Comments so far on this story:

1. Shame on You wrote on June 14, 2007 3:02 AM:
"If it comes down to it, I would take the word of Michael Aguirre any day over the word of Charger operative and "special counselor" Mark Fabiani. The voice is not doing its job when the letter page is turned over to insulting paid operatives of major league sports who are permitted to present their message as truth. In this instance today, the voice hasn't done a shred of independent journalistic research or given the citizenry a scrap of food for thought. It's all Fabiani opinion and all anti-Aguirre in tone."

2. Charger's #1 Fan wrote on June 14, 2007 3:03 AM:
"Good comeback, Mr. Fabiani. It's always refreshing to see when someone with intelligence and facts steps up to the plate and states the truth. Too often, Mr. Aguirre is allowed to go unchallenged, which in turn, allows his empty-headed cloans (offense intended BBH) to continue wiping the sweat off his brow. Those of us who choose fact over vendetta appreciate your point of view. Now watch these postings, cause as soon as BBH gets a chance, this, too, will be the City employee's fault. : )"

3. Edgar wrote on June 14, 2007 3:12 AM:
"Will you, the Spanos family and the rest of the Chargers please just go away. Get Auckland, New Zealand, to build you a stadium."

4. 56lightsout56 wrote on June 14, 2007 3:31 AM:
"Well, Mr. Aguirre has once again proved how incompetent, petty, and utterly lacking in sound judgement he is. Imagine a city official that has little better to do than seek out the spot light in public forums in order to feed his self aggrandizing ego. Further, the redoubtable Mr. Aguirre's "word" is no more respected or worthy than that of a pathological liar. Continue on with the efforts to build a stadium in one of the areas in the county. Let Aguirre and the other incompetent members of the council live in Wonderland."

5. Chargers R Us wrote on June 14, 2007 4:05 AM:
"Mr. Aguirre - I wonder, do you have this view on other issues that government funding is often used for as well? For instance, do you oppose public subsidies of the arts? How do you feel about public funding of colleges and taxpayer operated colleges? And how do you feel about taxpayer funded festivals and events? Why do I ask your view on all of these? Simple, they are expenditures that are not a necessity of life, but do improve the quality of life for the citizens. Simply put, the Chargers are a quality-of-life asset for San Diego residents - just like the Gaslamp, Mission Bay Park and the Zoo."

6. BASAGE wrote on June 14, 2007 4:06 AM:
""Shame on You" is unable to descern truth, intellect, or reason. With just a little research you would learn that this is the most generous offer any professional team has made for the construction of a new stadium. Let's see ... get out from under a bunch of debt and have a nice new public facility or force the city to suffer under a horrible contract while the Chargers look elsewhere for someone with some brains? Let's cause city residence more pain and dollars. This is what Aguire has brought us."

7. Ian Trowbridge wrote on June 14, 2007 4:20 AM:
"Mr. Fabiani: Just a few questions. Was the ticket guarantee a good deal for the San Diego public? Wasn't the original Charger agreement with the city backend-loaded so that by eliminating it with the help of Michael Zucchet, he public again lost out? What do you believe the value of the 60 acres of public land in Mission Valley that the Chargers wanted for development is currently worth? Why should anyone believe any proposal by the Chargers when they ask for an ungrade of Qualcomm stadium and a few years later come back with another scheme to access public assets."

8. "Con" Servat wrote on June 14, 2007 4:23 AM:
"Shut it Fabiani. Corporate sports shill. Go peddle your snake oil somewhere else. And take your sports "welfare" team with you. I don't put any value in your jaded political views. I guess the Spanos clan gets all the surrounding property adjacent to the field? You want the acreage , buy it all at the market value. You develop entirely at your expense. Ask the Mutli-billion $ NFL to help if need be. But no more subsidizing sports interests so they can get rich off the public trust."

9. Brian wrote on June 14, 2007 4:25 AM:
"Shame, I don't know what you're talking about. Everything Fabiani wrote seems to have a citation or backup documentation. In what world is that his "word" versus independent journalistic research? Where are Aguirre's references for his outlandish statements? I bet there's a good reason why you don't see any, and I'll let you figure out that on your own. There's also probably a reason why so many comments are anti-Aguirre in tone...the people posting them are anti-Aguirre! Besides, it's not like the Voice didn't let Aguirre air his opinion, it just so happens that no one agrees with him. Why do you want to trust an elected offical of San Diego anyways? Have you not learned that this is one of the more corrupt governments in the country? What has Aguirre done to earn anyone's trust in this city?"

