Comments so far on this story:

1. Richard Tanner wrote on June 13, 2007 1:59 PM:
"The San Diego Chargers want the same type of deal that the Padres got from the City. In each of the Chargers statements there is always the caveat that states the development will pay for the stadium. To state it simply, let the Chargers find and buy land, build the stadium and parking, pay for the infrastructure that would be required. That way they own the stadium and all the costs associated with it (plus the property taxes). Then I can go to the 17 plus events every year and the Chargers do not burden the City Taxpayer. The Chargers want to own part of the development around a stadium."

2. Dan Shea wrote on June 13, 2007 2:08 PM:
"Aguirre is a complete idiot; he continues to criticize the Chargers – even if it means completely misrepresenting the facts. Again today Aguirre claims that the ticket guaranty still exists, even though that lease provision was definitively eliminated in August 2004: “Since the guarantee went into effect in 1997, the city has paid the Chargers $36.4 million for unsold tickets. In that time, the team has paid the city $42.9 million in rent, netting the city about $6.5 million. That controversial part of the team's lease agreement was recently eliminated.” (San Diego Union Tribune, September 20, 2004, emphasis added.) Does Aguirre think voters are so stupid that they will believe anything he says, just because he says it? Fortunately, more and more people are watching Aguirre’s behavior more closely and are seeing through his dishonest tactics."

3. Billy Bob Henry wrote on June 13, 2007 2:34 PM:
"This is the only honest guy in San Diego government. Mike, I keep telling all the yahoo's here that GIVING away 60 acres of land is the exact same thing as giving away money! Then we get the wannabes that say that because it is land, not money, it is not giving the Chargers anything of monetary value-some people just do not understand. Fabiani would not respond to my posts when he was here last week-I spanked him pretty good when he wrote a VoSD letter a few weeks back, so I am sure he wanted no part of what I was giving him. You have your supporters here Mike, so just keep plugging away at that pension scam, because if you lose, the ONLY way out for San Diego is BK. If possible, please inform all of my over pensioned gov buddies here how good they have it."

4. Frank wrote on June 13, 2007 8:57 PM:
"another desperate attempt by Aguirre to keep his face in the news."

5. BASAGE wrote on June 13, 2007 9:01 PM:
"It is amazing to me you could possibly be an attorney. Is there currently a ticket guarantee? NO! Just because San Diego negotiated a terrible deal with the Chargers (largely because they believed the Chargers would always stink) do not blame Fabiani. No ticket guarantee exists. Did the Chargers plan for redeveloping the Qualcomm site require the public to provide for the capital for the project? NO! You know this is what is meant by "privately financed" but want to twist it. Your other points are equally ill conceived. You are trying to vilify the Charges becaue San Diego leaders (such as yourself) can't mangae their way out of a paper bag or negotiate a good contract. If the Chargers to 2020 to get a new stadium, the City of San Diego will reap the full consequences of electing inept leaders like you."

6. The Roaming Gnome wrote on June 13, 2007 10:16 PM:
"Seat guaranty - Aguirre still thinks that it exists when in fact it was eliminated in August 2004. Is it little wonder people are confused on this issue. Aguirre continues to try and fool the people on this one."

7. Christopher Hall wrote on June 13, 2007 11:00 PM:
"You folks just don't listen -- Aguirre explains the negotiations for getting rid of the ticket garantee are as bad as the garantee itself: the resolution or deal is so bad that rent is now reduced post ticket garantee in as much or more than the garantee reduced rent. What about that don't you understand? So yes the effect of the garantee is still there, just the bad PR image is gone, the money still bleeds."

8. BBH wrote on June 13, 2007 11:20 PM:
"What hapened to my comment from last night?????"

9. Disgusted wrote on June 13, 2007 11:48 PM:
"Mr. Tanner exemplifies the mindset of those who refuse to listen to the current Charger proposals. How many times does Mr. Fabiani have to tell anybody who will listen that the Chargers understand they won't get public funds to build a stadium? Public loser #1 (Aguirre) should explain to the public why other land developers are given sweetheart deals for land in exchange for infrastructure upgrades are OK as long as the Chargers name is not on the contract. When will the residents in San Diego wake up to the reality that the Chargers will soon decide to leave while the city continues to bleed money at the Q? Every day in where no discussion takes place about replacing that stadium is another day of wasted money - compliments of the city clowncil."

