SAN DIEGO - New Chargers Stadium (62,000)

[soup or man]

I would imagine so. The Aztec's have been sharing Qualcomm with the Chargers for a while. I don't see San Diego building a seperate stadium for the Aztec's anytime soon.

Though it would be pretty cool. I would move the Chargers downtown and have the Aztec's play in a brand new stadium on the old site of Qualcomm.

It should be said that the Aztec's are my favorite college football team. And I'm from Los Angeles. Go figure. Coolest helmet in football (college or pro) that's for sure.

[bd popeye]

Originally Posted by soup or man

I would imagine so. The Aztec's have been sharing Qualcomm with the Chargers for a while. I don't see San Diego building a seperate stadium for the Aztec's anytime soon.

Though it would be pretty cool. I would move the Chargers downtown and have the Aztec's play in a brand new stadium on the old site of Qualcomm.

It should be said that the Aztec's are my favorite college football team. And I'm from Los Angeles. Go figure. Coolest helmet in football (college or pro) that's for sure.

The Aztecs attendance is very poor. about 22,000 a game in a stadium built for 71,000. They need a smaller stadium.. say 32,000 seats or so..or better yet better recruiting!! There's plenty of football talent in So Cal!.

My son is attending SDSU. He spent 11 years in the USN and next year he will be a senior at SDSU. Says he wants to be an officer in the USN.

[soup or man]

Hmmm...a nice 45,000 seat stadium on the Qualcomm site would do well for the Aztecs.

I'd love to see a cool tropical motif for the stadium. Not tacky tropical but tropical elements implemented into the design. Think of a modern Orange Bowl. A endzone with lots of lush, tropical trees and flowers would look really nice in a modern, contemporary football stadium.

[Benn]

They could probably reuse a good portion of Qualcomm; Keep 3 sides of the lower level, tear out the rest, rebuild the open end, ower the field to fix the proportions/sightlines, add a new press / suite / club tower on one side and revamp the main concourse. Could get a a nice 35,000ish seat stadium for cheap, and would be easy enough to expand if they ever needed it (doubtful though it may be).

[bd popeye]

It looks like the City of San Diego and the Chargers are looking into putting a roof/dome over the proposed new stadium..

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/spor...-91652329.html

The Chargers' plans for a new stadium now seem to be looking skyward -- at a soft, retractable roof that, whenever needed, would shelter a wide variety of events that could be staged in the facility.

"It would be very different from what people expect to see," said Chargers Special Counsel Mark Fabiani, the team's point man on stadium issues.

"No one in California expects to see a roof on a stadium because our weather is so great here," Fabiani said Tuesday. "It really turns a football stadium, which isn't used very much, into a multi-use facility -- particularly in downtown San Diego, where it's very close to the convention center."

The concept actually began a while back, when a local civil engineer suggested roofing the proposed stadium in the East Village in order to make it a year-round entertainment and convention venue. In an interview with NBCSanDiego in February, Katheryn Rhodes proposed a heavy-cover approach, which the Chargers saw as too costly.

But after further review, they're seriously looking at a much lighter approach.

"The stadium will go from sidewalk to sidewalk," Fabiani noted, "and there's not going to be a big perimeter around it."

Images of the kind of "soft'"roofing the Chargers have in mind are in use at numerous stadiums around the world, mostly in Asia and Europe. They're made of such so-called membrane materials as "polycarbonate, which are far cheaper than the $200 million structures needed to support snowfall at stadiums in real winter-weather cities.

Chargers fans can handle a little rain from time to time, but the team is talking about attracting events like college basketball's Final Four tournament, World Cup soccer, music concerts and overflow crowds from conventions such as Comic-Con.

As always, though, the key ingredient is money, and the Chargers are looking for a substantial public investment in redevelopment. For her part, Rhodes said, her cheerleading for the stadium stops at the bottom line.

"If they can't make enough money to have their $30 million a year to pay for the debt, taxpayers shouldn't pay for it," she said Tuesday.

"The people who actually use [the stadium] should pay for it," Rhodes said, "and a way to do that is to charge a surcharge on each ticket."

On April 27, officials from Centre City Development Corporation, the city's redevelopment arm, are scheduled to ask the City Council to lift CCDC's spending cap to allow for funding of major construction projects -- including a stadium -- beyond 2014.

Source: Chargers Plan: Raising a Stadium Roof | NBC San Diego

[bd popeye]

Some great but somewhat shaky news on a new stadium for the Chargers.. For those of you that don't know it is very difficult to spend public money on sports stadia in California.

Chargers New Downtown Stadium News

Last-minute deal may speed downtown Chargers stadium
Redevelopment cap's lifting clears way

By Matthew T. Hall and Roger Showley

Friday, October 8, 2010 at 10:41 a.m.