10. The Roaming Gnome wrote on June 14, 2007 4:32 AM:
"Unfortnately, Aguirre's misguided and factually incorrect comments are on the main web page while the rebuttal with verifiable references is not on the same page. Once again, Aguirre continues to poison the public sentiment toward the Chargers and the Spanos family and is not called on the mistatements by the local press. At some point the Chargers will decide that the Aguirre issue and his employee Attorney Bruce Henderson will be dealt with once and for all. I would not want to be around that dog when it chooses to bite!"

11. Billy Bob henry wrote on June 14, 2007 4:52 AM:
"Hey Mark-are you trying to scam the tax payers of San Diego with a stadium deal the same way you scammed us in 1998? You know-when the City re-did the Murph, and Spanos et al said they would stay put until 2020? Was that a scam??? News release Mark buddy. The Chargers are not going to get a stadium built at tax payers-it is out of the question. Aint going to happen. No more welfare for Billionaire owners and Millionaire players. Your three card molly trick is over here in San Diego-time to take the team somewhere else. Find a new sucker to milk. Even though many disagree here on pensions-we all agree that the Spanos welfare days are history.(almost forgot-giving away 60 acres of MV land for FREE is does not cout. ..errr...yeah..OK)"

12. BBH wrote on June 14, 2007 4:53 AM:
"BTW-I am willing to bet that the Chargers do NOT break 500 for the next 4-8 seasons, Bobby Ross x2."

13. .500 for sure wrote on June 14, 2007 4:54 AM:
""BTW-I am willing to bet that the Chargers do NOT break 500 for the next 4-8 seasons, Bobby Ross x2." WOW! I thought the city attorney was a whack job. This may be the most outlandish claim in the history of the Voice! It is now very apparent that you have no clue. You do not know the difference between a hockey puck and a football. I'll take that bet for sure and I'll give you whatever odds you desire. Mike Agurrie has a better chance of being re-elected! Do yourself a favor Billy Bob and get back to work!"

14. Point Loman wrote on June 14, 2007 4:56 AM:
"Ian - To your point about the value of the Qualcomm site: If Mr. Fabiani is incorrect and there isn't multi millions of dollars of cleanup and infrastructure improvements needed at that site, what do you propose happen to that site when the Chargers leave? Do we build a park? Who pays for it, the taxpayers? And if he is correct, and the Chargers leave, who pays to clean up that site, the taxpayers? No developer is going to purchase the land with such liabilities. Please explain your thoughts on the future use of the Qualcomm site."

15. SRL wrote on June 14, 2007 5:03 AM:
"Nice one Mark - you are still SO slick! Making Aguirre the fall guy - brilliant! But as Billy Bob and others point out, San Diego remembers all too well how your business-saavy Chargers have continually pulled the rug from underneath fans and taxpayers, disingenuously taking advantage of our felony-stupid and/or corrupt City Hall. Aguirre's rants aside, we may not trust him implicitly, but we trust you and your employer less. The fact is, Mark, threatening to invoke the trigger clause (while refusing to open your books) in order to renegotiate your team out of a soon-to-expire ticket guarantee and $78.3 million in backloaded rents was the final straw. You decry our chaotic and disfunctional city government, yet those very qualities have enabled your employer to functionally swindle San Diegans time and again. Now,ironically, such disfunction may permanently rescue us from your shell game."

16. a girl in SD wrote on June 14, 2007 5:17 AM:
"Thank you for telling the whole truth Mr. Fabiani. I cannot believe that just because The City has trouble making money, now the Chargers shouldn’t be making any money either. As a San Diego resident and Charger fan of many years, I have had it... And why is no one talking about the fact that the city is basically ignoring the possibility of making a lot of money by working with the organization on getting a new stadium in the already existing spot. This city is seems to have its priorities backwards. How many cities do you know of that actually have the audacity and stupidity to walk away from an over $250 million net profit that a super bowl would bring to the city; especially when it’s at virtually no cost to The City itself? Really, I think this should be a no brainer."

17. Save the Squirrels wrote on June 14, 2007 5:20 AM:
"Hey Billy Bob how do you feel about the ever so important squrrel problem in Balboa Park...hahahahaha... buddy Mike is ajoke of a city attorney!!!"

18. Paul wrote on June 14, 2007 5:46 AM:
"To Edgar: Please, no, I am hoping to move to New Zealand in a couple of years and do not want to have to suffer more Chargers BS. After raping the city for years, the Chargers are now willing to do a deal where we only bleed a little. Bless 'em. I look forward to when they leave, in fact it disappoints me that they are still here."

