Well, long story short, the Chargers are gonna need some of your money for their new stadium. Don't worry though, they're good for it. They'll pay you back with really cool fancy stuff. Like office buildings, and urban renewal, and flippin' off-the-charts levels of gentrification.
Exactly how much they're asking for depends on the results of that fancy survey we talked about a few weeks back, but according to Mark Fabiani (who you may recall is the man who has kept his job for seven years without fulfilling his only directive):
"It's almost certainly going to involve some sort of taxpayer money"Some of you may want to stop reading here, because we're getting into politics.
Mayor Jerry Sanders made construction of a new stadium "a priority" last month. Now I'm no Glenn Beck. I'm not so tuned in to the political speak of politicians who are involved in politics. But I'll tell you what I hear. When the great and honorable and dandy Mr. Sanders declares "it's a priority," he means "I am the mayor of a bankrupt city. I have more important things to do. Leave me alone." This is perfectly reasonable. But here is the only solution to the "we're gonna need some funds" problem that the mayor's office has offered up: The Chargers will borrow money from the city against future redevelopment projects. Cool. We build the Chargers a stadium, they built us some shopping mall once they get back on their feet. The only problem here, of course, is that the city has no money, which brings us back to taxpayer money, which everyone opposes. Crap.
So here it is in math terms, if you prefer to think that way:
Spanos money + city money + taxpayer money - bureaucracy - broken promises < Chargers stadium
Everyone is desperately trying to see a new stadium in this equation, but unless the financial situation changes in the next year or two, it likely won't happen. And if it does, it's fairly likely to turn our fair city into something closely resembling Sodom and Gomorrah back in the heyday.
Fingers crossed for some independent investors, everybody.
Posts
This is Mark Fabiani with the Chargers. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your posting. Here is how we look at the situation:
ReplyDelete• The Chargers’ previous attempts over the last seven years to privately finance a stadium all involved very large sites that could accommodate both a stadium and a related development project – the profits of which would help pay for the costs of the stadium.
• These large sites included, among others, the existing Qualcomm site (166 acres), the Chula Vista Bayfront site (130 acres), and the Oceanside drive-in and golf course sites (combined 165 acres).
• The downtown San Diego site now being considered is just over 10 acres – making it the smallest stadium site in the NFL. As a result, the site will accommodate, at most, the stadium, without any opportunity for the related development to help pay for the stadium.
• For that reason, the successful development of a stadium at the downtown site will require sources of funding other than what might come from a related development, in addition to a $250 - $300 million investment by the Chargers and the NFL.
• It is too soon to say what other funding sources may be available. That is the subject of a CCDC-sponsored study by stadium finance expert Mitchell Zeits.
• Nonetheless, we believe it is important for everyone to understand that the downtown site might require some sort of taxpayer subsidy.
• Such a subsidy would only be possible if voters agree that an investment downtown will result in significant returns for taxpayers elsewhere. For example:
o Would a taxpayer investment downtown result in the city of San Diego saving the $300 million or more that taxpayers will pay through 2020 to maintain the Qualcomm site?
o Would an investment downtown allow the city of San Diego to sell, lease or otherwise generate hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue from the 166-acre Qualcomm site?
o Would a taxpayer investment downtown allow the city of San Diego to make better use of the 100 or so acres it owns in and around the Sports Arena site?
• These are all open questions, and ultimately voters will decide whether a public investment in this project makes sense.
• The Chargers believe that, at this early stage of the process, it makes sense to continue to explore these ideas to see where they might lead.
• One thing is for sure: No matter which way you come down on the question of taxpayer subsidies, this is not a debate between one side that is against taxpayer spending and one side that is for it.
o The people who say they are in favor of the status quo – the people who say that the Chargers should simply stay in Qualcomm Stadium and play out their lease until 2020 – are in fact advocating the spending of more than $300 million in taxpayer money between now and then just to keep the aging stadium operating. In short, by advocating inaction, proponents of the status quo are also advocating the expenditure of huge amounts of taxpayer money from now until 2020.
o Those in favor of the downtown site are arguing that there is a better use for the Qualcomm site (that could potentially both generate new revenue and community amenities such as a park), as well as a better use for the $15 million a year that the city spends on the existing stadium.
o As the debate goes on, voters will of course make up their own minds. But it would be a mistake for anyone to cast this as a debate between taxpayer money vs. no taxpayer money. Taxpayer money is going to be spent no matter what; the real question is how it can best be spent.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. Mark Fabiani.
Thanks for the comment Mark. Also, sorry I called for your firing. Uncool of me.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to start by saying I'm not opposed to taxpayer money going towards the stadium. We've seen stadiums do good things for cities and I'm sure this one would be no different. I was commenting more on the fact that if we had given the Chargers land seven years ago we wouldn't have this problem.
However, I do see a problem with your argument. The bulk of it seems to rest on the new stadium saving us money because of the $300 million in upkeep in the next decade.
- One, I believe current (unofficial) estimates put the cost of the stadium at $700-800 million. With the $300 million that the Chargers and the NFL are putting in, that leaves the taxpayer with a $400-500 million dollar burden, which is more than $300 million.
- Two, the word upkeep bothers me. Won't the new stadium require upkeep as well? Unless that $15 million a year is going toward replacing unknown pieces of Qualcomm that are crumbling beneath our feet, I think the new stadium might require upkeep as well.
Again, thanks for the comment. My mom was so proud.
Two very good questions. I'll try to answer:
ReplyDelete(1) The Chargers have proposed throughout this process to operate and maintain the new stadium, so taxpayers would not be on the hook for an aging facilities, as they are right now at Qualcomm.
(2) How can the taxpayers get a fair deal out of all of this, when, as you say, the taxpayer contribution could be quite significant? There is only one possible answer -- and it's too soon to know if this answer is going to be feasible, but here it is: If you could create new revenue -- money that the taxpayers would not otherwise have -- then the investment of public money might make sense. How could this be possible? If the CCDC could raise its spending cap, and if the city could unleash the revenue potential of the Qualcomm site (and perhaps event the Sports Arena site), then the taxpayers might have brand new revenue that would justify an investment to move the stadium off the Qualcomm site. Again,though, it's way too soon to know if the numbers will work out, but in theory this is possible -- and certainly, we believe, worth exploring. Thanks again for the opportunity to comment. Best, Mark Fabiani.
The CCDC you're talking about - I believe - is the Centre City Development Corp? The same CCDC which, in this article
ReplyDeletehttp://weblog.signonsandiego.com/news/breaking/2009/07/ccdc_under_pressure_to_reform.html
has it's existence called into question? I don't know if I see increased spending there.
Also, what happened to the Qualcomm site as a viable location? It seems to me that if Qualcomm might not even be used with the existence of a new stadium, maybe we could put a stadium there, or something.