voiceofsandiego.org: Scott Lewis... Resolved: We Like the Chargers

Thursday, Nov. 30, 2006 | The San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce deserves to get picked on from time to time.

Chamber Urges Solution to Keep Chargers in San Diego.

Awesome.

This was the resolution:

"The San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce wholeheartedly endorses the efforts by all government bodies in the region (the county, and each of the various interested cities) that are working with the Chargers. We strongly encourage the efforts of the business community to retain the San Diego Chargers in San Diego as a regional asset."

So, in other words, the Chamber of Commerce supports keeping the Chargers in San Diego. The chamber is actually pretty late with this one. The San Diego Regional Economic Development Corp. scooped the chamber with a similarly bold statement about wanting to keep the football team months ago.

I would hope that someone would pick on me if I were to write a column that said nothing more than: I support the Chargers staying in San Diego.

That may be the single easiest thing to say in San Diego right now. It's much harder to actually come up with a solution that would keep the team here and, at the same time, protect the interests of taxpayers.

I've tried. The main thrust of my idea was that we should gather together an honest assessment of how much a new stadium would cost and then let taxpayers decide in a formal setting whether they want to pay for it with a small fee.

I advocated the creation of a joint powers authority that would include not just the city of San Diego but perhaps all of the cities that comprise the membership of the San Diego Unified Port District: San Diego, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach and Coronado. The county and the city agreed to explore the idea of exploring the idea of eventually exploring the idea to do something along the lines of something related to the creation of something similar to a joint powers authority.

But that's gone nowhere. The county even hired the cream of the crop in the sports-business consulting world.

They've produced nothing to chew on. No one has.

And here we are, with one month remaining before the Chargers are legally able to discuss their future with other cities outside the county -- outside the state. And all we have so far to chew on is a resolution from the Chamber of Commerce that says we should keep the Chargers.

Awesome. Sign me on to that one. For people like me, this city is a better city with a pro football team. My dad is flying into town in just more than a week to go to the Broncos game. With my wife out at sea fighting terrorists with her skinny arms, my dad and I will do a lot of things together -- talk, smoke cigars and catch up. But football is special and we'll have a special time at the game. Undoubtedly.

But I'm also a realist and a person who has become sick about the way local governments spend the public's money. We can't just let our streets and sewers crumble while we watch football.

I'm just waiting for the team and local leaders to put something out there -- anything -- that we can contemplate. It has to be a fair solution that doesn't hide costs or pretend like we can have everything we want without spending a dime.

We should feel ashamed if our kids (or grandkids) wake up some day a couple of decades in the future and wonder why they're still paying for a stadium that, by then, could be falling apart a little bit.

A fair solution that clearly analyzed the costs of a new stadium and presented it honestly to voters would be delightful to ponder. It would be up to us football fans to convince our neighbors to chip in a little. If we couldn't persuade enough of them, we'd have to accept that we just don't live in a place that wants to support football. Either that, or we'd have to find a different way -- outside of the realm of government -- to pool money to build a new stadium.

But the chamber's resolution Tuesday that San Diego should simply keep the Chargers doesn't do much.

I called Nikki Clay, the chairwoman of the chamber's board of directors, to see what the point of the chamber's resolution was.

I mean, didn't we already know that the chamber supported keeping the Chargers in town? Aren't we kind of on a different level by now?

Does the chamber have a solution in mind that might keep the Chargers here?

"You're not going to see anyone on the board of directors of the chamber who will argue in favor of subsidies but we could support a private partnership," Clay said.

In other words, they don’t want the government to spend money on a new stadium. I guess that helps.

But if this community is going to keep the Chargers, it's going to take something a lot more bold than that.

Please contact Scott Lewis directly with your thoughts, ideas, personal stories or tips. Or send a letter to the editor.