19. DC wrote on June 14, 2007 5:46 AM:
"Ian Trowbridge: The Ticket guarantee was a PR disaster for the City and the Chargers, even though it was a rent reduction and SD still generated income from the Chargers, the media portrayed it as the City buying empty seats and never told the full story. The previous deal was back loaded, but it also included several trigger clauses that would have allowed the Chargers to terminate the lease based on team revenues. At the time of the renegotiation the team and SD were in litigation over the trigger. As far as the 60 acres: at $25 per square foot, such a sale would roughly gross $65 million dollars (when you consider the trade value it’s a great deal). The 1998 upgrade was largely cosmetic and had more to do with seats and a super bowl than actual stadium infrastructure. The City’s Citizen Task explored all these issues in detail."

20. Danik wrote on June 14, 2007 5:50 AM:
"I don't trust those who misspell the word "guarantee"."

21. Bud wrote on June 14, 2007 6:22 AM:
"With the Charger's history of raping San Diego taxpayers, I'll believe Mike Aguirre's version of the story. To the Chargers... please just go away. If you want a new stadium, build it yourself on land that you buy and stop sucking this city dry."

22. jim guarino wrote on June 14, 2007 6:34 AM:
"This issue boils down to a single question. If the Chargers' ownership cannot afford to operate the team at an NFL level without getting free stuff from the taxpayers, should the taxpayers give them the free stuff? I'm a Chargers fan but I still vote "no." If the ownership cannot afford to put a quality team on the field without a subsidy, it's time for them to sell. This is what happened to Major League Baseball owners about 20 years ago. Families that had owned teams such as the Minnesota Twins/Washington Senators for a long time were forced to sell because the economics of the game changed and, wealthy as they were, these guys could no longer compete. I have nothing against the Chargers' ownership but if they can't manage the asset without asking us to bail them out, that's their problem."

23. Leanne wrote on June 14, 2007 7:26 AM:
"I may not believe all of what Aguirre says, but I'm buying nothing Fabiani and millionaire owner are selling. They have sucked the City of San Diego as dry as they could and now are cruising to get other fools to toss money at them. It is really absurd they expect me to feel sorry for them when they make more money in a year than I will in a lifetime. I feel even sorrier for people who buy into their line of b.s. None for me, thank you very much, Mr. Fabiani."

24. Bill H. wrote on June 14, 2007 7:31 AM:
"Once again, Aguirre misstates the facts, and causes more problems than he solves. Sadly, many out in the city will take his comments at face value, and assume he is on their side because he's against "those trying to take advantage of San Diego". The city of San Diego is a mess right now, and Mike Aguirre, despite his "cleanup" efforts, has made it far worse. City staff is afraid to do their jobs because Mr. Aguirre may sue them! We continue to get embroiled in meaningless, and expensive lawsuits so that he can pound on his chest and claim to "save" us. I don't care whether you are a fan of the Chargers, or even like them. This is not about them. They are an asset to our region, bringing in far more money than they cost."

25. Ray wrote on June 14, 2007 7:42 AM:
"jim guarino, just who exactly is asking you...as in the "us" you wrote, to bail them out? Looks to me like they are wanting to build the stadium with their own money and them turn around and give it to the City in exchange for some land to develope that would benefit your absurd managed City by morons like Aguirre. How exatcly does that hurt your pockets? That land will cost you more if they leave and you have to continue to pay for an empty stadium. The City would thrive with more hotels around a new stadium bringing in tax dorevenue and getting some more superbowls coming to town. Hey, id love to see the Chargers come to Vegas where they would be welcomed with open arms while you watch them on TV winning SB's and ask...why are we so stupid!"

26. Billy Bob henry wrote on June 14, 2007 8:06 AM:
"The Chargers are AN AWFUL football organization-startin with Sapnos. They are going to go 500 or under for the next 8 years-no one will go see them play. Time to end the scamming now. Bye Bye Chargers-dont let the door hit you in the butt on the way to AZ. or wherever you want to go. Nice knowing ya. No more welfare for Billionaires, unless the mindless trolls here backing them want to pay for ALL of it!"

27. MtGoat wrote on June 14, 2007 8:07 AM:
"The Chargers accuse Mike of being wrong for seeking TV time. Isn't seeking TV time a key business goal of the Chargers? Pot calling the kettle black! I like Mike!"