10. Steve K wrote on June 14, 2007 12:10 AM:
"The reason the Padres got the deal they got, was because the deal the Chargers got, on renovating Jack Murphy Stadium (now Qualcom) , which was supposed to keep the Spanoses and NFL happy until 2020, purportedly made it impossible for the Padres to earn a living in Qualcom. As soon as Petco was done, and San Diego was patting ourselves on the back, Alex Spanos announced that Qualcom was inadequate and the NFL deemed it unfit for Superbowl Games, even though the '98 and '03 Superbowls, in the renovated Qualcom, were great events. Now the Chargers want a deal like the Padres got?"

11. Daniel wrote on June 14, 2007 12:39 AM:
"Mr. Shea if you are getting your information from the UT I have to say you are more the idiot then Mr. Aguirre. Personnaly Mr. Shea I don't know you and am sure the description doesn't fit you. By the way I don't think of Mr. Aguirre in thoses terms either. He is the best thing that has happened in SD politics in 40 years. Lets be honest here in regards to who benefits from the Chargers presence in SD? What percentage of SD's 3 million people? It has to be a small percentage. So why should the many subsidise the few? The Chargers need to step up to the plate take the bull by the horns and quit asking for our tax dollars. Sorry but our streets are more important then the Chargers making the Superbowl."

12. Ray wrote on June 14, 2007 12:42 AM:
"Giving land is the same thing as giving dollars. Not a tough thing to understand."

13. Richard Tanner wrote on June 14, 2007 1:07 AM:
"Dear Disgusted: Just for information. There are no Charger Proposals on the table. The one the Chargers provided for the Q was withdrawn by the Chargers. They could not even get a partner to execute the proposal. All I was saying if the Chargers want to build a new stadium, let them do it and not require the City to provide anything. That gets the City out of the Stadium business."

14. Bob wrote on June 14, 2007 1:12 AM:
"Corporate welfare and politicians who have lost their backbones are the major reasons San Diego is in such a financail mess. Should the Chargers stay, of course, they are part of our community culture. Do I, as a taxpayer want to subsidize a multi-millionaire? No I don't. But it still continues today at their training facilty and just when the city was going to make some money at the Stadium, they gave that up too. So if the Mr. Spanos & Company want a another "new" state of the art stadium he and the NFL should pay for it. If taxpayers in other communities want to pay hunderds of millions for 10 football games a year that's up to them. San Diegans have been there and done that. The Chargers and the NFL are counting on others to do the same."

15. Bob wrote on June 14, 2007 1:12 AM:
"Mr. Aguirre's abrasive nature tends to overshadow the facts. The bottom line is the City can no longer afford Corporate welfare as Mayor Sanders has stated. This is especially true when your facilities major tennant only needs to use it 10 out of 365 days."

16. Mike wrote on June 14, 2007 1:59 AM:
"OK how about both Aguirre and the Charges just leave? Both are taking advantage of us, both are irratating, and in both cases San Diego would be better off without them. Mr. Spanos can't you find a city that wants you? Mr. Aguirre, will New York take you back? Please both of you...go."

17. Billy Bob Henry wrote on June 14, 2007 2:02 AM:
"Disgusted needs ot go back to school and get an education. GIVING away 60 acres of RIME MISSION VALLEY LAND to the Chargers is giving awayPUBLIC FUNDS-what part of that do you NOT understand Disgusted. Listen, the welfare scam Spanos et al have been pulling is OVER!"

18. The Roaming Gnome wrote on June 14, 2007 2:26 AM:
"Please refer to the most recent letter to the Editor today on this website. Aguirre is the perfect example of half truths and inadequately investigated situations both on the Charger issue and many other litigation matters that he has filed. Even the judges are tired of his antics."

