voiceofsandiego.org: Letters... Charger Stadium Search

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 | I just saw Scott Lewis' post on the Charger stadium search. It is a timely one because this afternoon the Chargers are meeting with Oceanside city officials to report on the due diligence we have all been doing about the concept of a mixed use office village on the proposed Goat Hill site in Oceanside. We are looking forward to sharing with Oceanside what we have learned from meetings with potential office village developers, and I am sure Oceanside will have information to share with us. Our goal today is to determine whether the office village idea deserves continued exploration or whether we ought to add other ideas to the mix.

With respect to Chula Vista, as you know, the Chargers agreed to pay more than $220,000 for the city of Chula Vista to hire a consultant to review possible sites within Chula Vista. Chula Vista selected the consultant and is managing the study, so the release date of the study will be decided by Chula Vista. But we hope that within a month or so the people of Chula Vista will be able to review the results of the study. I anticipate that some potential sites will be ruled out for various reasons, but we are hopeful that one or two sites will remain and that the consultants' study will set forth for us all the pluses and minuses of each site.

Finally, it is worth noting one factor that often gets lost in discussion of the new stadium: When we began this process five years ago, we could have constructed the stadium for approximately $400 million. Today, because of the rising cost of concrete, steel and other supplies, along with other factors, the cost of the stadium has easily doubled -- to well in excess of $800 million, if the estimates coming out of San Francisco and Minnesota are accurate. And if the estimated construction costs out of Dallas and the New Jersey Meadowlands are accurate, the cost of the stadium construction alone could be in excess of $1 billion. Of course, none of these costs includes massive infrastructure expenditures which must also be made. I raise this point because we all know how challenging it was for us to find a way to privately finance the $400 million stadium on the Qualcomm site. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the private financing challenge we face now has at least doubled, right along with the cost of construction.

Keep it up Mark... If Oceanside doesn't work you can build it down here by us in the East Lake/Olympic Training Center area. We know value when we see it, unlike some other cities in the county.

Posted by Keep it up | reply to this comment
May 15, 2007 2:15 am

I'm trying to figure out the point of your final paragraph there, ref the cost of building a new stadium going up to over a billion dollars. Are you hinting that the Spanos' may just decide it needs to be completely publicly funded now? Are you setting the stage for abandonment of any San Diego site in favor of leaving town? Your letter is essentially "Things are are moving along in Oceanside...things are up in Chula Vista....But, whew!, things sure got expensive 'round here yessirree...a Billion dollars.."

Posted by D | reply to this comment
May 15, 2007 2:53 am

Don't want to speak for Mr. Fabiani, but his point seems clear: Talk ain't cheap. The longer this region sits on its hands and lets the process drag on, the less likely a deal becomes. But maybe the Chargers and its stadium designers need to find a cheaper way. Maybe the next paradigm of stadium architecture --especially where landscape allows it -- is a return to the basics: a classic bowl pushed into Goat Hill with the corporate luxury boxes ringing the top rim with a kind of inside-outside attribute possible here in perpetually perfect SoCal (don't forget, coastal Oceanside has the most moderate climate in the world). As with the Coliseum or Rose Bowl -- which attract 90,000 without a hint of luxury -- the bowls are surrounded by parks for partying, etc. Make it green. Make it unique to southern California. Make it happen!

Posted by Rob | reply to this comment
May 15, 2007 4:42 am

Sounds like they are changing tunes when it comes to public financing. That's some expensive concrete! You know the old saying: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's a duck!

Posted by Remix | reply to this comment
May 15, 2007 5:06 am

Its not the region dragging its feet. I think its the Chargers shining Oceanside and Chula Vista along. Remember, the Spanoses are primarily construction contractors, pro sport team owners secondarily. If they really want to stay, they are more than capable to say to either city, "How 'bout that spot right there...you fund this, we'll fund that...deal?" New stadiums don't just magically make money for cities. Look at Petco Park - gee, that really got San Diego out of its financial straights, huh? The cities are each put in a position where they want to be the ones who "brought the Chargers to town", but they don't want to be the ones who devastated their finances for years to come.

Posted by D | reply to this comment
May 15, 2007 6:00 am

Well, Mr. Fabiani, your last paragraph gave us all the more reason not to build the damned thing!