28. Dugger wrote on June 14, 2007 8:11 AM:
"I have a simple solution. Let's groundlease the land under Qualcomm to the Chargers for say 50 years. That way the Chargers can develop it commercially and the City doesn't have to sell a public asset. Going returns for ground leases start around 5% and then have rental adjustments every five years or so. If the land is worth $200M, the City recieves $10M/year in net rent (more in future years as the rent adjustments take place) without any obligations. The Chargers can build and own their stadium along with the commercial development. At the end of 50 years a new lease can be negotiated. Everybody wins!"

29. Brian wrote on June 14, 2007 8:24 AM:
"I hardly see "welfare" in giving the rights to build on land to someone who will finance both the stadium and infrastructure to support it, especially if that costs a billion dollars. Right now, taxpayers waste tens of millions of dollars a year on the Q. Would you rather see the city lose $100+ million over the next 12 years, or keep the Chargers, Aztecs, Holiday Bowl, Poinsettia Bowl and potentially Super Bowls in San Diego? I have yet to see the public rally around the other residents of Mission Valley, like Ikea, Lowe's or Costco, but you can't go a day without seeing dozens of 21 and 56 jerseys in SD. A new stadium would bring in hundreds of millions of dollars of economic impact by 2020. Or would you rather continue the hemorrhaging of public funds?"

30. Edgar wrote on June 14, 2007 10:48 AM:
"There is a certain percentage of San Diegans who are peeing in their pants with fear that "our wonderful" Chargers will go away. Look, idiots, this is just a big money-making orgnization for some billionaires and a bunch of hangers-on (Mark Fabiani has done quite well by the Spanos family, thank you) who are seeking to turn each taxpayer individually upside down and SHAKE until the last penny falls to the ground. They would prefer to do it the easy way: just put up a sign in the Qualcomm parking lot -- "PUT CONTENTS OF YOUR WALLET IN BOX. LEAVE." The Chargers and the Indian casinos, as well, have figured out this would be the easiest solution for all concerned, but not even the dumb DONKEYS of San Diego County would go for that. Or, would they?? Paul doesn't want them in Auckland, so how about Ulan Bator, Mongolia?"

31. "Con" Servat wrote on June 14, 2007 11:57 AM:
"Brian, don't be a dope. Fabiani and Spanos are going to soak this town. The hemorrhaging would be controlled if Spanos and Co. bought all the land, and paid for the stadium in whole and surrounding development in whole. No more developer give-aways under the guise of bolstering the local economy. Spanos is not interested in a winning team. He's interested in MONEY. San Diego has all the cards. The land, the population, the tourism, the weather. Hugely desirable, and if the Spanos clan wants it, make em pay big for it. No Deals. Fabiani creeps me out, the guys such a scumbag."

32. Christopher Hall wrote on June 14, 2007 1:01 PM:
"Ha, Ha, Ha! Aguirre takes down Chargers! Can you believe it? The LT or the other players are no match. The drawl and swagger of the Sopanos are no match for Aguirre! And, by reading the above screed written by the one and only Spin-Doctor himself, we see that Mr. Mark Fabiani is no match for Aguirre either. The Chargers will then have to play football all season long after suffering Aguirre, and they shall blame their lack of performance on him -- he tuckered them out, shattered their morale. OK, so what Aguirre really did was stand up to big football bullies trying to use the city as their business tool for profit. How else would you expect the football magnates to react/ respond? But then maybe they ARE too poor to own a football team, too few billions."

33. San Diego born wrote on June 14, 2007 7:27 PM:
"Mark, I have been trying to read both or multiple sides of the story for the last months and years, however, your side ends up only confusing me as to the facts. You do reinforce the fact that you are a lousy dirty scumbag with only political motivations. Stop wasting everyone's time, you can't even write! Nothing in your article made sense, at least Aguirre makes sense. Oh, and he also doesn't write entire articles aimed at smearing you. You really set yourself apart from him, and wish the worst in the upcoming election. Please go away."

34. Frank J wrote on June 14, 2007 9:10 PM:
"Hey... if the land is really worth less and a liability, why doesn't the Spanos family and the State University system combine and buy it. Put some dorms up along the river, Aztecs and Chargers stay put, city get some much needed $$$ now and later with Super Bowl revenue and taxes, and the taxpayers win."

35. BBH wrote on June 14, 2007 11:06 PM:
"Brian wrote: "I hardly see "welfare" in giving the rights to build on land to someone who will finance both the stadium and infrastructure to support it""... yeah..errr... OK Brian.. the Charegrs can build infrastructure all they want-as long is it not a stadium..and if GIVING AWAY BILLIONS IN LAND is not welafare-what you you call it?? A Randy Cunningham campaign contribution??? An earmark??? Speak on this Mr. Brian."

