If you love your San Diego Chargers, you might want to be putting a few more dollars away so the boys can play in a brand spanking new stadium.
The San Diego City Council voted unanimously Tuesday evening to spend $500,000 on a downtown development study that could make public money available for a new Chargers stadium within two years.
According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, Mayor Jerry Sanders and others back a 10-acre site downtown, bounded by 14th, 16th and K streets and Imperial Avenue.
While the Chargers are staying at Mission Valley's Qualcomm Stadium for now, there is no big secret that the team wants new digs, preferably one financed for in large part by taxpayers. Estimates show that a new Chargers stadium would cost $800 million, and that taxpayers would foot the bill for at least half of it.
Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani informed the U-T that Tuesday's San Diego City Council vote is a step forward toward keeping the Bolts in San Diego and providing the team a new home there. According to Fabiani, if the City Council hadn't voted to finance the downtown development study, that would have shown "a pretty clear message" that the city wasn't going to back the team.
Following the 2011 season, the Chargers can wiggle their way out of their Qualcomm lease by paying $26 million.
While it is not definite, there is talk that a proposal to pay for a Chargers stadium could make its way onto the ballot in 2012.
So, taxpayers, are you ready to open up your wallets to keep the Bolts in town? Or do you think the $500,000 being spent on the study could have been better used in tough economic times?
Better yet, would Mark Fabiani like to open up his wallet and make a little donation to the cause?
Comments
Fabiani, switch to stand-up.
The tax money used for this will come from redevelopment dollars. This does not translate into an increase in your normal tax load. This is not tax money that will come from the general fund, it is money that is specifically allocated for development in San Diego. If that bothers you, you should be upset that things like Horton Plaza and Petco Park were made. These structures haul in huge tax revenues for the city. What has been decided by the city council was not specifically for the Chargers. The $500k is so the consultant can determine which areas are blighted and will qualify for redevelopment dollars. This will build more roads, public housing, and yes, perhaps a stadium's financing could involve this money.
When the author asks the question
"So, taxpayers, are you ready to open up your wallets to keep the Bolts in town? Or do you think the $500,000 being spent on the study could have been better used in tough economic times?"
does he even know what he is talking about?
I work at the airport and I see the thousands of fans rolling in to town for a big game. Lose the Chargers and lose millions for decades to come. Do we want to be a world class city?
blah,
i assume a new stadium, roads, public housing, etc. are all just going to magically appear and NO costs will be passed along to the taxpayers?? more importantly, do you know what you are talking about? i'm not opposed to a new stadium, just let the chargers finance it. let's spend the 500K in better ways than lining the pocket of another consultant. i think that all the time as my car bounces over and dodges potholes and other problems on san diego's streets. i assume you'd have no problem making a contribution to the new stadium fund??
The San Diego City Council just wasted $500,000 for a so-called "feasibility study" concerning a proposed 800 million dollar Charger football stadium. This is blantant stupidity! Numerous studies and books (5) have dealt with this topic in great depth and detail. In every case the findings were the same: The ballclub's millionare owners get richer as do the pro-players. However, it is always a patented LOSER for the tax-payers who get gouged for maintenance, roads, cost over-runs, police, fire and medical costs, and civil suits. The owners get paid for naming rights for the stadium, scoreboard commercials, lavish sky boxes, and by the vendors and food sevice providers. What a deal for the big-money boys! NEVER, BVER HAS A TAX-PAYER SUPPORTED PRO SPORTS FACILITY MADE MONEY FOR THE TAXPAYERS!! Take a look at the book, "Public Dollars Private Stadiums" by Delaney & Eckstein.
A new stadium for 7-8 home games which most taxpayers can ill afford to attend is a no-brainer. Our city council considered the "feasibilty" of filing bankruptcy, can't pay off its' debt obligations and yet is now endorsing a new Charger stadium. This is poitical lunacy and finacial irresponsibility. What is going on here? Someone in need of financial backing to run for higher office? Gosh, who could it be??? ENOUGH NONSENSE ALREADY!!!!!!!!!
The City of San Diego can't even keep the streets in front of my house in decent repair, yet they vote half a million dollars for another study? Time to vote out all the incumbents again...
The Chargers and the Spanos family could easily afford to fund that study themselves and could probably build the stadium as well. I say take the $12 million and let the Chargers go back to LA or wherever the taxpayers are gullible enough to give them what they want. I think San Diego would be better off without them anyway.
Once they are gone, the current stadium can be torn down and the land put to a better tax-generating use.
john/bob
folks like us who want the team and its ownership to foot the bill are oftentimes viewed as anti-chargers and anti-san diego. ironically, it couldn't be further from the truth in my case. i cover the team each season and love football. i also get tired of broken streets, crumbling buildings, and a lack of satisfactory police/fire services (not due to the cops/firemen themselves) due to lack of money. being i cover the team, i don't pay to sit at the games i attend. i also know that the average fan gets priced out of the seats in all these new stadiums, i.e. dallas/new york etc. play at the rose bowl or coliseum for a year, renovate the Murph and we'll all be happy!
What are some of these clowns complaining about? It's not like we're asking for a palace like Jerry Jones built. Only a middling $800M one. City should chip in some dough on this, maybe not all of it, but quarter sounds about right. Petco is 75 percent paid by tax dollars. Unless we get our new state of art stadium we can't sign our fat cat stars.
Haters the stadium is coming so deal with it.
I am at a loss. The city is broke! We just cut money to inspect nightclubs for overcrowding. And now magically city council finds $500,000 to fund a study on football! If we have a team and still don't have revenue for nightclub inspections, libraries (I work for the San Diego Libraries (though this is my own statement and I am not speaking on behalf of libraries or the city)), roads, lifeguards, fire pits on beaches. How is a new stadium going to help pay for city services that it already can't?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!