jul 04 2025