Reader Feedback

Comments are now displayed with the newest at the bottom. Not sure you're seeing all of the comments? Click here:

Comments so far on this story:

Fred Williams wrote on Dec 18, 2006 9:49 PM:

" I'm glad to see Caitlin Rother's 2002 article linked to the Chargers issues page. Too bad most of the other links are typical "rah, rah" false promises. Just like in 1995, when McGrory and Golding and Spanos concocted the first stadium deal in the heady days of Chargers fluke wins. Sound familiar? I don't believe in unicorns or faeries or politicians' promises when they've already bet (and lost) the City's pension fund on the outcome ballgames. Guess that makes me "highbrow". "

Bestia wrote on Dec 14, 2006 2:11 AM:

" I appreciate how high-brow Fred is, spelling properly and harboring resentment toward sports at all levels. It would certainly be a better place without games to distract us from academia and accounting. I enjoyed the revenue figure websites he provided. I hope he'll provide similar support for his other assertions, especially: *No tourists ever come here to watch sporting events *No SDSU students care about athletics *Stadia cost the city $50M/yr *Spending $50M/yr on beaches would be a profitable investment Or perhaps he'll continue with mockery and standoffishness in misguided attempts at persuasion. Alas. "

Fred Williams wrote on Dec 4, 2006 11:06 PM:

" Finally for today, Scott: Walk down the hall (or send an email) and ask your colleague Tom Shanahan what happened to the well documented unfulfilled San Diego Sports Council and Chamber of Commerce promises to the voters and taxpayers regarding marketing tickets for the Chargers. Please report the results to Voice readers. Then explain why we should believe, trust, support, tolerate, or report seriously anything these well-paid liars say about pro-sports subsidies now. Scott, read the UT and Reader archives! Compare what was promised with what was delivered. "

Fred Williams wrote on Dec 4, 2006 10:59 PM:

" Scott Lewis: It's strange how you can justify being simultaneously interested in the pension disaster and an advocate for continued dealings with the very individuals who perpetrated the underfunding and diverted the cash to their pet projects and private profit. Please write an article justifying this. Don't chastise the Chamber for doing nothing, shame them for thier previous boneheaded actions! Insider news tip Scott--have a long look at Mesa Distributing..."excellence in beer, water, and flavored malt beverages" and favorite patsy of the moguls, lucrative contracts beneficiary, big political spender... "

Fred Williams wrote on Dec 4, 2006 10:14 PM:

" If the ballpark costs us ONLY $25M per year, and Qualcomm costs ONLY $25M a year, that's fifty million bucks annually that should be spent better elsewhere. What if we spent that kind of money on our beaches and bays? The economic return in increased tourism would be phenominal and lasting. It'd benefit us all. Instead we lavish it on a few grown men playing childrens games. Looks like the Chamber of Commerce needs a bit of adult supervision, and lessons in basic economics and public policy. "

Fred Williams wrote on Dec 4, 2006 10:07 PM:

" There is no "danger" in losing a sports team. Quite the opposite. The ongoing danger is one of these fat parasites engorging themselves on our once fiscally healthy city. Where did all that pension money go? "Cui Bono?" Spanos and Moores! McGrory has a lot to answer, but isn't talking. What exact quid pro quo was negotiated with Golding on the Spanos jet in 1995? In addition to Stallings and Roberts, who else has taken embarrassing money from Moores? "

Fred Williams wrote on Dec 4, 2006 10:05 PM:

" There is no "danger" in losing a sports team. Quite the opposite. The danger is having one of these fat parasites engorging themselves on our once fiscally healthy city. Where did all that pension money go? Cui Bono? Spanos and Moores! McGrory has a lot on his mind, but isn't talking. What exact quid pro quo was negotiated with Golding on the Spanos jet in 1995? In addition to Stallings and Roberts, which other politicians have taken embarrassing money from Moores? "

Fred Williams wrote on Dec 4, 2006 10:01 PM:

" The 1998 ballpark vote was the most lopsided in the city's history. All the media outlets breathlessly repeated Padres promises and press releases. Ask Scott Lewis how important a source of both revenue AND content is to a media business. The Padres money and quotes machine spent $2 million, ensuring blanket coverage. In addition, Moores hired a bunch of meth-snortin' ringers to get them to the world series. The vote was just a few weeks later...what a democracy! Now JMI owns 10% of downtown. We pay. He plays. "

Fred Williams wrote on Dec 4, 2006 9:52 PM:

" 1994, Nobody calls for a new stadium. 1995, Chargers go to superbowl by a fluke 1996, Chargers get "football only" stadium, "best deal in the NFL". Golding gets Spanos campaign funds. McGrory raids pension fund. 1998, Padres spend $2M to win 60% of vote 2000, Stallings steps down for accepting "illegal gifts" (bribes) 2002, Murphy/Gwinn sell fraudulent ballpark bonds. JMI Takes over ownership, (eminent domain) of 10% of San Diego downtown. Pension underfunded again to cover the dodge. Each time we were told "it will cost the taxpayers nothing". "

LightningStriker wrote on Dec 3, 2006 10:00 AM:

" The good people of San Diego spoke when we where in danger of loseing the Padres. Let them do so once again now that we are in danger of losing the Chargers. Win or lose I would exept the opinion of the majority who voted. "

LightningStriker wrote on Dec 3, 2006 9:55 AM:

" I can understand where you are coming from and I respect your opinion and your right to have it. We can agree on one thing we both want whats best for the region. We just have a differance of opinion on what that is. I know you are not alone in your views on this subject as Im sure you know that Im not alone. That is why we live in a democracy. And that is why this whole mater should be put to a public vote. "

LightningStriker wrote on Dec 3, 2006 9:47 AM:

" You seem to have some kind of vendeta against the Chargers. You call them crooks but where they the ones that put this fine city that I love in the bind it finds itself in now? Where they the ones that screwd up the city pention system screwing over our fire fighters,police,judges and teachers? No Sir the Chargers are not crooks around here for that you need look no further then our elected officials. Makeing a profet for a servic that people willingly and glady pay for is not a crime. "

LightningStriker wrote on Dec 3, 2006 9:33 AM:

" My House is on PRIVET land thats the differance. Citys invest open public land to the privet industry all the time. An example of that would be investing land for privet colliges and privet research facilities. Now if we are talking emanent domain then Im complety against that. But we are not. The land in National City is a publicly owned land plot. And yes the last city to host the Super Bowl made around 300 mil for thier city coffers. "

Bolt Fan wrote on Dec 3, 2006 3:53 AM:

" Using Ken V's logic, only those with children would fund the school system. Thats fine by me. On another comment, if C. Dye actually believes that all of the City's problems are somehow linked to the Chargers, they are mistaken as well. The City has been losing $20 million a year on stadium operations for all users; last time I checked the pension problem was a $1+ billion issue and the unfunded retiree health benefit liability is still yet to be determined. We won't even mention the water/sewer system deferred maintenance and replacement issues. "

Bolt Fan wrote on Dec 3, 2006 3:23 AM:

Maura Larkins wrote on Dec 2, 2006 3:52 PM:

" San Diego taxpayers always seem to come out on the losing end of Charger deals. The time seems right to let them go to another county. "

Fred Williams wrote on Dec 1, 2006 10:39 PM:

" Are some of you seriously promoting the notion that giving away city owned land to these crooks is somehow a wonderful investment? If so, then please give me your house. I promise to make good use of it for my private business. You pay all the costs, and I'll keep the books secret. Even better, let's all go to Dan Shea's posh steak house and demand goods and services, and then stalk out in a huff without paying, just like his Chargers buddies have done to San Diego. "

Fred Williams wrote on Dec 1, 2006 10:29 PM:

" As to the value of SDSU's football program, as an alum, I can guarantee that the vast majority of students could not care less. The football program is for pampered muscleheads, not scholars. They live in their sports apartheid fantasy, until they are injured and cast aside. It's just a business, they say. But it loses SDSU money every year, season after depressing season. Meanwhile, the other 98% of students pay extra fees to support this expensive sports fetish. Perhaps our university should focus on, oh I dunno, academics? "

Fred Williams wrote on Dec 1, 2006 10:22 PM:

" A variety of sources agree: http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/columnists/ok_carter/16026398.htm http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/002575.html http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/hcxwpaper/0403.htm http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs05/news/story?id=2315303 Actual economic impact on San Diego? At most $50-75 Million. Never anywhere close to the widely claimed $300 million. How much has it cost us so far? Nobody knows for sure. But based on Fabiani's own low-ball estimates here at Voice, at least $250 million in ten years. Go Chargers! Go right to the bank! "

Listen people wrote on Dec 1, 2006 3:49 PM:

" It is so unfortunate how many people have made up their minds on this issue and have stopped listening. First, tax dollars will NOT be used. Second, having a stadium brings revenue too San Diego...not the other way around Fred. Estimates say the last Super Bowl brought over $300 million! Not to mention the college bowl games. Third, where do the Aztecs play...or are we going to be a city without NFL and Div I college football? That would be shameful. Even if you never watch a game, having a contemporary stadium and the Chargers is good for SD. "

Get the Facts wrote on Dec 1, 2006 2:52 PM:

" The Chargers are not asking for tax dollars, CDye. The proposal for the Qualcomm site sends tax dollars (and lots of them) to the city, not the other way around. The site is not currently generating money for the citizens, but it could if you would simply listen. Instead you assume that anything that keeps our sports teams in town is a bad deal, period. Stop listening to Aguirre and start reading up on this, people. You sound like a broken record. Oh, and don't judge a person by their grammar or spelling. "