36. politicalsanity wrote on June 14, 2007 11:52 PM:
"A couple of items not mentioned by Fibiani- 1) Why would the City WANT to have ownership of a facility when it would derive no revenue from it? Would it not be better, financially, to let the Chargers own it-- and then the City could get property tax from the site? 2) The proposal give to the Task Force didn't pencil out- the expenses FAR outweighed the projected revenues, even in the rosiest of scenarios. 3)The proposal had far too much density than the amount allowed under the Mission Valley Community Plan; the mitigation would push the price even higher."

37. Richard Tanner wrote on June 15, 2007 12:02 AM:
"Mark: A couple of things. I remember the Chargers formally removed this proposal, so there is no proposal to discuss. As a Charger Fan going back to Balboa, I enjoy watching the Chargers. If the Chargers want a new stadium, they have them buy the land they need, build the Stadium and whatever development the Chargers want to do, Play the games, and leave the City out of the process. That way you could say it is truely a private development. I do not really care where you buy and build. If it is not Mission Valley then the City can build a park or whatever. Your Spin is getting old on this issue. Were you present at the 8 meetings that Madaffer held with Spanos? So much for honesty."

38. Point Loman wrote on June 15, 2007 12:05 AM:
"I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what their alternative plan is for the Qualcomm site after the Chargers leave. And along with that plan, who is going to pay for it? All the idealists will say they want a park. Well, again, who is going to pay for a) the cleanup of the site and then b) the construction of the park? Taxpayers? Or, are you willing to sell it to the highest bidder, taking the control of what is built there out of the hands of the city?"

39. Wake Up People! wrote on June 15, 2007 1:41 AM:
"Stadiums NEVER make money for the host cities- NEVER. In the case of the City of San Diego, the subsidies keep piling, all at major costs to the taxpayers. If Fabiani wants to be honest about, why not share the financial data from the team? You can all bet your fannies that the Spanos team is very, very well off and lining its pockets with gold, your gold taxpayers, your gold. This is nothing more than a field of schemes by rich corporate team owners to get the most they can. Now the Chargers are talking about leaving and scamming some other town with their snake oil. They keep saying this is privately financed- just another lie when they want public property for privates uses. Sorry guys, goodbye, see you later, go away."

40. Said What wrote on June 15, 2007 2:28 AM:
"Fabani, your piece reads hysterical, which should please Mr. Aguirre. Too bad for the elite controllers in this town that regular people like a City Attorney who stands up to developers. We've never had one before, and voters aren't going to get rid of him over fake Charger arguments. Especially when the team's supposed to be seriously looking at Chula Vista and Oceanside. Or maybe you have some secret polling data that could be shared with the public that would explain why attack Aguirre now."

41. CMR wrote on June 15, 2007 2:41 AM:
"To answer the point about ownership of the site - if the Chargers own the site they would owe property tax on the improvement (about 2-4 million a year). Since the bulk of that flows to the County/State/school district, hard to structure a deal that works. I like the idea of the City owning but negotiating three key concessions - zero rent for the holiday and poinsetta bowls (good econ drivers at slow hotel time); a chunk of the $$ for naming rights (perhaps invested back in trust fund for operating/maintainin new river park); and a chunk of perhaps parking revenue to offset game day police/fire/paramedi expenses."

42. Caryl wrote on June 15, 2007 2:48 AM:
"The essential point is that America's Finest Circus has never entertained the apparently novel idea of negotiating any and all aspects of the Chargers new stadium proposal but rather took it as an "as is non-negotiable proposal" which it clearly was not. Then again I take that back since in February of 2005 the San Diego City Council vetoed hiring independent stadium consultants at a cost of $200,000 to negotiate on the City's behalf and thus effectively ended new stadium discussions before they even began. Regardless of the public spin promoted by anyone including Mike and Mark, the City's failure to even make a good faith attempt to respond to and negotiate on the Chargers new stadium proposal is an "unspinnable" public documented fact and I will never forgive or forget our City Council's failure to do so."

