voiceofsandiego.org: Slop... Chula Vista Mayor: Chargers Don't Need Vote

Like I said, there's a lot to talk about today. But one thing quickly: I chatted with Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox last night after the State of the City address.

Yesterday, the Union-Tribune reported that the Chargers were going to ask the Chula Vista City Council to vote to approve some kind of study that the Chargers would pay for that would determine how much a new stadium would cost in Chula Vista and how it might be financed.

I asked Cox if that was something she'd do. Would the City Council vote to approve such a study? The Chargers' special counsel Mark Fabiani told the U-T that the Chargers would see such a vote as a "hint" of Chula Vista's interest in pursuing a new stadium.

What'd the mayor say?

Yeah, love those Chargers. Have you seen Gaylord anywhere?

"I don't anticipate a vote of any kind," Cox told me. "I don’t intend to ask the City Council for anything but to listen to what the Chargers have to say."

If the Chargers were looking for a hint, that might just be it.

Cox is fully focused on Gaylord Entertainment's languishing proposal for a new resort and convention center on the bay front. Unquestionably, it's her highest priority.

She questioned how the Chargers and city could afford a new stadium. It's money going out in her mind. On the other hand, to her, Gaylord represents money coming in. But not only that, Gaylord is really the savior of that city reeling from its position as "ground zero" for foreclosures (she used those words last night -- the characterization first appeared here.)

Cox acknowledged that the city had wrongly based its finances on the housing boom -- development impact fees and other one time boosts in revenue that came from the building bonanza that occurred in the first half of the decade. And now, as those revenues dry up, Cox says they will be replaced by what she believes will be massive inflows of tourist dollars from Gaylord.

In other words, Gaylord will bring in so many guests who pay hotel-room taxes and sales taxes while staying here that Chula Vista will be saved.

In that world, Gaylord is the savior. The Chargers stadium is just a costly dream. They could proceed in tandem except that, as I wrote recently, going forward on the Chargers too fast would potentially cripple Gaylord's project.

I asked again, why not just vote on whether the Chargers should proceed on the study of the cost of the new stadium? After all, the Chargers are going to pay for it.

Cox said the Chargers don't need the city's permission to do that.

"(Chargers President) Dean Spanos doesn't need us to tell him how to spend his money," Cox said.

This idea of putting a stadium in Chula Vista will die pretty quick at this rate.

-- SCOTT LEWIS

Chargers deal with Chula Vista looks to be DOA.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
January 11, 2008 1:01 pm

How can the City afford $170 million to subsidize Gaylord??? That's a question she should answer!

Posted by Cox is a disaster!! | reply to this comment
January 11, 2008 1:36 pm

The Chargers can make this deal happen if they can persuade SDSU to open a campus that specializes in a high technology in the eastern center. That would be a win-win that the voters can't refuse. And SDSU desperately needs a place to play when the Q is torn down sooner than later.

Posted by Spirit of CV Truth | reply to this comment
January 11, 2008 2:30 pm

This is all playing right into Spanos's hands. He never had any intention of remaining in the San Diego region. Now he can hit up some other local government, the NFL, some big corporations, etc. and build a new stadium with luxury boxes, corporate sponsors, a nice t.v. market (and not give the stay at home fans the game for free like in SD)...and ultimately increase the value of the team SIGNIFICANTLY. Then the family can cash out for a billion or so...and the assets can be nicely spread out between all the kids, grandkids, etc. Absolutely genius!!!

Posted by Dukestir Wilkes | reply to this comment
January 11, 2008 3:51 pm

Re: Response #3 from Spirit of CVTruth: Just a brilliant suggestion. Brings to mind, though, an poetic fragment from an actual genius, T.S. Elliot: "...We are the hollow men We are the stuffed men Leaning together Headpiece filled with straw...." 'Spirit' advocates taking two terrible ideas and, like Elliot's proverbial Hollow Men, expecting them to stand up by leaning into each other. Exactly where are the funds supposed to come for these unrelated projects, especially with Cal State running a $14 billion deficit and growing? Very reminiscent of the selling of Petco Park by John Moores. The baseball park wasn't financially viable on its own merit, so it was joined with a S.D. City giveaway of valuable downtown property to build a forest of condos...soon to in foreclosure and future tenaments. The particularly amusing thing is that 'Spirit' is probably one of those 'no new taxes under any circumstances'.