19. Steve K wrote on June 14, 2007 2:48 AM:
"This competition isn't about football. It's about football stadiums--which NFL owner has the fanciest stadium, which team can wheedle the most out of their local governments; who can make the biggest, most lucrative deal!"

20. Tom White wrote on June 14, 2007 2:54 AM:
"What is all this whinning by the citizens of SD? The Chargers are not going to be in Qualcomm, they could very well leave. And for those of you that think this is a good thing consider the giant gapping hole in Mission Valley that you will continue to throw money into. $15 mil a year regardless if the Chargers are there or not. Send them on their way and continue to pay! Thinking like this explains how people like Mike Aguirre continue to get elected, it explains how the pension fund is so far in debt and it explains why this city is the worst run city in the country and a true embarassment to us all."

21. Caryl wrote on June 14, 2007 2:55 AM:
"What bonds are you talking about Mike? At best City Attorney Mike Aguirre's long-running membership among the intentionally uninformed has been confirmed and his continuous public misstatements of documented facts as related to the Chargers can be judged as criminally irresponsible at worst. With no shame to his game, Aguirre has once again publicly demonstrated his Peter Principled incompetence for all to see."

22. Steve K. wrote on June 14, 2007 3:16 AM:
"Seriuosly, Aguirre needs to calm down. He is over the top on any isue he can spew about. This isn't about sports... It's polotics. We will be paying whether the Chargers are here or not. The man likes to hear himself talk and talk and talk..."

23. George Hadjis President of Ogg wrote on June 14, 2007 3:24 AM:
"It is very sad to read the articles and to taste the poison coming from the city officials that seem to be pretending that they are protecting the city of San Diego from the big bad Spanos family. I have read the proposals and quite honestly think that it is the best thing that can happen to the city of San Diego. All we have to do is look downtown and see the metamorphosis that is taking place by the Gaslamp. Property values are up. Business is thriving and we as San Diegans are proud to bring visitors from out of town to this formally downtrodden area. Let's do the same thing in the Mission Valley area. Let's turn it into an asset long before it becomes a liability."

24. Brandon Ross wrote on June 14, 2007 3:35 AM:
"Aguirre is a tool. He needs to just shut his hole and let some negotiations take place so we can save the team. I was born and raised here and am going to be very angry if the team moves. I will place 100% of the blame on Aguirre. It will be tough on that narcissist when he finds out that he will never hold another public office because he is such an obstructionist."

25. Michael Atkinson wrote on June 14, 2007 4:11 AM:
"As a native San Diegan (now living in Orange County) and a past season ticket holder, I have followed the Chargers since they first came to town over 40 years ago. Watching this debacle from a distance saddens me. I can't believe how short-sighted Mr. Aguirre has become. Look to the future! The Chargers are positioned to win Super Bowls for the next two or three years; and yet the City wants to disassociate itself from a gold mine of tax revenue, visitor dollars, national attention and free Chamber-of-Commerce exposure and good will. Mr. Aguirre should be recalled for allowing his ego to let him contunue to force the city away from all of this positive national attention and revenue. How will be all feel when the Oceanside or Las Vegas Chargers win the Super Bowl one day? Dumb, if you ask me."

26. Caryl wrote on June 14, 2007 4:16 AM:
"What bonds are you talking about Mike? At best City Attorney Mike Aguirre's long-running membership among the intentionally uninformed has been confirmed and his continuous public misstatements of documented facts as related to the Chargers can be judged as criminally irresponsible at worst. With no shame to his game, Aguirre has once again publicly demonstrated his Peter Principled incompetence for all to see."

27. Tom Schiff wrote on June 14, 2007 4:27 AM:
"Aguirre is still the best thing to happen to City Hall (Tamminy Hall west) - since Mayor, later Governor, Wilson."