43. Another Perspective wrote on June 15, 2007 3:54 AM:
"It truly saddens me to see the sad state of affairs that has befallen my home city. I've been watching from afar for several years now as the city becomes a laughing stock from coast to coast. Personally, I hope the Chargers leave SD soon and go somehwere where they'll be appreciated and San Diego can go back to being a sleepy little military town that nobody cares about. Oh wait, but the military is slowly leaving too. In a city the relies so heavily on tourism, the more the city is mentioned in a positive light the better off you are and national sprts franchises are a tremendous help in that regard and a couple of superbowls are HUGE. Running the Chargers out of SD will do nothing to help your financial crisis but it certainly may make it more painful to"

44. Ed Shurley wrote on June 15, 2007 6:32 AM:
"One final point. Question. What do Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockerfeller, Alex Spanos, Michael Aguirre, Bruce Henderson, and Ed Shurley have in common?? Answer. They all use the each of the tax laws and other financial advantages legally available to them. Question. In what ways are Rockerfeller, Carnegie and Spanos different from Bruce Henderson and his ilk? Answer. Spanos, unlike other wealthy men who inherited massive wealth, pulled himself up from his own bootstraps-created, built, and crafted a financial empire, securing a financial legacy for generations. Along the way, his corporations employed thousands and thousands of people who were able to provide for their families as well. Spanos has given generously to numerous local charitable causes. Like every company I have ever worked for, Spanos and the Chargers look for ways to run more profitably. Spanos builds (constructs.) Aguirre and Henderson obstruct(Petco.) Jealousy and small-mindedness do nothing for San Diego. Spanos has!"

45. Bud wrote on June 15, 2007 8:25 AM:
"Many of us hope the Chargers go to another city where they are 'appreciated'. Then, perhaps, we can get a decent football team here... a team that WANTS to live in this great city, WILL contribute to the community (instead of leaching off of it) and is willing TO PAY THEIR OWN WAY. Other cities see SD as a laughingstock because our 'leaders' gladly subsidize billion dollar private corporations while desperately trying to avoid bankruptcy. They can't believe how stupid and self-serving the people who run this city really are."

46. Carlson wrote on June 15, 2007 9:49 AM:
"Although I don't really care if the Chargers stay or go, I certainly don't believe Aguirre's rants for a second. Maybe he should get back to work on his cases he's already filed or prosecuting those misdemeanors. As for Fabiani...at least he's providing additional information for a constructive discussion( not that I trust him either). What the citizens need are some real facts on the cost/benefit from both sides...not just more of the immature mud-slinging."

47. Nicole wrote on June 15, 2007 10:52 AM:
"Aguirre is addicted to seeing and hearing himself on t.v. and radio. Please do not believe him. Having worked for him and seen him in action, I know first-hand how he spins facts (and the law) to make his opinion appear to be correct. It is truly frightening to look behind the curtain."

48. Shamrock wrote on June 15, 2007 2:56 PM:
"In the mid-1960's the County of San Diego deeded the land in which Qualcomm now sits over to the City of San Diego in order to build a stadium. It seems to me that the only way to get a new stadium built would be for the City of San Diego to return the property to the original owners - The County of San Diego."

49. 100 words or less wrote on June 15, 2007 3:31 PM:
"Hey folks, I don't even really see a point to even considering any allocation of public funds towards a sport club when the City can't even afford to host a winter homeless shelter, re-build the main library, fill every pothole, get out of the red with the pension, give firefighters raises, purchase more safety equipment, hire enough deputy attorneys to prosecute the criminal that just defaced your nearby park, offer more youth recreational programs and senior services, hire enough police to increase emergency response times... did I miss anything??? These take priority, then Mr. Fabiani, let's make a deal!"

50. Go Bears... wrote on June 16, 2007 4:26 AM:
"then go away, Chargers lol"

51. Buddy in Mission Valley wrote on June 16, 2007 9:00 AM:
"Do you know when Fabiani and the entire Chargers organization is not telling the truth? It's whenever their lips are moving. The grab of all parking fees from the City in exchange for the City being responsible for maintaining the lot is one example of their irresponsibility toward the community. They don't care and with their buddies, Golding and Herring gone, they are being exposed for what they are - greedy, non-caring charlatans. What they give to youth sports and charities is pocket change and they should be ashamed. Fabiani and his clients attack Mike Aguirre for exposing the truth about the Chargers organization and have great partners in the fishwrap known as the San Diego Union Tribune in keeping those attacks coming on a regular basis."

52. Billy ob Henry wrote on June 16, 2007 10:33 AM:
"Ed Shurley writes..."Like every company I have ever worked for, Spanos and the Chargers look for ways to run more profitably. Spanos builds (constructs.) Aguirre and Henderson obstruct(Petco.) Jealousy and small-mindedness do nothing for San Diego. Spanos has!"" WHAT A HACK!!!! Ed "Surely" you are the biggest mouth I have ever come across here on VofSD (next to Fabiani) ...Now beat it, and take that losing football team and slime owner with you!!!!!"