Posted by A Portofinoan | reply to this comment
January 11, 2008 7:48 pm

It is surprising but welcome to read that the mayor is finally getting it about development fees, but unfortunately she has bought into another fantasy with Gaylord. What I don't understand is how the city will afford Gaylord's fire, police and other needs for the 20 years or more every dime-tax increment, TOT, and sales tax will need to go to paying off the bonds which will be at least 300 million. Actually I have heard that all the infrastructure for the whole bayfront will need to be done before any construction starts. This could cost well over 500 million dollars. I don't see how Gaylord is ever going to pencil out.

Posted by Theresa | reply to this comment
January 11, 2008 8:04 pm

The total "up-front" subsidy to Gaylord should exceed $300,000,000 not &170 million. Some of the subsidy is supposed to be paid back with future tax offsets. Be aware the payback does not go the cities General Fund in goes into the redevelopment agency and can only be used to support development. The Gaylord deal is a shame of the worst kind! It is smoke & mirrors to the citizens of CV. Worse than SD pension debacle! If it happens, CV will be looking back cursing the politicians that allowed it to happen.

Posted by Simon | reply to this comment
January 12, 2008 7:11 am

RECALL COX! She has driven Chula Vista into the ground. She's trying to kill the Chargers stadium, fumbled the Gaylord deal and dropped the ball on Chula Visa's University. Then she cuts City services while her and her chief of staff continue to recieve their six figure salaries. She is a horrible leader and probably the WORST Mayor Chula Vista history. RECALL COX NOW AND PUT SOMEONE IN THAT CAN GET SOMETHING DONE! Go Chargers!

Posted by Ricardo F | reply to this comment
January 12, 2008 9:52 pm

Dear Porto- Get your ducks in order before you spout. SDSU has millions to play with that exists in their private development foundations. Have you not followed their efforts to expand the current campus? They are not subjected to the standard budget cuts when they use foundation money. The fact is this: CV west side dies unless something is done and done fast to raise revenues fast. The whole west side is a disasterous mess thanks to the negative nabobs that have chased away business and commerce for years now. The nabobs recently chased away Home Depot. That site now sits vacant and is home to the dope dealers, drunks, hookers and a whole host of criminals. The same can be said of the vacant land that sits next to the KOA campground. There is an undeniable economic multiplier that occurs when business invests into a community.

Posted by Spirit of CV Truth | reply to this comment
January 13, 2008 8:26 am

The Chargers have had more than enough time to evaluate possible sites for both the stadium AND the necessary ancillary development needed to pay for it. Why SHOULD Chula Vista participate in funding the study, since it is something that the Chargers should have done on their own?

Posted by politicalsanity | reply to this comment
January 14, 2008 7:12 am

It's about time someone in Chula Vista gives the Chargers a big hint: go away! Football teams do not bring revenue into a city as much as drain the city of much needed infrastructure including the requirement for additional safety personnel, trash, water, sewer and let's not forget the citzens' land they want for free. goawaychargers.com If Fabiani/Spanos were serious about CV they would have already performed economic studies and realized the City would never agree to a stadium. This is fine theatre at its best. Thank goodness they left Oceanside alone!

Posted by Coast Watcher | reply to this comment
January 14, 2008 11:50 am

Keep the stadium right where it's at! We already have a perfect location, with parking and a trolley stop. If we truly need a new stadium, we should find creative ways to rebuild on the same site while the Chargers go play in another city for a year. As for the San Diego State Aztecs--who we should also recognize as users of the stadium--I don't know. But whatever it is we do, it should not be corporate welfare giveaways to the famously greedy Spanos family.