28. Mark in SD wrote on June 14, 2007 4:32 AM:
"What I've never been able to ascertain is what opponents of the Charger plan for the Qualcomm site envision for it, 10, 20 or 40 years down the road. The existing structure is now 40 years old, decaying, under-utilized and out-dated. It will in short order be devoid of any tenants, essentially standing empty. Vacant buildings do not foster any sense of priority when it come to doling out operating funds and therefore it can reasonably be assumed that the maintenance and upkeep will continue to be deferred until it becomes uninhabitable. I guess the plan is to let it decay for the next 800 years until it becomes a tourist attraction like the Coliseum in Rome. Maybe Loud Mouth Mike can provide some answers in between calling the Mayor a crook and trying to put the city another $100mil in debt by trying to"

29. Brian wrote on June 14, 2007 4:51 AM:
"Billy Bob, the city is losing money as long as that stadium exists. If the land under the stadium was worth so much, why wouldn't there have been companies lining up to work with the Chargers on building retail and residential space around a new stadium? There’s a lot of work (read: $$$) involved with making that land usable for anything other the parking lot that is there now. A new stadium in San Diego could hold hundreds of events and its status is directly tied to the existence of the Aztecs, Super Bowls, Poinsettia Bowl and Holiday Bowl in San Diego. The economic impact from two SD Super Bowls would more than pay for the land that would be “given” to the Chargers. Keep in mind that the city owns that “given” land and would own anything built on it……"

30. Don W. wrote on June 14, 2007 5:02 AM:
"Vision is often discribed as closing your eyes and seeing the possiblities. Close you eyes and imagine The Q with new surrounding infrastructure, new hotels, office building, new residental units,30 acre park, and world class football statium. Now close your eyes and imagine the Q without a football team and no surrounding improvements. We need city leaders with vision and the will to do the right thing."

31. DC wrote on June 14, 2007 5:28 AM:
"One thing that seems to be missing from this conversation is at the time the Chargers and City renegotiated their lease they were engaged in costly litigation. It was revealed during that negotiating process that no matter if San Diego won or lost the lawsuit, the City was still going to lose money. Therefore it was in the best interest of the City to get something done. The renegotiated deal not only eliminated the ticket guarantee, it eliminated all the legal loop holes and trigger clauses of the previous lease so that all parties knew what to expect in future years. I think it’s time San Diego’s leaders quit looking back at mistakes of the past, and focus on how to do things better in the future. Thankfully Chula Vista and Oceanside don't seem to be hamstrung by pessimistic officials unable to work toward keeping the NFL."

32. Nate, recently fled wrote on June 14, 2007 5:31 AM:
"This issue is deeper than the City Vs. the Chargers. The issue is city mismanagement and and an absolute lack of leadership. Maybe more alarming is that the jokers running the show are elected officials. Apparenly, the people of San Diego are unable to see a good deal from a bad one. "America's finest city"? Dilapidated infrastructure, a joke of an airport, financial distress and a lack of hometown pride leads me to believe otherwise. Other US cities that nobody considers "finest" are doing unbelievalbe things, and working with the same tools (EX: Phoenix, Denver, Pittsburgh). In terms of ownership contribution and burden to the taxpayer, the Chargers proposal is unprecedented in modern stadium financing. Do your homework and you will surely agree. Problem is that our elected officials, and thus our population at large, are too shortsighted to recognize it."

33. JT wrote on June 14, 2007 5:33 AM:
"Hey Mike...maybe you can house your pet squirrels and rats ar Qualcomm and we can build in Balboa Park. By the way Mike, how is that global warming thing going and when will you end the war in Iraq? Any report on your progress in Darfur?"

34. BAN wrote on June 14, 2007 5:38 AM:
"Aguirre is just a liberal fool and Billy Bob is just as bad. They can't stand anything that doesn't fit in their little box of ideas and will use any means to defeat profit making business. There is more than the Chargers at stake here. With no stadium, there will no Holiday Bowl, Poinsettia Bowl and no Division one football from SDSU. This would be a major blow to this great city, not only from the money that would not be coming to the city, but because of how foolish this would look to people outside of the city. I believe there is a way to get this done, but not by the nay-sayers and defeatist like Aguirre and his cohorts. We need people working on this with long range vision, not people that are negative with no plans for the future."

