[Elvis]

MV = Mission Valley where the current stadium is. The mayor's plan is to tear it down and build a new one at the same location...

[Hacksaw]

The Chargers have not put a single actionable proposal forward. Closest they came was in, I believe, 2006.. but they couldn't drum up an investment partner and they blamed Aguirre. Don't believe the hype. It was at the height of the housing bubble and no smart investors were counting on the projections the Chagers were selling.

The McLelland thing someone pulled up? He said a stadium could be built downtown for $680 million.. ummm... no.

This *isn't* just about a stadium. Dean needs to leverage it into something bigger and it's just not going to happen. The Corey Briggs thing is a joke, as far as passing something with a 50% plus one vote. Not gonna happen and EVERYONE is ready to sue Briggs ass given the chance as he's a total nusiance.

Chargers ain't long for SD, imo.

You are well informed about SD so all I can hope for those fans in San Diego that this time around it will be different. If the scare the city is experiencing and the spanking Spanos just got doesn't create more momentum and open minds, then nothing will and prepare to say hello Los Angeles Chargers.

Now I need to go wash my hands after typing that.

[Hacksaw]

Screw him.

Nobody loves Spanos anymore. Certainly not that much.

[KarlBaker]

I appreciate your thoughts/opinions on this situation (from the both of you).
I did not know - This issue was SO messed up.
..
So many proposals...
Dean Spanos wanting a down-town location -- the Mayor saying that proposal is dead on arrival.
The 2/3rds vote to approve public funding....
Man, what a mess.
..
Can't the NFL step in, and negotiate a happy medium ??
OR does Spanos have to request a moderator from the NFL ??
..
Just look at the Fans in St. Louis - how crushed they are.
They are all bummed out - because now they may have to watch the Bears games (oh the horror).

[Hacksaw]

Karl, the Shield already did,, to the tune of $100M. It's now on San Diego fans and the rest approve what ever it is that they want. SD Chargers or La Chargers?
They have the voice, but they have to use it.

[KarlBaker]

..
Thanks Hacksaw.
..
The decision on Jan. 12 by NFL owners to allow both the St. Louis Rams and San Diego Chargers to relocate to Inglewood gives us an opportunity to compare the political leadership of the two cities and metropolitan areas.

Inglewood pointedly refused to offer so much as a cent to any team. Neither did the city or county of Los Angeles offer to chip in to help. Between stadium costs and the reported relocation fee of more than $500 million, each of three franchises, including the Chargers, had to commit to spending a minimum of $1.3 billion of their own money to build a stadium and relocate to Carson or Inglewood.

A new San Diego stadium proposed and backed by Mayor Kevin Faulconer is projected to cost only $1.1 billion, at least $200 million less than the Chargers were willing to spend of their own money to relocate to Carson or Inglewood. The NFL has now also promised $100 million to the Chargers if they stay in San Diego. A San Diego stadium, even with no public contribution, will therefore still result in a minimum savings of $300 million to the Chargers over their two Los Angeles area options. Given this, why is Mayor Faulconer leading an effort to give the Chargers an additional windfall of $350 million of public money?

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti summed up his region’s approach:

“[Getting two teams for free] confirms our strategy over the past 20 years ... that you can bring a sports team [to your region] without having to spend taxpayer money on it.”

Contrast the pro-taxpayer approach of Inglewood, Carson and Los Angeles leaders to Mayor Faulconer.

He convened a press conference almost immediately after the NFL approved a potential Chargers relocation to L.A. He publicly assured the Spanos family he was now open to “any” stadium proposal.

Does $350 million in public money catch your attention? Having served on the Mission Bay Park Committee and Park and Recreation Board with Mayor Faulconer, I can confirm the mayor does, in fact, appreciate how many San Diegans would benefit from rec centers, parks and libraries built for them with $350 million of our public money.

A now-nationwide popular revolt against public financing of stadiums, started in San Diego in 1996 when 60,000 San Diegans signed petitions in an effort to stop, by public vote, the infamous Chargers’ ticket guarantee. Twenty years later, Inglewood said no to any public financing, dramatically and successfully calling the NFL’s bluff. Mayor Faulconer wants San Diego to throw back this hard-earned taxpayer victory that started here.

After Mayor Faulconer’s press conference, L.A. Mayor Garcetti provided Faulconer and other mayors this advice: “Don’t be so desperate for a sports franchise and don’t put your city in debt for decades.”

Roger Noll, professor emeritus of economics at Stanford University and America’s leading expert on the economic impact of sport teams, recently poured more rain on the mayor’s parade. In his recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, he noted an NFL franchise provides full-time jobs to fewer than 100 individuals. By contrast, a single Macy’s department store employs 200 full-time workers.

L.A. Times sports columnist Bill Plashcke perhaps best captured the contrast between the visionary leadership in Los Angeles County and Mayor Faulconer’s approach:

“We didn’t pry open civic pocketbooks ... like some of those other smaller towns. We are sophisticated enough to understand that [an NFL team is] not a hospital or fire house, that billionaires shouldn’t need handouts to bankroll their pigskin parties.”

Plashcke also pointedly reminded us of the ethical implications associated with directly partnering with the NFL, a group Mayor Faulconer aggressively courts:

“[It is a cold business], run by owners who have trivialized domestic abuse, covered up the effect of concussions [and] mishandled legitimate cheating allegations against its most celebrated player.”

The latest news from the Chargers is that they, not the city, will put public financing on the November ballot via a “citizens” initiative, allowing them to avoid an environmental impact report. Let’s see if Mayor Faulconer now supports the biggest construction project in county history without an appropriate environmental review.

Like their brethren in Inglewood, most San Diegans are sophisticated enough to understand that a stadium is not a hospital or fire house, or even a rec center, library or park. Unlike 1997, when our leaders conspired to deny a public vote, a spirited election campaign in 2016 on our current mayor’s pet project will expose the economic fraud of spending any taxpayer dollars for a billionaires’ game.
..
So, Basically - WAIT UNTIL NOVEMBER.

[Hacksaw]

And that doesn't give them much time afterwards but it keeps the Chargers fans hopeful and in the stands at the Q.

LA and ESK are not of the norm. One cannot compare SD or Spanos respectively.
But as you said,, wait until November,,,,, although I'm sure we will hear plenty of developments over the course of the year.