San Diego Union-Tribune
Citizens line up to root against -- and for -- the S.D. Chargers
March 8, 2003
Abstract:
I am not sure why the city is baafahing the idea of the Chargers developing
the land in Mission Valley. What is there now? A useless eyesore of a stadium
that is too big for baseball and too small for football. By today's standards,
the unit is structurally unsound. No one wants to pay to sit in the skyboxes.
The city has made, time and time again, errors in judgment in dealing with
the Chargers.
Allowing the Chargers full access to the plot in Mission Valley allows the
city to right a stupid mistake and ensures the Chargers staying in San Diego.
The city has a history of mucking things up. Let people with good business
sense develop that land. They can't do anything without the city's approval
anyway.
Solution: Redevelop the site with a new stadium. It means more city revenues
and a beautiful new facility of which the Chargers and the city can be proud.
It will have a useful life of 30-plus years (which no one can argue Qualcomm
has), and very likely put San Diego in place for a return of the Super Bowl
every few years.
Full Text:
Copyright SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY Mar 8, 2003
Wouldn't it be nice if the owners of the Padres and Chargers demanded
a reservoir?
LEROY SMITH
San Diego
I am not sure why the city is baafahing the idea of the Chargers developing
the land in Mission Valley. What is there now? A useless eyesore of a
stadium that is too big for baseball and too small for football. By today's
standards, the unit is structurally unsound. No one wants to pay to sit
in the skyboxes. The city has made, time and time again, errors in judgment
in dealing with the Chargers.
You can hate Spanos. But from a business standpoint, he has done everything
he can to do what is best for his business. He is a shrewd businessman.
He got a cherry deal legally agreed upon by the buffoons on the City Council
and ran with it. Who wouldn't? He isn't running a Special Olympics Camp;
he is running a professional football team.
If the Chargers are willing to pay 100 percent of a stadium and want developmental
rights, and the proposal gets the city out of a bad ticket deal, let them
have it. You can't do anything with land with a concrete tomb on it. You
can't sustain a football program at SDSU to justify the expense of a new
stadium. You can't continue to play football at Qualcomm.
Allowing the Chargers full access to the plot in Mission Valley allows
the city to right a stupid mistake and ensures the Chargers staying in
San Diego. The city has a history of mucking things up. Let people with
good business sense develop that land. They can't do anything without
the city's approval anyway.
Think of it as the Sovereign Nation of the Chargers but instead of a casino,
they have a stadium; plus, the city will reap many benefits in return.
PAUL BURWICK
Escondido
As long as the Chargers organization can be allowed -- by the powers that
are -- to feel taxpayers are responsible for its financial health, those
who do not accept that obligation will be bitter, disgruntled, outraged.
Since when is the financial well-being of any private entrepreneur the
obligation of the taxpayer? If the Chargers owner can tap public funds
to maintain his net worth, where do the rest of us go to sign up for a
financial guarantee? What happened to "private" enterprise?
What happened to "taking personal responsibility?"
If all that is required is proof of loss, there are thousands of us who
have taken direct hits from the stock and bond markets. On the -- is it
350 ? -- days the Chargers do not use the stadium it can be used to hold
registration for financial guarantees. We can sign up and the city can
pay. If there is no money in the general fund, well, just issue bonds.
I will happily submit statements on 401(k) and IRA accounts if that is
all that is needed to obligate the City of San Diego. Perhaps the city's
retirees should be allowed to be at the head of the line.
GINNY MOJZESZ
Bonita
After all the tens of millions of dollars the Chargers have sucked out
of our pockets and all the deception, it's nice to know from the team's
full-page ad March 5 that it is "now ready" to engage in negotiations
with us. I guess they weren't "then."
They'd like to "eliminate" the ticket guarantee? Why? It's worked
so well for them. As the negotiations begin, they say they do not "intend"
to talk to other cities, but you know that they will with all that money
at stake. I really feel that they've been on the phones all across this
country before they came up with this one- page plea.
They'd also like to discuss how it would be possible for them to pay for
100 percent of the costs. Why didn't they throw that carrot out in front
of us so many mediocre seasons ago? It sounds as though the fat cats finally
have their backs against the wall.
This team doesn't "better serve all San Diegans," just the 10
percent that live for football. Game over.
CHRISTOPHER McFOOTE
Pacific Beach
Fact: Whether you believe Qualcomm is OK as is or not, the stadium site
could be better used if redeveloped.
Fact: Redeveloping the site cannot be done with the current stadium in
place. Therefore, if the Chargers are forced to stay in the existing stadium,
the site cannot be redeveloped.
Fact: Losing the Chargers also would mean the loss of future Super Bowls,
the Aztecs football program, the Holiday Bowl and, eventually, the stadium
itself as a venue for the hundreds of other events held there.
Solution: Redevelop the site with a new stadium. It means more city revenues
and a beautiful new facility of which the Chargers and the city can be
proud. It will have a useful life of 30-plus years (which no one can argue
Qualcomm has), and very likely put San Diego in place for a return of
the Super Bowl every few years.
The only consideration is how much, if any, taxpayers contributes to this
effort. The task force has given its recommendations, the Chargers have
made their proposal and are willing to discuss others, and the negotiation
period is here. This is good for the City of San Diego; don't let this
opportunity pass.
BILL HAMLIN
San Diego
What great news to hear a coalition has been formed to back the new stadium.
I find it interesting that "most of its organizers also are members
of the San Diego International Sports Council."
What I propose to Adam Day, a public affairs director with the Sycuan
Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, whose group believes a stadium is a "good"
investment, is that in addition to promoting dialogue he get his members
together and commit the funds. As a voter, I do not want any money from
our general fund, no new sales tax except possibly TOT tax (hoteliers
won't like this a bit) and no land giveaways like the Naval Training Center.
Why? Because our city has already paid its dues through ticket guarantees
and stadium renovations.
It's time that someone who likes the idea of a new stadium comes up the
cash. Based on the Sports Council member list, there should be some big
bucks willing to step up. If they aren't interested in this great "investment,"
let's forget about it and make the Chargers stay, pay and play.
DEBORA GREENE
San Diego
Does Alex Spanos not read the newspaper? Our governor slashed the budget
for education. How many teachers may lose their jobs? Some football players
make more in a year than these people will make in a lifetime. How about
taking this energy and pouring it into the schools? Raise money to improve
education.
Let's get our priorities straight.
Further, Spanos can take his team elsewhere. Other major cities survived
when they were backed against a wall.
CHARLOTTE MARSHALL
Santee
|