35. readtheproblemtwice wrote on June 14, 2007 6:27 AM:
"Think back and remember all the fine civic leaders that have assisted SD in becoming the great place it is...Hard isn't it. Now think about those that caused soooooo many problems and prevented SD from becoming a better place ... not hard ... Does Mike A. want to be remembered as a failure or a visionary. I think the Ball Park is a success ... imagine being part of a Q success."

36. Disgusted wrote on June 14, 2007 7:10 AM:
"Mr. Tanner there is no longer a proposal on the table. If the Chargers are negotiating and studying proposals with other cities in the county, please share with me why the city of SD is not involved. I'll help you: the Mayor said, We don't have time nor the money. They do however have plenty of money to pay the fines for their lack ADA compliance and the stadium's bonds. Should San Diego try to negotiate with the Chargers, they might be able to remove that liability. ...but we'll never know, will we? We're too busy looking at the backsides of our Ostrich playing city clowncil."

37. Disgusted wrote on June 14, 2007 7:25 AM:
"Billy Bob, why don't you tell us how much money the city was paid for NTC? They all but gave the property away in exchange for development and partner fees. Additionally, if the Chargers attempted to offer $200 million in infrastructure improvements in the Mission Valley area, how does that make the land free? Ostensibly the infrastructure improvements benefit more than the Chargers. It would help San Diego to listen to voices than Mike Aguirre. I pity those of you who would think he is the best thing to happen to San Diego politics in 40 years! God Save San Diego, cause nobody else appears capable!"

38. Tom Dodge wrote on June 14, 2007 7:53 AM:
"Qualcomm wasn't built for the Chargers. Aguirre would like you to think that the recent bleeding of money out of Qualcomm is the fault of the Chargers, when the simple fact is that Qualcomm lost it's largest and most profitable tenant when the Padres moved downtown. That meant over 80 fewer events per year in Qualcomm. Over 80! And why is it that all our leaders act like the Spanoses are somehow evil for being able to negotiate a solid deal? What happened to "the buck stops here?" The ticket guarantee and everything else was agreed upon by the city. It's not Spanoses fault if city negotiators have the business acumen of third-graders. All the Charger-bashing does nothing but conceal the real issue--our civic leaders are incompetent. It's a tradition in San Diego."

39. Oh Please wrote on June 14, 2007 8:08 AM:
"Its hard to tell which side; Mike A--or the Charger spokes-folks are spining the biggest lie. The ticket guarantee was a stupid PR decision and a problem for City's Cash flow--but it had a short fuse, and for eliminating it the Chargers got a far better deal, then they had under the Guarantee. The Chargers continue to use wordsmenship to claim "No Public Funds, when they know full well, and in fact DEMAND, pubic resources. As Abe lincoln said "You can fool all the people some of the time,some of the peole all the time, but you can fool all the people all of the time. The Chargers are at stage two, believing they are fooling all of the people-but they miss the point, this is temporary-- Get Real Chargers , you actually have an oppertunity to present-Get rid of Mark, and the walnet shells where he hides the "public funds" peas--andtry honesty."

40. Dugger wrote on June 14, 2007 8:09 AM:
"Aguirre is right on this one. The City & the Chargers negotiated a lease that would pay the City $X over the entire lease term, or an average rent of $Y per year. The lease was backloaded with the Charges paying low rent in early years and higher rent in back years. After they benefited from the low rent, the Chargers reneged on the deal when the City was going to collect the higher rent that was necessary to average $Y. In other words, the City got hosed. Bruce Hederson called this one correctly when the deal was originally signed, saying the Chargers would exercise an escape clause that no one else was paying attention to. I say tell the Chargers not to let the door hit them in the ass on their way out of town."