A potential downtown Chargers stadium may be closer to reality as a result of last-minute legislation passed Friday morning as part of the new state budget.

The bill sponsored by Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, R-San Diego, eliminates the present $2.9 billion cap on redevelopment plan adopted in 1992, theoretically making it possible for the city to build a new stadium east of Petco Park, estimated to cost at least $800 million, hundreds of millions of dollars of which could come from public spending.

If Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs the measure, San Diego city officials could sidestep an 18-month vetting process for lifting the cap that it had already embarked upon. That was to include a $500,000 study, now under way, examining whether downtown was blighted.

In a statement, Fletcher wrote, "While the City could seek to amend the cap ..., such an action would cost the City at over $500,000 in consultant fees, lead to a tremendous amount of legal uncertainty and delay the raising of the cap by at least a year."

His statement added that the measure would create jobs and increase investment in San Diego but noted nothing about the stadium's prospects getting a boost. There is nothing in the legislation specifically referring to the Chargers project or any other planned downtown.

Fellow Assemblyman Chuck DeVore , R-Irvine, took a different tack on his Twitter feed late Thursday night, writing, "SB 863, a last-minute budget bill allowing scandal-plagued Centre City Redev. in San Diego to use public money for NFL." He was apparently referring to former CCDC President Nancy Graham, who has since been fined for violating state disclosure laws.

The voiceofsandiego.com web site quotes other politicians, including Assemblywoman Lori Saldana, D-San Diego, as opposing the bill, whch she characterized as a "sweetheart deal."

A Fletcher spokeswoman said he was en route to San Diego from Sacramento and not available for immediate comment. A spokesman for Sanders did not return a message. Attorney Mark Fabiani, who has been handling the stadium for the Chargers, also was not immediately available to comment on how the legislation might speed up the development.

To lift the cap and spend larger amounts of redevelopment money without the legislative change, the Centre City Development Corp . (CCDC) would have needed approval from the City Council, the state Finance Department and the Housing and Community Development Department, and four government entities that have tax-sharing agreements with the CCDC.

Meetings with representatives from that quartet — the county, the San Diego County Office of Education, the San Diego Unified School District and the San Diego Community College District — had started to persuade them to accept smaller shares of downtown property tax revenue on the belief that the stadium would lead to a construction boom and generate more property taxes downtown.

County supervisors Dianne Jacob and Ron Roberts, who began meeting with the mayor months ago to discuss the issue, were not immediately available for comment. A spokeswoman for Jacob said her office was working on a statement. A spokesman for Roberts did not return a message.

However, CCDC already has sharing agreements with the agencies that are due to double the money they are to receive to approximately 30 percent of the agency's income in several years, spokesman Derek Danziger said.

Questions remain as to how much cash the Centre City Development Corp., which oversees the 1,200-acre downtown redevelopment zone for the city, will have available to fund such a big project.

Danziger said CCD has only $386 million in unobligated funds for all of its downtown plan and the stadium is not yet part of its to-do list. Those other projects include the $228 million North Embarcadero Visionary Plan on the western waterfront, of which $28 million in the first phase is already in the works and $100 million for new downtown parks.

The downtown community plan calls out up to $2 billion in additional projects, not including the stadium or other items, such as a downtown opera house, aquarium, sports arena and other big-ticket items that have been talked about for years.

Revelopment projects depend on new development to generate new property taxes, and there is little in the works for more hotels, office buildings and condo towers due to the recession and unavailability of construction loans.

"Irrespective of the cap," Danziger said, "you need development to occur. "You could lift the cap to $100 billion and it's sort of a moot cap. It's more an administrative action than money to build stuff."

[JJG]

Just piggy backin' on what Benn said, I think the Aztecs should just keep playing in a renovated, reduced seated Qualcomm.

Just put a tarp on the upper decks and just keep using the current set up until they get enough money to downsize it to what they see fit....

[bd popeye]

More stadium News from SD

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...oof-maybe-not/

Stadium move legally bulletproof? Maybe not
Debate continues over secret deal in Sacramento

By Matthew T. Hall

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 at 6:30 a.m.

Backers of building a new football stadium and a slew of other publicly-financed projects in downtown San Diego say state legislation aimed at expediting them would lessen the likelihood of lawsuits.

That remains to be seen.

A city redevelopment attorney said the measure is “entitled to great deference in any litigation” once the governor signs it, but other lawyers said the move may invite lawsuits.

The bill, passed Friday, would eliminate a $2.9 billion cap on downtown redevelopment from 1992 — and the need for a $500,000 18-month study the City Council had authorized to measure whether downtown is blighted enough to justify additional redevelopment.