53. Rex Grossman- haha wrote on June 16, 2007 2:05 PM:
"I'm with you 100% Chargers. Don't worry about Billiy Bob (aka Bruce Henderson). He is a loser and always has been. When we get a new mayor and city attorney (which is coming very soon), we will get a stadium built."

54. Citizen X wrote on June 17, 2007 12:53 AM:
"Great response Mr. Fabiani. It's a shame the City of San Diego doesn't have as competent a legal adviser as the Chargers obviously do. BBH, you could take note. Mr. Fabiani writes like a lawyer. You dont! A few mindless sheep will however continue to follow Aguirre..... right off the cliff. Those "true believers" are followers by nature and need someone like Aguirre to tell them what to think. You'll never win them over...and who cares."

55. view from view 22 wrote on June 17, 2007 1:58 AM:
"actually, the newest stadium in AMERICA, Univ of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, AZ was designed to make tons of money for Glendale, Maricopa County and Arizona. It's booked over 250 days a year---check it out, it's an amazing story, and a blueprint for what could be accomplished here. IF EVERYBODY pulled together, that is."

56. BBH wrote on June 17, 2007 6:25 AM:
"To View from 22, who CLAIMS that the University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, AZ is booked for 250 days out of the year-you better wake up from dreamland. NO stadium is booked for 250 days out of the year-ZERO. In fact, when you check THIS very month of JUNE at the Phoenix stadium, it only has 2 events covering a meager 6 days-and if you do not count the La Mesa RV sale then they are only booked 3 days for the ENTIRE month-or about 10%. Stop the BS-you must work for the Chargers. Link below. link"

57. Sunny wrote on June 17, 2007 5:24 PM:
"Bravo for this excellent rebuttal Mr. Fabiani! AGHguirre could never hold a candle next to you, and he knows it. Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong was disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar for breaking rules of professional conduct. Nifong committed "a clear case of intentional prosecutorial misconduct that involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation." That's exactly the same thing AGHguirre is doing here in San Diego!"

58. Ron Weiss wrote on June 17, 2007 9:29 PM:
"Mr. Michael Aguirre: Here is a piece of advice I believe may help your cause: It would behoove you to consider hiring Bruce Henderson AKA Billy Bob Henry. His unyeilding support for your cause, regardless how expensive and absurd it may be, lends credence to this suggestion. Eventually Mr. Aguirre, the citizens of San Diego will realize your agenda has advanced into a cancer very similar to Mr. Nifong's. It is best that you as well as Bruce realize your career is over when you are not re-elected as San Diego's City Attorney. Maybe after this happens, you and Bruce can assist convicting or defending (your pleasure) the illegal immigrants that enter into San Diego without proper papers, or arrive in some other means other than through the port of entry. Good luck to the both of you!"

59. Disgusted wrote on June 18, 2007 1:12 AM:
"What is clear in the commentary here is that nobody believes the city can forge an equitable deal with the Chargers. Is that an indictment of the Chargers or the City Clowncil? ...you folks know the answer... but many of you are all too satisfied to tell yourself it is the fault of the Chargers. Somebody will be laughing last and I guarantee it won't be the citizens of San Diego. Spanos may well take his Chargers and leave, but it taxes the imagination that it will be HIS loss. I was born and raised in the area and now I live 1300 miles away, but it still hurts me to see San Diegans gleefully applauding while the city continues its slide into mental and financial bankruptcy. Just keep telling yourselves it is the fault of the Chargers...mmmhmmm, right!"

60. Tired of the BS wrote on June 18, 2007 2:30 AM:
"Fabiani states at the end of his letter... "The City could be entitled to an even larger share of these new revenues if the City succeeded in designating the site as a redevelopment district." Someone certainly knows how the game is played. This is why I don't trust Fabiani, the Chargers and the majority of our city 'leaders'. They look for loopholes that don't serve any interests beside lining their own pockets. Sure, let's go ahead an make another redevelopment district... not because the area needs it... but rather so we can milk more money from the community."

61. Billy Bob Henry wrote on June 18, 2007 5:06 AM:
"I nominate Mike for a second term in office-Lets get em....... Maybe Ron Weiss can come on baord as a campaign helper, stuffing envelopes and cleaning up after the big boys do their work."

62. The Roaming Gnome wrote on June 18, 2007 11:09 PM:
"BBH - A second term for Mikey? And if you really are Bruce, what are you doing on here when you are supposed to be an employee of the City Attorney's department or is "this" part of your job description? I can't wait to see the campaign literature this time. Wasn't Mikey just holding a fundraiser to retire the debt from his last campaign? If you keep pulling the dog's tail, at some point, you too are going to get bit!"

