Chargers Trying Not to Step on Tennessee Toes
Thursday, Dec. 20, 2007 | For more than two years, those of us who have been following the story about the San Diego Chargers' push for a new stadium have been patiently waiting for one thing and one thing only.
We've been waiting to see an actual proposal. Not an idea. Not a suggestion. Not one of the many pie-in-the-sky imaginings that the city's boosters roll out without even bothering with logic. (Remember Herb Klein's suggestion that we "just put it in Barrio Logan"?)
|
| |
No, what we're dreaming of is a real, concrete proposal that the football team makes for how they could build a new stadium, where they want to put it and, most importantly of course, how they propose to pay for it.
But no. For two years I've been waiting to get a new proposal in my hands and chew on it. There's nothing like the taste of consultant reports and economic impact forecasts.
A real proposal -- an application for the community's consideration -- is what we've been waiting for.
Unfortunately, we're going to have to wait a lot longer than we may have imagined. Because if Chargers people put forward what looks to be the closest thing to a proposal they have now, they might ruin a small city's big dream about its waterfront.
Let me explain. The Union-Tribune reported recently that Chargers representatives and officials from the city of Chula Vista were "huddling" to see if they could agree on a site for a new stadium "by the end of the month."
There are currently two sites supposedly under consideration for a new stadium in the South County city. The first is along the bay front where that beautiful power plant sits now, punctuating the view of the ocean and bay with its glorious pillars and pretty plumes of steam emissions.
The second site is much farther to the east. It's far enough to the east where you start to forget how close we are to the ocean and start to remember how close we are to the desert.
No matter how they may artfully phrase it, city and team officials have strangled the idea of putting a stadium at this eastern site.
All eyes are looking at the bay front.
"From my personal perspective, the bay front site seems to be the leader," said Chula Vista City Councilman John McCann, who has tried to be his city's leader on the issue.
But it is comments like his that have started to get some people nervous. There's another suitor trying to dance with Chula Vista on its bay front. Gaylord Entertainment hopes to build a billion-dollar, 1,500-hotel-room resort and convention center. For more than two years, Gaylord and its own San Diego boosters have been waiting patiently for planners to finish an environmental impact report of the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan.
The report was supposed to be done by now. Port of San Diego officials, who are working on the crucial document, say now that it will be about three months.
But if the Chargers and Chula Vista were to decide they wanted to go ahead and out their preferences for a bay-front stadium plan, they would have to, of course, go to the port because the port controls the bay front.
And if the port heard a proposal for a new Chargers stadium and let it go forward, there would be a big problem. Port officials would have to redo their environmental impact report for the bay front and Gaylord, which is supposedly on the brink of a new announcement about its plans for the South Bay, would be hobbled again.
Chula Vista and port officials believe that they wouldn't be in danger of that unless and until the port commissioners voted on considering a stadium for the coast.
Until then, they're trying to pretend like they've never heard of the Chargers.
Stadium? Huh? Where? Here? Nah, really?
"As far as we're concerned, we don't have a project there at all," said Irene McCormack, the port's spokeswoman. "The board would have to decide whether or not they would want the Chargers stadium on that particular site. Then, at that time, it would become a project and we'd have to figure out how that would work into the EIR."
That's Chula Vista's impression as well. As long as a stadium on the Chula Vista bay front is merely an idea, like a floating airport or a high-speed train to Las Vegas, then the environmental review for the area can continue.
Some say that's not the case. Environmental attorney Cory Briggs said that an environmental review would have to be restarted if it could be determined that the city of Chula Vista was actually working toward a proposal for a stadium on the bay front.
One thing seems clear: If I got the proposal I've been hoping to chew on for the last two years -- if Charger fans for once knew what they were supposed to blindly support -- they'd kill the Gaylord project. And the Chargers don't want to step on those Tennessee toes.
"If at any point our efforts were going to interfere with the Gaylord project we would back off," said Mark Fabiani, the Chargers' special counsel.
So, the moral is, until the Gaylord/Bayfront Master Plan environmental report is finished, no proposal to build a new stadium on the bay front will emerge. And the bay front is all that's left, so no proposal for a new Chargers stadium is going to come up any time soon.
This is news to some who may have believed the U-T that a site might be chosen soon. Others who may have thought that the region or city of Chula Vista would see a vote on the issue in 2008 are also going to have to recalculate.
Chula Vista may be flirting with the Chargers, but it has a chance to make out with Gaylord and it doesn’t appear willing to do anything to miss out on that.
Please contact Scott Lewis (scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org) directly with your thoughts, ideas, personal stories or tips. Or send a letter to the editor.
