Rams Fans United - Los Angeles Rams Fan Discussion Forum

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/new ... take-hike/

Chargers stadium plan: sudden advantage, much to like
By The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board | 2:45 p.m. March 23, 2016



Football fans know that field position is everything. So a new ruling by the Fourth District Court of Appeal that suggests ballot initiatives are not subject to the provision of the California Constitution that requires two-thirds voter approval instead of a simple majority for certain tax increases is the game-changing equivalent of a long kickoff return for the San Diego Chargers as the team drives toward a new downtown stadium.

First and goal? Not quite.

But as details of the team’s long-awaited stadium proposal emerged this week in Voice of San Diego and The San Diego Union-Tribune, we choose to be more optimistic about the team staying in San Diego than others may be when looking at the likelihood of the Chargers landing in the Los Angeles area in a year or two to play second fiddle to the Rams.

So what are the prospects of a new San Diego stadium? Improved.

We’re reserving judgment until we see the entire plan, but there’s much to like in the Chargers’ proposal to build a downtown stadium while also expanding the convention center, starting with the funding mechanism. The idea that tourists staying in city hotels would largely be the ones covering the public cost — via a plan to raise San Diego hotel-room taxes from 12.5 percent to 16.5 percent — is more palatable to us than using general fund money that could otherwise be spent on public safety, parks and other city priorities.

We hope the Chargers are sincere in their efforts to stay, and while we want to hear more from all sides involved, we are encouraged by the new developments, including the possibility the project is subject to a majority vote in November instead of the difficult two-thirds threshold. That court ruling seems to be a gift for this stadium and for countless California projects. Will the state Supreme Court ultimately overturn the ruling? We have no idea, but for now San Diego skies seem powder blue.

Let’s be clear: The convention center expansion is the real economic driver in this project. As an engine for prosperity and growth, San Diego must remain one of the top tourism destinations in the country and retain Comic-Con and, more broadly, a thriving convention business. A tax increase would put the city’s hotel-room tax rate just under Anaheim’s 17 percent rate and close to San Francisco’s 16.25 percent rate, which seems competitive even if San Diego’s new rate would be among the nation’s highest.

Last year, a survey found that the average rate among the 150 largest cities was 13.45 percent, with a range from 8 percent to 18.35 percent.

In San Diego, hotel taxes would back $600 million for a convention center expansion, $200 million for land acquisition and $350 million for a stadium while the NFL and the Chargers would contribute $650 million. Importantly, stories say, the city would retain land ownership, the Chargers would pay $15 million a year toward operations and maintenance in lieu of rent (as opposed to effectively none now at Qualcomm Stadium) and the team would agree to a 30-year lease and a non-relocation agreement.

Time to get all the stakeholders together and move the yardsticks.

http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/3/ ... wn-stadium

Details Emerge About the Chargers Downtown Stadium

By Jeffrey Siniard  @JeffSiniard on Mar 22, 2016, 10:09p 39


We don't have the full plan yet. But we do have some important details about the financing, along with what appears to be an exquisitely timed and highly (for the Chargers) fortuitous court decision.

According to this article by Scott Lewis of Voice of San Diego, the Chargers are on the verge of releasing their financing plan for the downtown stadium / convention center hybrid (Convadium) they want to build with JMI Realty and put up for a public vote in November of this year.

There's also some juicy tidbits of political intrigue involving the Mayor and the folks who support a contiguous Convention Center expansion.

Maybe, most importantly, there's also a bombshell (as Lewis puts it - and he might be underestimating the potential statewide ramifications) court ruling which may directly impact the financing plan the Chargers put forward.

Here we go, for the moment:

What We Know About the Chargers' Plan

The Chargers are going to propose a plan of their own which is not the Citizen's Plan pitched by Cory Briggs and his coalition.

The Chargers plan calls for an increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). The tax currently sits at 10.5%, and does not include a controversial 2% additional fee for Tourism Marketing.

The new TOT would increase to 16.5%, and eliminate the 2% additional fee. At least 1% (possibly up to 2%) would go to a tourism marketing trust fund (and replace the existing additional fee), while up to 5% would go toward funding the Convadium.