63. Billy Bob Henry wrote on June 19, 2007 3:36 AM:
"First I was Mike, now I am Bruce Henderson-wrong on both counts. I am in no way a member of SD City gov. I work on my own-solo. My goal in life is to get all pampered, over paid, over pensioned gov employee welfare queens into 401K's, and stop the pension abuses."

64. Caitlin wrote on June 19, 2007 2:34 PM:
"Billie Bob Henderson has been trying to force the Chargers out of San Diego for the last decade or more. The trouble is, he is no better attorney than his friend, Mike Aguirre. When he tried the same thing with the Padres, they sued him and he ran off with his tiny little tail between his legs. Check the record."

65. Edgar wrote on June 19, 2007 9:57 PM:
"The bottom line is: not all San Diegans want to keep the Chargers here. Settle it with a vote. Then all you gotta-keep-the-Charg lunatics can see how big (or small) your minority is. I, for one, can't wait for them (and the Spanos family and Mr. Fabiani and, and, and) to go. Go as far away as possible. Soak some other city."

66. Edgar wrote on June 19, 2007 10:04 PM:
"Now, I guess you are in automatic censorship mode. Twice I typed "gotta-keep-the-Char lunatics." Twice it was chopped in half when I posted. Hello. Anybody awake down there?"

67. Edgar wrote on June 19, 2007 10:09 PM:
"I give up. There must be a Charger fan saboteur working at the Voice."

68. Billy Bob Henry-Not " wrote on June 20, 2007 3:41 AM:
"The Padres suit against Henderson went no where."

69. Charles wrote on June 20, 2007 4:02 AM:
"Edgar should know that while not all San Diegans are Charger fans, a large percentage of us are. And we aren't about to leave town just because you want us to. I don't happen to surf (anymore), but I don't begrudge those who do. If I were Edgar I'd be asking the city to close down all beaches and to quit wasting tax dollars on something as stupid. Beaches are nothing but a drain on our economy!! Not everyone enjoys the same things or utilizes the same facilities. Just because you have no use for the Chargers doesn't mean that the rest of San Diego feels the same way. Learn to let others enjoy themselves as well and quit being so darn selfish. That's not the attitude of a true San Diegan..."

70. BBH wrote on June 20, 2007 11:14 AM:
"Hey Charles in Charge-Beaches do NOT try to scam billions of dollars from tax payers-OK. Big difference there buddy. Take your team and disappear, take the snake oil salesman Spanos with you."

71. Edgar wrote on June 20, 2007 11:29 AM:
"Charlie: who said anything about YOU leaving town (unless, of course, you are a member of the Chargers organization)? Go ahead. Be a fan all you want -- of the Rams or Raiders or whatever. It isn't that I have no use for a football team in San Diego (even the Chargers -- under other circumstances). It is that Spanos and his organization are ripping off the SD taxpayers and making fools of the admittedly large number of gullible SD citizens, who somehow see the Chargers as "their" team (rah, rah, rah; go team, go; show them what San Diego can do. BS!) You are just helping a billionaire and his legion of millionaire hangers-on squeeze some more money out of the city's taxpayers. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic!! By the by, the beaches bring millions of people here; the Chargers only a handful."

72. Edgar wrote on June 20, 2007 11:39 AM:
"Another thing, Charlie, my boy: "Learn to let others enjoy themselves and quit being so darn[ed] selfish." HUH??!! I'm a taxpayer, too, my friend. I have to pay for this inanity as much as you do. WHY should I pay so that you can amuse yourself and at the same time allow the Spanos clan to make fools of a city of 1.3 million people?"

73. Caitlin wrote on June 20, 2007 3:07 PM:
"Oh really Billie Bob Henderson...the suit went nowhere? Go downtown and see what is there. Yes, that's right, a ballfield; Petco Park. You tucked tail and ran and the ballpark went ahead as planned."

74. Billy Bob Henry wrote on June 20, 2007 11:36 PM:
"Caitlin-you need to learn to read my dear, the Padres suit againt Bruice Henderson went NO WHERE, no you take yourself down to the court house, 33 W Broadway, look up the case and get back to me. HAs NOTHING to do with Petco...."

75. Caitlin wrote on June 21, 2007 10:32 AM:
"Billie Bob Henderson, why so simple minded? The case was settled when you tucked your tiny little tail and slithered away allowing the ballpark to go through unfettered. This is EXACTLY the outcome the Padres were seeking. By the way, the courthouse is located at 330 West Broadway. Maybe you should go there sometime instead of running away, Brucie Bob."