Reader Feedback
Comments are now displayed with the newest at the bottom. Not sure you're seeing all of the comments? Click here:
Comments so far on this story: 1. Southof8 wrote on December 19, 2007 9:59 PM: "Nice job; good reporting." 2. Christopher Hall wrote on December 20, 2007 9:14 AM: "While this IS a great editorial, it may not have had its intended effect: for my part, this SLOP makes me never want to hear another thing about the Chargers moving from their current stadium. We just renovated the dang thing and the LT runs just fine wherever he plays ball. This stadium issue is ALL about the Sopanos Family trying to make more money for themselves -- it's not like they can't field a decent team on the budget they have! The complaints of leaky roofs are a joke -- go fix 'em. Screw the sky box complainers, 99% of the fans never use them. Let's get some perspective here -- if the Chargers could have made another city work, they WOULD have known by now, and what we all see is they can't even make anything work in the giant, sprawling, rich region of San Diego." 3. Poppa wrote on December 20, 2007 10:54 AM: "I'm all for a new stadium....financed privately." 4. Billy Bob Henry wrote on December 20, 2007 12:59 PM: "3. Poppa wrote on December 20, 2007 11:54 AM: "I'm all for a new stadium....financed privately...... FINALLY something me and Poppa can agree on......" 5. Richard wrote on December 22, 2007 10:43 AM: "The only logical location for the stadium is the EXISTING location in Mission Valley. It is centrally located, the trolley already goes there, and it doesn't require tearing up some other parcel of land and starting from scratch---only to end up with inadequate parking and traffic nightmares. But we should not give the land to the greedy Spanos family! I love the Chargers, but HATE Alex Spanos!!!! We need to get our city's financial house in order, and then we can proceed with rebuilding a new stadium at the existing location, hopefully with help from the private sector. In the meantime, the Chargers can play in L.A. for a season or two, while their new home is being built." 6. NativeSD wrote on December 22, 2007 2:25 PM: "As I lifetime Charger fan/Padres fan, native San Diegan, and avid sport fan, I would hate to the see the Chargers ever leave. They've become part of the social fabric of my life, as well as thousands of other hard working, tax paying, San Diegans. My history with both of these sports franchises began in the 70's and has lasted ever since, from attending training camp practices every summer (going all the way back when Coryell would practice at local high schools in the 80's), to being a season ticket holder for many years before having a family of my own, to nowdays- where I enjoy single game tickets to both Charger and Padre games with family and friends. I cannot imagine this town without either team. It's too bad neither Spanos and his legion of guns for hire along with strong city or county leadership can't stop spinning wheels." 7. worm wrote on December 23, 2007 3:57 PM: "Put it downtown next to Petco Park. Put in on the port land and get rid of the area they use for unloading and storage for the container ships. Of course we might lose 500-1000 jobs. Big deal. We don't need to be unloading ship 120 miles from San Pedro. The port district has turned into a hotel/tourist leasing business the past 20 years." 8. Coast Watcher wrote on January 5, 2008 2:13 PM: "Thanks for keeping us involved in the Spanos soap opera. When will people realize that having a stadium in their city just doesn't reap financial awards and indeed costs them tons of money for infrastructure, including trash, sewer, safety personenel & pensions, traffic improvements, etc? For discussions on the financial aspects please see link" 9. Coast Watcher wrote on January 5, 2008 2:13 PM: "Thanks for keeping us involved in the Spanos soap opera. When will people realize that having a stadium in their city just doesn't reap financial awards and indeed costs them tons of money for infrastructure, including trash, sewer, safety personenel & pensions, traffic improvements, etc? For discussions on the financial aspects please see link" 10. Steve K wrote on January 7, 2008 12:10 PM: "The Chargers won't leave San Diego--no matter what, we are a gold mine for the Spanos family." 11. Ryan wrote on January 11, 2008 5:35 PM: "Chargers are going to LA. It's gonna happen and I'll still be a fan when it does. It's such a waste though, as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with Qualcomm." 12. JT wrote on January 12, 2008 1:04 PM: "WELCOME TO L.A.!!! The Chargers are going to L.A., The Spanos family knows there is more money up there for them. You know they are already negotiating with L.A., good riddens Chargers, with all your band wagon fans, half of the fans used to be Raider fans until just recently The Chargers started winning. Thats your punishment for being traitors! Raiders 4 Life!!!!"
Feedback Rules
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.
Add Your Comments
|
Urban Discovery Academy responds to its critics.
Friday, May 16, 2008 -- 4:24 pm
He’s 'done negotiating,' but he’ll have to meet and confer with unions to get pension on the ballot.
Friday, May 16, 2008 -- 5:11 pm
More on the Bajagua scuttling.
Friday, May 16, 2008 -- 10:30 am
SURVIVAL IN SAN DIEGO
Filings up 103 percent over the year.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 -- 11:33 am
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Why are we allowing unreasonable people to demand that we spend money to disturb the seal colony that so many people enjoy visiting?
Thursday, May 15, 2008 -- 1:58 pm
CAFÉ SAN DIEGO
Marti Emerald can bring all of these assets to City Hall.
Thursday, May 15, 2008 -- 7:50 pm
COMMENTARY: SLOP
So much for it 'never crossing' her mind.
Friday, May 16, 2008 -- 5:19 pm
COMMENTARY: RICH TOSCANO
After the first year-over-year decline since 1993, San Diego job growth is back in positive territory.
Friday, May 16, 2008 -- 4:34 pm
|
|
|
 |