As with the Citizen's Initiative used in the Carson and Inglewood Stadium projects, the land would be entitled for the new facility without requiring an Environmental impact Report (EIR).

The Chargers would be required to pay the City of San Diego $650 million and agree to a 30-year lease with non-relocation agreement before any TOT money could be released for construction.

The Chargers would cover all stadium related cost overruns.

The remaining $350 million for the stadium element comes from City sales of tax-exempt bonds backed by the TOT increase.

The TOT increase directly covers the $800 million needed for land acquisition and construction of the Convention Center element of the structure.

The City would own the facility, and would likely form a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to manage financing and operations. The JPA would receive all non-NFL revenues.

The Chargers would contribute $15 million annually to an operating and maintenance fund. The proposed JPA would contribute the remaining $10 million annually for the Convention Center, with 2% annually going to a capital fund for stadium upgrades.

How's the Mayor and Downtown Establishment Taking It?

According to the article, and not a surprise, the Mayor and hotel industry leaders were lobbied by the Chargers for their support. Apparently, the Mayor and industry leaders balked at supporting the measure but have not yet officially decided to oppose it.

This point was deemed critical because a plan including a TOT increase was known (hold this thought) to require a two-thirds yes vote to be successful at the ballot. Without everyone's support, such a ballot proposition would rightly be considered dead-on-arrival (if not slim under ideal circumstances).

But earlier this month, the 4th Appellate Court of the State of California weighed in with a decision which not only threatens to change the TOT game for the Chargers, but also promises huge changes for California tax law (if upheld).

Special Taxes Might Only Need a 50% + 1 Vote to Pass? WTF?!

Here's the pertinent paragraphs. First, California's Constitution, Article 13C, Section 2d:

"No local government may impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote."

Now, from the 4th Appellate Court's ruling, from Page 17:

CCC (California Cannabis Coalition, the plaintiff in the case) argues that Article 13C does not apply to the Initiative because it is limited to taxes imposed by government. We (the 4th Appellate Court) agree. Article 13C, section 1(e) defines a tax as "any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local government." Article 13C, section 1e does not expressly include fees imposed by initiative. Because Article 13C is silent in this regard, we decline to construe Article 13C as applying to taxes imposed by initiative.

Yes folks, you read that right. According to this decision, a tax increase via Citizen's Initiative does not appear to require a two-thirds affirmative vote.

So, with this Chargers plan, we potentially have a TOT increase for specific purposes, which requires only a 50% + 1 vote. That's a game changer, and as Lewis points out in his article, it means the Chargers may not need the Mayor's support in pursuit of their downtown project.

In Closing

We should be seeing the full plan presented within the next few days.

In the meantime, we have these juicy bits to chew on. As always with the Chargers and their quest for a new stadium, just when you think you know how this is going to play out, the narrative changes.

And this narrative change has nothing to do with Mark Fabiani.

Author's Note: This post has been updated to include information from a U-T San Diego article by Dan McSwain and Lori Weisberg

Do I smell Davis getting warmer.

Now please let Oakland work out. I want Rams only, horns at the 50 please.

Dick84 wrote:I gotta admit... the court ruling is interesting and changes things, significantly, if it can hold up.

Interesting but risky depending on if and when it will be heard in the state Supreme Court.

Fabiani?

bluecoconuts wrote:Now please let Oakland work out. I want Rams only, horns at the 50 please.

I just caught something on ESPN yesterday showing the Raiders suiting Las Vegas and the NFL green lighting it. They also said at the end that Jim Mara was in opposition, for whatever reason...I have no idea what Jim Mara might have against the Raiders going to Vegas.

Hacksaw_64 wrote:

bluecoconuts wrote:Now please let Oakland work out. I want Rams only, horns at the 50 please.

I just caught something on ESPN yesterday showing the Raiders suiting Las Vegas and the NFL green lighting it. They also said at the end that Jim Mara was in opposition, for whatever reason...I have no idea what Jim Mara might have against the Raiders going to Vegas.

A bookmakers grandson opposing a team moving to Vegas, the only home of legalized sports betting.