Karen R. Frostrom, an attorney with Thorsnes Bartolotta McGuire who specializes in redevelopment, said the bill may conflict with other provisions of state redevelopment law.

She said the exemption provided to San Diego essentially amounts to an end-run around protections afforded to property owners and taxing agencies.

“Before you can make the project bigger, you’re supposed to look at all the impacts,” she said. “From my read of what happened over the weekend, they didn’t look at all the impacts.”

Fred Maas, chairman of the Centre City Development Corp., which oversees downtown redevelopment, said potential litigation doesn’t faze him.

“If the net effect of this legislative action was to smoke out local people who are likely to challenge a City Council decision then I’d rather do it with the strength of the Legislature than a local finding,” Maas said.

Murray Kane, a lawyer for CCDC, said the new law would replace the old one requiring a blight study. Simply put, he said, no such studies are required beyond one done in 1992.

“The question of blight isn’t going to be ignored at all,” he added. “Redevelopment law contains other protections requiring certain findings of blight when the money is spent.”

Councilwoman Donna Frye, the council’s most senior member, and Councilman Kevin Faulconer, whose district includes downtown, criticized how the Legislature upended the council’s public process.

Faulconer said despite his history of advocacy for lifting the cap, he was disappointed with the Legislature’s secret deal — tied to budget negotiations and struck early Friday morning.

“I’m concerned that there’s been questions raised about the process,” Faulconer said. “I don’t want these questions to have a negative impact on our ultimate success.”

Frye was even more pointed in her remarks.

“If the governor signs it, then the question becomes what are the legal requirements to complete a blight study even if the cap is waived, and that I will ask the city attorney,” she said.

Lani Lutar, head of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, said the city should still pursue a blight study.

“Although Fred is saying this would reduce litigation, it could very well increase other types of litigation,” she said.

Attorney Marco Gonzalez, who has previously raised legal concerns about lifting the cap, said on Twitter Friday he might challenge the legislation. He did not return a call Monday.

Former City Attorney Michael Aguirre sent out a news release Sunday morning urging city officials to “repeal” the bill.

Monday he said the legislation is “vulnerable to legal challenge.”

“It’s as unlawful as it was secret,” he said. “It’s as unlawful as the findings of blight were unsubstantiated.”

Mayor Jerry Sanders, who lobbied legislators for the legal change, couldn’t be reached for comment.

matthew.hall@uniontrib.com • (619) 293-1335 • Twitter @SDuncovered

Staff writer Roger Showley contributed to this report.

[bd popeye]

Still more new Chargers stadium news!

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...adium-redvelo/

Council won't urge veto of stadium-redvelopment bill

By Craig Gustafson

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 at 7:32 p.m.

Left in the dark on one of the biggest public-policy decisions facing San Diego, the City Council lashed out at the public officials behind legislation that is expected to lift a cap on downtown redevelopment funds if signed by the governor.

Council members argued Tuesday about whether to formally request Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to not sign the bill passed last week by the state Legislature that opens the door for public funds to be used for a new Chargers stadium. In the end, they chose to direct redevelopment officials to report back within 30 days on how the bill came to be.

The council had been moving forward with an 18-month, $500,000 study to determine which areas of downtown were still blighted — a requirement under state law — before deciding whether to lift the cap. That decision was ripped away from the council by a last-minute bill authored by state Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, with the backing of Mayor Jerry Sanders and Centre City Development Corp. Chairman Fred Maas, that made the study moot and eliminates the cap unilaterally.

Councilwoman Marti Emerald called the legislation a “gross breach of trust” because CCDC officials are supposed to work at the direction of the council, not orchestrate backroom deals on their own.

“I feel as though we’ve been betrayed,” she said. “Each and everyone one of us in the city has been betrayed by the management of CCDC. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a firing offense what they’ve done.”

The Centre City Development Corp., the city’s downtown redevelopment arm, is in charge of using property tax revenue generated in the area to remove blight. The nonprofit agency is close to reaching a spending cap of nearly $2.9 billion that was set in 1992. Lifting the cap could allow billions more to be spent on various projects, including a stadium.

Maas, who was out of town, said in a telephone interview he never expected the legislation would cause such consternation locally.

“When I get back, I intend to go see everyone one by one and do my best to explain how and why this happened to the best of my knowledge,” he said.

Maas defended the idea of lifting the cap because it will help generate more development downtown and more city revenue in the form of hotel and sales taxes shared citywide in addition to property taxes that benefit downtown.