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
May 15, 2007 7:27 am

Makr Fabiani-paid mouth piece for the Chargers....Listen Mark-why don't you take your Billionaire owner and millionaire players and go look for a hand out/corporate welfare/free money from some other suckers. Taxpayrs should NOT be subsidizing BILLIONAIRES-OK-end of story. Now take your free loading butt somewhere else.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
May 15, 2007 8:49 am

Keep it up wrote "We know value when we see it, unlike some other cities in the county." Yeah....errr right.......you know value when you see it, I bet this guy was an Enron investor and owns real estate in New Orleans, because he knows "value" when he sees it...hahah....man this stuff never gets old.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
May 15, 2007 8:51 am

The Chargers want to make more money for the owners and players. it has nothing to do with playing a better game where grown men fight over the ball like children. Why do they call them the "Chargers" -- it's because it's coming out of the people's pockets one way or another -- how do you think the Spanos got rich anyway, playing fair? Uh, no.

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
May 15, 2007 10:46 am

I get a kick out of people like Rob, you know the ones who are so into games they are peeing in their pants worried that San Diego would lose the Chargers. You've heard the saying, Rob, haven't you, "It's only a game"? Well, it's not true. Professional sports are a business, BIG business. The Spanoses, like any other franchise owners, are out to squeeze every last nickel out of the hands of all the rubes. "Our" team. BS! It's a money-making venture for the owners, who want to fill a stadium with Robs at the highest prices they can possibly get. San Diego Soakers is a more apt name. They've soaked this city for years.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
May 16, 2007 12:15 am

This whole Charger debate really comes down to: do you want a NFL team or not. There is value for the area in having a team located here. the fans are just as important as the nay sayers. Not everyone likes or visits the Zoo or Balboa Park , but there is a lot of public money used for those sites. I don't know how it could be done, but the whole county should pay to have the team in this area. Still, the best site is the Qualcomm site with all the land and a trolley stop already there. Giving up that land to the Chargers is just a soft cost to the city. nothing out of pocket and the benefits to the area are real. It seems like someone could make this work out if they really tried. Just keep the city attorney away from this.

Posted by BAN | reply to this comment
May 16, 2007 3:12 am

BAN-no I do NOT want the Chargers here if we have to subsidize them hundreds of millions/billions of dollars. As for your Zoo comparison, lets see, the Chargers play 8 games per year and get about 50,000-60,0000 fans per game, that is 400,000 to 500,000 fans per year. The zoo ges over 5 MILLION per year-a 10 fold increase....plus the Zoo is not getting a billion dollars in tax money. Guess you just lost that argument. BTW-giving any money, in the form of lan or tax breaks or whatever-is NOT a soft cost-money is money. No sch thing as soft costs when it comes to cash.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
May 16, 2007 8:40 am

Maybe BBH, you have not been paying attention while all of this has been going on. The Chargers are going to pay for the stadium, all the offsites,all the cost increases and only wanted the city to give them the land. No money out of pocket from the city. try to pay attention in the future instead of just spouting the naysayer attitude you always seem to have.

Posted by BAN | reply to this comment
May 16, 2007 11:02 am

The Chargers are playing BAN, Rob and the rest of their fans like they do their opponents on the field -- the Sopranos (Spanos -- oops) will not agree to pay for all they suggest, they are only playing that game, doing a fake-out, and they will move on to another city, if San Diego doesn't spit out the cash and cash equivalences, such as free land. What Peter Q said is true: there's just one way to pencil out the stadium, and that's to get the state to chip in by forgoing property taxes by making the proposed site a redevelopment district. Peter Q is not advocating for anything, he's just spelling out the only answer for San Diego. Maybe LA has different financial options, and of course the So-panos are considering them there as well as in Las Vegas where the game is money.

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
May 16, 2007 11:27 pm

OOPS -- My post just below citing Peter Q was a hybrid mix that was also (better) intended for the post on "Montgomery Chargers" on the Slop Blog here: link These two discussions on the Chargers issue are related closely and I'm mixing them up a bit. Hey! The fake out game plan the Sopanos are playing is working on me! Back to the huddle people.

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
May 17, 2007 1:49 am

Charger Stadium Search

By Mark Fabiani, San Diego