While it can be fun to joke about the taking of Montgomery Field by the ruling developers, their business partners and their politicians, it is really a serious problem with the issues going back to the so-called "founding fathers" who started making San Diego what it has become. Today, in view of the many rebukes by its readers claiming corruption amongst the city and developers, the SD UT editorial was left to defending this cartel in the only corner it stood: there is no corruption, just incompetent city staff and politicians. But these rulers aren't incompetent, they are corrupt, bought by the wealthy class who helped get them elected. We think our votes count in San Diego, but in reality we vote for a small pool of pre-bought politicians, and excluding Donna Frye and Mike Aguirre, the choices we make are from a pool of corruption.

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
May 15, 2007 9:04 pm

Everyone is San Diego seems to have their own agenda and the City has been shaped by those in favor with the politicos of the day. Never believe the politicos when their lips are moving. On the Charger stadium issue, it would not surprise me to hear that in the 11th hour as the moving vans are packed, the City Mayor and Council made a deal. I have ceased to be amazed by any action of the City or County government.

Posted by The Roaming Gnome | reply to this comment
May 16, 2007 12:07 am

Come on, ultimately, you know it's gonna be the Los Angeles Chargers... The Number 2 media market without an NFL team??? The Spanos' and the league will solve that...

Posted by Robert E. Lee | reply to this comment
May 16, 2007 1:40 am

I guess were all products of our experinces. I was around for Watergate, and made my living for several decades as a Banker, So the adage "Follow the Money" just makes sense to me. The Cost of a Stadium is substanial. Worse a stadium does not pay for itself. So investors in a Stadium need to recapture their investment elsewhere--For the City it would be from Tax Revenues collected from development that took place "because" of the Stadium. For the developer, it would most likely be from that same development. But development is market driven, so a developer can't make enough from the development to cover their cost of a Stadium. Thus the developer needs some subsidy to allow them to make enough from the development to cover development costs, and Stadium costs and a reasonible profit. I don't see any City being mentioned as having the bonding capacity at present-------------

Posted by Peter Q | reply to this comment
May 16, 2007 4:14 am

Cont.------ Nor do I see any City that has the cash to front the costs, and wait for the tax revnues to develope.. The secret Downtown with the Ballpark was the Redevelopment laws of Calif. These allow a city to capture and keep almost all the Property Tax generated in a Redevelopment Dist.(RD) These are tax revenues normally sent to the state-So in a way, the City is getting a "State Grant".. So a redevelopment district would seem essential. But a new redevelopment distist runs in the red initially and for perhaps the first decade,because of initial costs,like, salaries, rent ect...and they have No new development so no tax revenues-- It seems to me the Chargers have to locate in or near an established RD, or it simply doesn't pencil out...

Posted by Peter Q | reply to this comment
May 16, 2007 4:32 am

San Diego is just too confining for the fulfillment of the Spanos' family's desire to build a world-renowned multi-purpose sports-commercial-re complex, dedicated to the accumulation of the maximuim return on their (Spanos) investment. Anaheim is it. Always has been; despite the fact that San Diego has lots of Mickey Mouse and Goofy characters. Let the city, state and SDSU work out a deal. They SDSU has plans for a mega-expansion. What better site for expansion for SDSU than the Qualcomm ghost-town, in Mission Valley? They could create an educational-research haven, close to everywhere. Greg Duch

Posted by Greg Duch | reply to this comment
May 16, 2007 6:49 am

Hey Peter Q., here s a noval idea for ya, if a private company, like the Chargers, want to build a stadium, with fancy boxes where they can keep 100% of revenue, why not let them pay for it themselves? Heck, get the NFL to kick in some $$$$, last I checked you had to be a billionaire to own an NFL franchise. That is how the rest of America works-you pay your own way without leaching off the taxpayers. If working class Americans can do that-then so can Billionaire owners and millionaire players. I cannot for the life of me figure out why smart guys (which Peter Q. is) want to give literally hundreds of millions of dollars to a billionaire, when this City is falling apart. It is not only stupid from a financial stand point-it is immoral.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
May 16, 2007 8:22 am

Wow BBH - is that the way it works? If that is the way it works, can you please explain the Corky and Moores deals then?

Posted by The Roaming Gnome | reply to this comment
May 16, 2007 9:17 am

Billy Bob: Thanks for the compliment-- I believe the reason the Chargers don't build a stadium, is as I said, a Stadium does not pay for itself. Now--I am no Charger Groupie. In fact I'm told when my name was floated for Port Commissioner, the Charger Management was violently oppossed to it. They were upset with an Op/Ed I wrote that appeared Jan '06 in the U/T that suggested they were going to make a Bundle on the Real Estate development they were demanding the City kick in the land for.. That said, I do believe that the Ballpark is a financial boom for the City--It not only reduced crime, saving City money, but created jobs, and also created increased Property taxes, Sales Taxes and Hotel Room (TOT) taxes. Most estimates say this will exceed $100 Million a year to the City.Thats a good return.

Posted by PeterQ | reply to this comment
May 16, 2007 11:50 pm

Cont---I believe if the Chargers were truly interested in working out a deal, that a win-win could be developed between them and the City of SD. Clearly, there is great benefit in building in or near an established Redevelopment area--Because it already has a positive cash flow--and would capture 100% of the property tax- Elsewhere the City gets under 20% - Equally as clear, the City does not have the funds to contribute cash, but they have other assets they could contribute if it were going to get a return the 50% a year,I believe the City gets from its investment on the ballpark--AND this investment (bond payments) should and could be assumed totally ,over time, by CCDC-Making the city's contibution less then its annual return--I'd like that kind of investment for my IRA.. But I hold out little hope for this happening,as neither group have the deal makers necessary..

Posted by Peter Q | reply to this comment
May 17, 2007 12:06 am

Do either of you TWO people have a real name or do you just enjoy bickering with each other under your top secret code names?

Posted by Fake Names and Lame Games | reply to this comment
May 17, 2007 7:05 pm

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.