Mayoral spokesman Darren Pudgil dismissed the criticism, noting the council will have final say on each and every project funded with redevelopment money. “The mayor answers to the taxpayers, and the mayor believes that this bill is in the best interest of every taxpayer,” he said. “It will bring billions of dollars to our region and will put San Diegans to work sooner rather than later.”

The governor is expected to sign the legislation soon.

Staff writer Roger Showley contributed to this report.

[Roy100]

Raising of the cap money to nearly $8 billion dollars makes it almost a done deal that the Chargers get their new stadium in downtown San Diego. While the usual naysayers will threaten lawsuits, they don't have much of a case. Nor will the Governator stop this from going through. The only thing that could derail the new stadium is the public vote scheduled for 2012, but that vote might never come.

It's now a race between downtown San Diego vs. downtown LA to see who gets a new NFL stadium first. I doubt the NFL wants a stadium in both locations, and I doubt the Spanos family wants LA to compete with San Diego in the superbowl rotation, so it could be that the NFL is using LA as leverage to help teams in San Diego and Minnesota get new stadiums.

[Roy100]

Originally Posted by Benn

They could probably reuse a good portion of Qualcomm; Keep 3 sides of the lower level, tear out the rest, rebuild the open end, ower the field to fix the proportions/sightlines, add a new press / suite / club tower on one side and revamp the main concourse. Could get a a nice 35,000ish seat stadium for cheap, and would be easy enough to expand if they ever needed it (doubtful though it may be).

If and when the Chargers move downtown, the Q will then be demolished and the land put to better use. Whether it be condos,commercial, etc...just about anything would bring in more tax revenue to the city than a football stadium and a parking lot. The Aztecs will have no problem relocating to either the Chargers new stadium or to Petco.

[Benn]

Football at Petco.... That sounds like an awful idea. The Aztecs would tear up the grass, the diamond would be terrible for football, the if the Aztecs are good with sharing with the Chargers great, if not redoing Qualcomm seems sensible given the infrastructure.

[mattec]

Originally Posted by Benn

Football at Petco.... That sounds like an awful idea. The Aztecs would tear up the grass, the diamond would be terrible for football, the if the Aztecs are good with sharing with the Chargers great, if not redoing Qualcomm seems sensible given the infrastructure.

would it be more cost effective for the aztecs though?

[rlshky]

There's no need for any of this talk about the Aztecs staying at the Q w/o the Chargers. The city already loses 15 million a year on the stadium w/ the Chargers playing there. There's no way that old dump stays standing for just the Aztecs. The stadium has one of the largest parking lots in the country so all that land is worth a lot of money to the city.

And to Soup... sorry to say the Aztecs haven't used that helmet for a few years now. There's no more fade from red to black

[slipperydog]

Originally Posted by rlshky

There's no need for any of this talk about the Aztecs staying at the Q w/o the Chargers. The city already loses 15 million a year on the stadium w/ the Chargers playing there. There's no way that old dump stays standing for just the Aztecs. The stadium has one of the largest parking lots in the country so all that land is worth a lot of money to the city.

That assumes the city has a buyer.

[ryebreadraz]

Originally Posted by slipperydog

That assumes the city has a buyer.

They could just let it fall into disrepair until there is a buyer and not have to pay for the maintenance.

[Roy100]

Originally Posted by ryebreadraz

They could just let it fall into disrepair until there is a buyer and not have to pay for the maintenance.

The Q sits on prime land that is centrally located in the heart of Mission Valley. The minute the Chargers announce they are leaving there will be a line of potential buyers interested in the land. The city of San Diego has shown interest in using part of the land for parks, etc...There even has been talk of redeveloping the land for student residences for nearby San Diego State. One thing is for sure, once the Chargers leave, the Aztecs football team will soon follow.

[dfwabel]

Originally Posted by soup or man

I would imagine so. The Aztec's have been sharing Qualcomm with the Chargers for a while. I don't see San Diego building a seperate stadium for the Aztec's anytime soon.

Though it would be pretty cool. I would move the Chargers downtown and have the Aztec's play in a brand new stadium on the old site of Qualcomm.

It should be said that the Aztec's are my favorite college football team. And I'm from Los Angeles. Go figure. Coolest helmet in football (college or pro) that's for sure.

I hope you know they got rid of the helmet with the gradient paint
a few seasons ago.

They will play where ever the city tells them to play. their athletic department is hemorrhaging money to the point which they may not even recruit student/athletes outside the state of California due to costs. SDSU cannot dictate a thing.

[rockin'.baltimorean]

go bolts!! nice stadium!

[Axelferis]

i don't understand why americans don't dig the soil before buiding the stadium!
The result gives tribunes near the moon and the sky
it must be disturbing when you are 200 m from pitch