41. Brian wrote on June 14, 2007 9:09 AM:
"I don't know how to correctly value the Chargers as a community asset and neither does anyone else. But how can getting rid of Qualcomm, building a state-of-the-art facility, keeping the Chargers, the Aztecs, the Bowl games and potentially getting back in the Super Bowl rotation possibly be a bad thing, especially if the city takes on none of the risk? It would mean actual revenue heading into San Diego's coffers, as opposed to the losses coming from Qualcomm's existence now. Would Jerry Sanders have to cut public funding for homeless shelters if there was another $25 million in his budget? That's pretty much the miminum net for the city if they rid themselves of the Q. Over 10 years, that's a lot of money San Diego could use elsewhere."

42. Disgusted wrote on June 14, 2007 9:16 AM:
"Oh Please, IF our clowncil could negotiate its way out of a paper bag, they could in fact attempt to create a deal with the Chargers that would prohibit the use of public funds. The Chargers can only screw the pooch when idiots allow them too. They have been saying they understand that no actual funds are available ANYWHERE in California, yet they wish to remain. You should DEMAND that your city council begin negotiations on what to do with Mission Valley. It is a financial liability and will remain as such until the Chargers A) leave or B)rebuild their coveted stadium along with NEW INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT like they promised to provide in exchange for land. We'll never know if a deal can be done if a game of Ostrich is a political solution. WHY IS SAN DIEGO SO SATISFIED WITH DO-NOTHING POLITICIANS??"

43. Ray wrote on June 14, 2007 10:20 AM:
"Wow, how the hec did a tool like Aguire ever get elected? Did they do it by secret ballot and only handed them out to Aguire moron supporters? I just dont see how any City Official who happens to have any clue at all can possibly pass on the Chargers proposal for building a new stadium and having the City actually own it after they pay for it. Mike, you dont seem fit to manage a Walmart let alone the City of San Diego. If the Arizona Cardinals owner can get a state of the art stadium passed and built by those citizins, what the hell is wrong with the City Counsel in San Diego to even think they are getting screwed by the Chargers? Sad indeed"

44. Tom West wrote on June 14, 2007 12:50 PM:
"Aguirre continues the fine tradition that has befallen this great city of ours and that is our city government continues to be run by imbecilles. I even for a moment thought that Mayor Sanders would have a chance at getting something done but he has proven to be another in a series of weak leaders. But hey, we are the one's who are voting them in to office so we as citizens bear some of the blame. The Chargers should just concentrate on Chula Vista and Oceanside. It's not going to happen in Mission Valley. Ever."

45. Caryl wrote on June 14, 2007 2:21 PM:
"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 stadiums 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."

46. Tom West wrote on June 14, 2007 8:30 PM:
"Aguirre continues the fine tradition that has befallen this great city of ours and that is our city government continues to be run by imbecilles. I even for a moment thought that Mayor Sanders would have a chance at getting something done but he has proven to be another in a series of weak leaders. But hey, we are the one's who are voting them in to office so we as citizens bear some of the blame. The Chargers should just concentrate on Chula Vista and Oceanside. It's not going to happen in Mission Valley. Ever."

47. Daron wrote on June 15, 2007 12:40 AM:
"I wouldn't let Aguirre represent me in court for a traffic ticket. He is far less qualified to represent the citizens of San Diego. He attacks the Chargers because they're the only people on his s**t list that anyone's ever heard of. Then you get gems like this: "For example, city taxpayers will pay about $15 million in subsidies to the Spanos' this year while the team takes about $70 million from Qualcomm." Wow, Mike, did you come up with that all by yourself?? He continues to b*tch about a few million here and there, as a smokescreen to cover the REAL problems in this town. How about a BILLION dollars plus in guaranteed pension bebfits - in perpetuity - to city employees - of whom most never deserved paycheck #1 in the first place? How about the Sunroad building? How about the REAL problems??"

48. Caryl wrote on June 15, 2007 12:46 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 spin promoted by anyone, 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."