Read the Facts wrote on Dec 1, 2006 2:43 PM:

LightningStriker wrote on Dec 1, 2006 7:53 AM:

" All Im saying is at least help out with the land. They have already said that if we do that then the stadium would belong to the the host city. Puting up the land for the project does not cost the tax payers. Its a land investment the same as a park would be. And I think it is a fair investment. The host city would eventualy get payed back for the value of the land and then some. Through tax and the rent the team would have to pay for the use of the stadium. Win win for everyone. "

Fred Williams wrote on Dec 1, 2006 3:25 AM:

" Reading the comments is quite revealing. Those who support yet more subsidies for professional sports can barely spell. Lightningstriker, the facts are plain. Hosting a football team loses this city money. It has always lost this city money. Tourists come here for the beaches and weather, not to watch sports. We have diverted so much of our money into the pockets of Spanos and Moores that we are now bankrupt. Compared to basic infrastructure and public safety, watching your amusing little football game is just not important. Grow up, please. "

Ken Villwock wrote on Dec 1, 2006 3:16 AM:

" Finding a way "outside of the realm of government" to finance the toys of others is the only valid solution when dealing with issues of limited or no benefit to all taxpayers. Those who derive no benefits from sports events should not subsidize those events or facilities. Movie theaters, privately owned, are not subsidized by taxpayers. Sports fans should pay for their entertainment; club owners, like theater owners, should pay for their income-producing facilities. What complicates the matter is when club owners shaft taxpayers and convince them that it feels good and is their public duty to submit. "

Michael T. Lynch wrote on Nov 30, 2006 9:40 PM:

" Sorry you're a frustrated football fan. However, you seem to be fiscally responsible, not something previous City Councils have been. Los Angeles and Sand Franciso have said no to NFL extortion, and no one seems to think of them than less than world class cities, a description that San Diego never warrants. Do you know the names of the sports teams or stadiums in London, Rome or Paris. I didn't think so. They have culture, including sports, but the minicipal government doesn't subsidize rich sports entrepreneurs. "

lightningwillstrike wrote on Nov 30, 2006 8:40 PM:

" All i have to say is if you take away the chargers you are taking away the identity of this city.I have been going to the games since I was a little kid and I will never ever forgive the city council if they dont do anything about building a new stadium. Without the chargers there are no Aztecs in the future and that will be a very disappointing thought. Down the drain go SDSU athletics. There are some people out there that could care less about the chargers probably because they are one of the many that have notgrownupinthisbeautifulcity.Chargersweloveyou "

Chargerizer wrote on Nov 30, 2006 6:51 PM:

" Even if the Chargers leave, you will still have unrepaired streets,understaffed police, and a chronic homeless problem. I don't live in San Diego anymore, but I still have fond memories of the city. And one of those fond memories is the Chargers. Sure those other things are more important than keeping the Chargers, so why don't you get off your behinds and fix those problems. I,m sure you have a reason not to pay taxes to fix those problems either. The Chargers bring more money into the city than it would cost to keep them. Figure it out. "

For all I care... wrote on Nov 30, 2006 6:08 PM:

" Tijuana Chargers? lol "

LightningStriker wrote on Nov 30, 2006 4:40 PM:

" Micheal, Paris, Rome and London all have world class football teams just not american football. And their teams bring them as a community together just as much as ours do. As for San Francisco they have the 49ers and Los Angeles lost both the Raiders and the Rams and they regret it. They are pushing hard to get a team back into their city. I just wish all the people who are not Charger fans would at least consider that they mean more to us then just anouther sports team. "

Michael T. Lynch wrote on Nov 30, 2006 3:40 PM:

" Sorry you're a football fan, but at least you, unlike previous City Councils, are a fiscally responsible one. Both San Francisco and Los Angeles have decided they can live without football. It hasn't seemed to compromise the conception of them as world class cities, a term that will never be used on San Diego, with or without football. BTW, do you know the names of the football teams in Paris, Rome or London? Nor do I. "

LightiningStriker wrote on Nov 30, 2006 1:19 PM:

" Also not only Charger Fans go to the home games but tourists from all over the country plan their vacations around the time their home team plays here. San Diegos bred and butter is the tourism industry. And lets not forget the Aztecs and the two college bowls that bring in fans and tourists revenue from around the country. Not everything is black and wight there is alot of grey too. Its not so simple as just a bunch of fans wanting to keep their team here. Alot of other things will be afected by the lose of our Bolts. "

Frankie wrote on Nov 30, 2006 11:13 AM:

" With a new stadium we get to host super bowls, which translate into major local revenue. Losing an NFL team such as the Chargers San Diego is losing buisness. In the future without the Chargers the city of San Diego is going to turn into L.A and spend millions just get an NFL team again. So thinking ahead it would behoove San Diego to keep the Chargers and all the fans which equate to buisness here. "

Lyle McLeod wrote on Nov 30, 2006 10:41 AM:

" As die-hard native San Diego Charger fans now living in Rio Rancho, New Mexico. Lots of other Charger fans here also. Our Governor Bill Richardson and Brian Urlacher of "Da Bears" want an NFL team here. If my old San Diego doesn't want them --WE DO!! "

Bert G. wrote on Nov 30, 2006 9:58 AM:

" I enjoy watching the Chargers on TV. I haven't been to a game since the Houston Oilers clocked them in the Playoffs, a long time ago. I watch them on TV no matter where they play, home or away. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't really matter to me if they move out of San Diego. "

LightningStriker wrote on Nov 30, 2006 9:57 AM:

" If we cant aford to help out with tax money then lets help out at least with the land. Put it to a vote. Let the good people of San Diego deside the fate of our beloved Bolts. The same way we the people desided what was to become of the Padres. Not every one will vote yes but I have a fealing that the majority of the people will. To the shagrin of thoughs that never liked football to begin with. "

LightningStriker wrote on Nov 30, 2006 9:48 AM:

" The Chargers are more then just a "sports team" they represent our community, they represent us. They bring us as a community together, all races, all credes, all politacle spectrums of our community. They bring familys together, and give our community a sence of identity and pride! I walk down the street in our fine city and I see a mother and her two kids with charger gear on and I see first hand just what they mean to the city and our community at large. They are apart of our history, and our culture. "

drpaddle wrote on Nov 30, 2006 9:30 AM:

" I just don't get why we need the Chargers. Sure, football is fun to watch (sometimes). But, the players are mercenaries from all over. Who cares if the team has "San Diego" in the name? Let LA pay for them. "

Chargers Fan wrote on Nov 30, 2006 7:41 AM:

" San Diego doesn't care. Chula Vista and National City do not have the financial firepower. The Chargers will leave San Diego county by 2009. You heard it here first. "

C Dye wrote on Nov 30, 2006 5:26 AM:

" Utilizing tax dollars to subsidize sports teams is a horrible waste of tax dollars, especially when we have unrepaired streets, understaffed police departments, a chronic homeless problem, and other city needs that affect all of us as residents. If the Chargers require public monies to stay in San Diego, then let them leave. Our fine city doesn't require the presence of a football team, nor do we have the resources to subsidize a profitable organization like the NFL. "

Resolved: We Like the Chargers

By Scott Lewis

Reader Feedback

Comments are now displayed with the newest at the bottom. Not sure you're seeing all of the comments? Click here:

Comments so far on this story:

Feedback Rules

Add Your Comments

SEDC Responds to Mayor's Inquiry:

Memo details bonuses and additional compensation of all employees.

Friday, July 18, 2008 -- 6:37 pm

Board Member Blasts Smith:

'The culture of SEDC over the years has been to manipulate, cajole, ignore and intimidate the board into utter and complete silence.'

Friday, July 18, 2008 -- 5:32 pm

Smith Not Resigning:

SEDC president resists the call for her to step down.

Friday, July 18, 2008 -- 5:08 pm

Another Jump for Unemployment Rate:

County jobless rate nears 6 percent.

Friday, July 18, 2008 -- 12:29 pm

Penchant for Secrecy:

San Diego Unified School District legal counsel Jose Gonzales must have been in a hurry to start his vacation.

Friday, July 18, 2008 -- 3:27 pm

No Problem with Defined Benefit:

The risks inherent and unavoidable with these plans are manageable.

Friday, July 18, 2008 -- 12:46 pm

Resign? Yeah, Right:

Why resign when you can get paid $200,000-$300,000 for being fired?

Friday, July 18, 2008 -- 11:20 pm

Employment Goes More Negative:

Housing weakness spilled over into the rest of the economy in June.

Friday, July 18, 2008 -- 4:31 pm