Posted by Richard | reply to this comment
January 14, 2008 2:06 pm

What is this game, football? Bunch a big guys on two teams trying to kill each other and especially kill whoever's got the ball. Better if these guys wear camoflage gear than sissy color outfits. This game's just like war, I think. Shock and awe. Athleticism? Teamwork? I don't think so. Brute force more like. Talk about steroid use in baseball. Hah! You gotta be constructed part ape to play professional. What's the game got to do with a new stadium? It's like that movie "There will be blood" -- some people will do anything for money, play upon weaknesses, mislead, manipulate, deceive, overlook more pressing concerns. The game and the stadium go together -- both stupid.

Posted by Aardvarkian | reply to this comment
January 14, 2008 6:57 pm

Ok lets get some truth going again: 1. The Chargers are paying the bills and have done so to date on any studies. That is a fact. 2. We don't know what expense if any the city will incure. It has been made clear to the Chargers that they have to pay for their own stadium. 3. Qualcomm is dead. Over. Done. The land is toxic and can't be built on for many years to come. Spanos needs the acres to build retail and condos to pay for the stadium. They can't do that at the Q. 4. Go look at Glendale AZ to see what they have done with their stadium and hockey arena that sit side by side and tell us that these venues do nothing for a city. They have vibrant retail and paved roads that CV can only dream about.

Posted by Spirit of CV Truth | reply to this comment
January 14, 2008 9:45 pm

"Spirit" has one BIG issue wrong! The Chargers use double talk and say that they will privately finance the stadium...if the city gives them 100 acres to develop into homes and commercial properties so that revenue can pay for the staudium. If the city gives them 100 acres, that's about $100 million in value. So who is paying for the stadium? The city could sell those 100 acres and get $100 million in cash. That pays for a lot of streets and parks. Don;t be fooled. The Chargers are out to make money. Keep your eye on the ball! Go Mayor Cox!!!!

Posted by 20/20 vision | reply to this comment
January 15, 2008 9:26 am

20/20: there is not an ounce of truth to your accusation. Prove it by having something in writing. The fact is that the Chargers to date have not been promissed anything by the city of CV. The fact is also this: there is no proposal on the table by the Chargers. So this hysteria and rush to judgement strongly suggest hidden agendas by those who seem to want to stir up a pot of false anger against the city and the Chargers. Lets hear all sides out. If one has an agenda they ought to be adult enough to admit it.

Posted by Spirit of CV Truth | reply to this comment
January 15, 2008 9:23 pm

One needs to look a bit into the most recent jobs of Ms. Cox and see her actions concerning monetary items. A pattern may develop and it will be little wonder why Chula Vista is facing the deficit it is. How many more homes was she expecting to be built in eastern Chula Vista?

Posted by The Roaming Gnome | reply to this comment
January 15, 2008 10:43 pm

Gnome, a correction for you is in order. Cox inherrited the mess from Steve Padilla. Padilla and city manager Rowlands spent the money. Cox had nothing to do with. The accomplices on the spending spree were Castaneda, McCann and Rindone. They all wanted to be Mayor and were willing to go along to get along all too ofter to curry favor with Padilla.

Posted by Spirit of CV Truth | reply to this comment
January 19, 2008 5:28 pm

Chula Vista Mayor: Chargers Don't Need Vote

Published: Friday, January 11, 2008 12:04 PM PST

-- SCOTT LEWIS

Scott Lewis on Politics

The Scott Lewis on Politics blog, abbreviated cleverly as SLOP, is a collection of observations, insights and the occasional scoop on public affairs in San Diego. Please feel free to e-mail Scott at scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org.

twitter.com/vosdscott

Listen to voiceofsandiego.org's radio program on AM 600 KOGO: Latest Episode (November 8): Scott Lewis and Michael Zucchet talk about the city's budget

Subscribe to the Podcast Feed

Subscribe to this RSS Feed