49. Shamrock wrote on June 15, 2007 3:38 PM:
"I find it utterly amazing that people actually support disgusting politicians like Aguirre. His attack letter on the Chargers is nothing more than grandstanding for the meek and shallow minded lunatics that follow him."

50. Steve K wrote on June 16, 2007 12:48 AM:
"Did anyone ever consider that maybe the Chargers couldn't find a developement partner for Qualcom, not because of Mike Agguire or the financial condition of the City, but because no smart developers wanted to get envolved with the Chargers, because of the way the Chargers treated the city in their previous deals? ...or maybe nobody wanted to be left holding the bag, with 6000 condos, in a real estate market downturn? The idea of a commercial/residenti developement, with 6000 residential units at the intersection of I-8 and I-15, and the rush hour problems this would create, always struck me as an outragious bit of urban planning."

51. GGA wrote on June 16, 2007 4:25 AM:
"To fellow city taxpayers, remember one of the basic rules of financial success is to always leverage other peoples' money to finance risky investments. Very telling indeed, that professional team owners (aka corporations) are unable to line up private "willing" investors in their stadium schemes, and instead stoop to duping naive fans via ad revenue-starved local media and in-debted local politicians. "Leverage or sell a 1000 or so of one's vast collection of multi-unit apartment properties for land and a stadium? Hah!!""

52. Rocky wrote on June 16, 2007 8:07 AM:
"Nice to have you aboard Mike. You stir things up and its about time somebody did. Hang in there and keep punching. The people of San Diego have waited a long time for someone like you to come along and flush out these corrupt, old Boys Club Buffoons. Thanks for showing the citizens just how bad this city has been run for far to long. Don't listen to these Die hard fans who think San Diego can't live without the Chargers. Besides our kids need better role models then these over paid jocks who have ruined the sport for a lot of us who remember what Football once was. unfortunately, its all about money now. Stay in there Mike and run for reelection so I can vote for you again."

53. Billy Bob Henry wrote on June 16, 2007 10:27 AM:
"Mike, let me make a prediction....I see a re-election in the very near future for you!"

54. Caryl wrote on June 17, 2007 1:27 AM:
"Based on his public track record, it is clear that Aguirre is consistently part of the problem and never part of the solution on any issue of major import faced by the City of San Diego and its citizens. I challenge anyone including Mike Aguirre himself to list his notable public contributions resulting in the resolution of public issues in the best interest of San Diegans. Such a list would be very short if not non-existent for Aguirre's forte is indeed to "stir things up" to the point that critical public issues can not be effectively resolved. Simply stated, the only role model Mark Aguirre is worthy of serving as is as a role model for embarrassing public behavior or how to promote oneself at the public expense of everyone else."

55. Rocky wrote on June 17, 2007 3:15 AM:
"Mike, don't pay any attention to those who think you are not doing your job. This city is so full of self serving public officials that most folks would hesitate to take them on. You rose to the occasion and they don't like it, so they continue to bad mouth you as do their followers. Just keep on doing what your doing and justice will prevail."

56. John Savino wrote on June 17, 2007 11:50 PM:
"Billionaire owner getting corporate welfare. That's the bottom line . Anyone without a personal financial interest in the Chargers has to be an idiot to not understand this."

57. ComedyFanWantsMore wrote on June 18, 2007 3:35 AM:
"Mike for Mayor!"

58. Sunny wrote on June 18, 2007 3:57 AM:
"Squirrely AGHguirre is destined to meet the same fate as Mike Nifong who got disbarred for breaking rules of professional conduct. Like Nifong, he's deceitful, dishonest and misrepresents facts/laws to ruin people's lives for his own personal agenda. AGHguirre has reached his peak of incompetence and has got to go. Too bad he's not gone already because each day he's in office is a huge loss to the City of San Diego not only in money but its reputation."

59. Rocky wrote on June 18, 2007 1:08 PM:
"Sunny, your are in denial. You got to take a closer look at the mess the city of San Diego is in. You just got to pay closer attention at what is going on. Mike is trying to right a lot of wrongs and the job in doing so would cause many a man to give up. But not Mike, he's in their swinging for the common guy and gal, so instead of being disrespectful throw a couple of kind words his way."

60. Rock On wrote on June 19, 2007 5:17 AM:
"Give the Chargers 60 acres of stadium land in exchange for a new stadium, park, multi-use development, new tax base, environmental clean-up and new infrastructure - without a penny being paid by the citizens? Well, considering the City is losing money on those very same 60 acres right now, and there is no where near as good an offer being made by anyone else, why not? This is a no brainer. Anyone who wants "a new park instead of a stadium" forgets the millions of dollars it would take to build it. And where would that money come from? We're soon going to have an eyesore stadium good for nothing but monster truck rallies and weekend RV sales because the city can't afford to do anything with it anyway. The Charger's offer is the best any NFL team has ever offered. Let's do it."

61. Rocky wrote on June 19, 2007 8:04 AM:
"You want to give the Chargers WHAT? Did I hear you say 60 acres of prime San Diego premium land? We have been giving to the Chargers ever since they hit town and you want to still give them more. I would rather see the Stadium collapse where it stands they give Spano's another tax payer dime. The stadium is good for many years and if its used for multiple events then that's just fine. It's the only space left in the middle of San Diego that can be enjoyed by many. Take the Chargers to Chula Vista or north county, or better yet "Out of Town". They are an expense we don't need."

62. Rock On wrote on June 20, 2007 3:58 AM:
"Rocky, please tell me how the city is making money off that 60 acres right now? Please tell me how the city will not lose money on that 60 acres once the Chargers leave? Prime real estate you say? Ok, who's offering a better deal to the city for it? Please tell me a better long-term proposal for that land that doesn't pretend 6 Aztecs football games and a few motocross events are the solution. Yea, don't expect any more Holiday Bowl games with a new stadium in Chula Vista. We have a largely wasted chunk of land at Qualcomm that nobody is offering a better future for. Please explain why 60 acres is not worth the city owning a new stadium, new infrastructure, new tax-base with mix-use development, and critical environmental clean-up?"

63. Rocky wrote on June 20, 2007 7:48 AM:
"Rock On, you talk like a developer. Once that property gets into the hands of a Spano's then it becomes their own little private playground. Look how they have screwed the city so far for all these years. Petco is a good example of the sports minds of today. We the sports owners play and the little guys pay. What so important about the Holiday bowl? Mixed use for Qualcomm is whatever the folks want. How about those monster trucks, how about the slalom races, and the swap meets, etc. The first thing to come will be the stadium followed immediately with wall to wall high-rise condo's and apartments. Then as time goes by the stadium parking lot will slowly disappear to be taken up with more development until there is no parking. Then you will park many miles away from a stadium event and shuttle back and forth. Presto, more congestion."

64. Rock On wrote on June 21, 2007 4:28 AM:
"So Rocky, are you against the Spanos family, the plan as presented, or both? Decent legal representation (don't look to Aguirre for it) could help ensure the City gets what it bargains for. But MY question to you is if the Chargers stuck to their proposal, what is so bad about it compared to the alternative - nothing but costing the City money? I'm no developer, just pragmatic. I want what's best for my City, too, and the current "plan" by the City for Qualcomm is assinine. Even the Aztecs said they want out of the stadium on TV this morning. I say put it up for a vote by the people. Have both sides make their pitch, and WE will make the call, since our elected officials are too gun shy to do the obvious."

65. Rocky wrote on June 21, 2007 8:01 AM:
"Well Rock On, first of all I don't trust sports franchise owners. The Chargers have worked the city over pretty well over the years. Further, I have little faith in city government to not be hood winked into another bad deal that will haunt us for another decade or two. But the real kicker is giving up 60 acres of Mission Valley terra firma to be developed by an entity that is only interested in profit for themselves. Once that 60 acres is gone it is gone forever. If you like Condo's and Congestion than you will love the valley if this plan ever came to fruition. I think San Diego deserves better. The only open space that will be left will be our freeways, and you know how crowded they are getting."