The San Diego Chargers have thrown out lots of claims about roadblocks to building a new stadium in Mission Valley since the mayor’s task force recommended that location.
Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani, the team’s longtime stadium wars point man, has repeatedly included a gas plume under Qualcomm Stadium and its parking lots on his list of the team’s beefs with building in Mission Valley.
Statement: The (Qualcomm) site is polluted by a huge plume that has leaked from the gas tanks there,” Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani said in a March 16 KPBS interview.
Determination: Huckster Propaganda
It’s true that there was once a gas plume under Qualcomm Stadium.
We Stand Up for You. Will You Stand Up for Us?
Fabiani has been a Huckster Propagandist from his days with Bill Clinton. Thank you so much for staying on his case. VOSD could probably keep a person busy full time checking out everything this guy utters about anything. He's a paid prevaricator, that's all.
It's great news that the Chargers are fighting any stadium plan in San Diego. We will be far better off when the Chargers leave San Diego and we can sell the 166 acres to developers at FMV.
Mark Fabiani also emphatically stated that his client Lance Armstrong never took PEDs or cheated in his Tour de France victories. The Master of Disaster is just that. By calling him a Propaganda Huckster is an insult to all Propaganda Hucksters. Hucksters have feelings too you know.
Pardon me, but you'll have to excuse the Chargers. They say and do a lot of stupid things.
Before dismissing the claims of contamination at the Qualcomm site, you really ought to take a look at the County Grand Jury's report from two years ago, available here:
One thing to remember is that all the data coming out relating to the clean-up is based exclusively on what's been collected by Kinder Morgan and their monitoring wells, without any independent verification. And Kinder Morgan has been using a million gallons of water a day from the city's aquifer -- at no charge, no less, in this drought -- to flush the plume.
Don't you think that the city should have its own monitoring wells?
And I've heard the fumes emanating from the ground level of Qualcomm Stadium are truly noxious. I wouldn't trust Kinder Morgan's assertions without independent verification.
Thank you Nicole. I believe you just undid every single claim made in this article. I would be happy but this just might have proved my theory that the City's proposal for a new stadium in Mission Valley is not feasible. And that means that our Chargers are as good as gone.
@Nicole Larson --The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board would seem to disagree with the now outdated Grand Jury report.
@Edward Moretti All we can do is hope.
Well, I for one am one happy camper. This means that if the CSAG comes up with a reasonable and legal financing plan for a new San Diego multi-purpose stadium in Mission Valley then the Chargers will be happy to go full steam ahead with their plan. Of course, since it has now been proved without a shadow of a doubt that the Qualcomm site will not have to go through any pesky studies or lengthy cleanup process I'm sure the City will assure the Chargers that if they do in fact find anything to cleanup that the City will pay for it. That shouldn't be a problem since there's nothing to clean up anyway except for the possible cleanup of the groundwater aquifer that would cost $256 million for "unrelated construction work on the site" although I assume it would tie up related construction work on the site. Of course, this article doesn't really go into the details of that scenario so I can't comment on that. Hopefully, this also means that those $250 million in savings that Adam Day touted as the main reason for picking Mission Valley aren't tacked on to the construction costs of the new stadium if the City's case is thrown out of appellate court since the two are completely separate issues.
I'm also sure that now that we have all this evidence presented by these multiple experts that they will be ready to present these findings to the likes of Attorneys Corey Briggs and Mike Aguirre and make the likely hood of them tying up the stadium in red tape for years to come an impossibility.
Don't get me wrong. I actually love the fact that there is actually a newspaper in town that is actually practicing the art of investigative reporting. I think that this will actually lead to a better deal between the City and the Chargers. However, you are only doing half your job. While Mark Fabiani has been his usual bull in a china shop self, spouting all sorts of rhetoric no matter the validity of it, the Mayor, the City Council and the people who represent the Convention Center have also been claiming equally ridiculous things . My personal favorite was somebody from the Convention Center stating on the Scott and BR Show that if the stadium were built downtown that the Center would only be able to book weddings for six months out of the year.
Worse was the information contained in the press release from Council Members Alvarez and Gloria on Feb. 24. Everything in that memo was taken as gospel. Where was your investigative reporting then? Why no uproar that the memo seemed to take the hoteliers wishes as priority #1? Why no questioning of the timelines and costs of a downtown stadium ? Why no examination of the letter from MTS CEO Jablonski and all it claimed?
Investigative reporting is only investigative reporting when you do your due diligence to both sides of the story.
@Edward Moretti The "Convadium" would limit convention center bookings for 6 months of the year because the Chargers demand scheduling priority from the beginning of preseason through the potential playoffs. The NFL schedule is released in late April while conventions are booked up to years in advance. This is a real issue and the St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission has faced this exact problem for the last 20 years.
Sorry the facts don't fit your agenda.
Yet the Indianapolis Convention Center is across the street from Colts Stadium and they have no problems whatsoever. These things work out when all parties work together instead of looking out for their own personal interests instead of the common good.
And BTW-my only agenda, if you can call it that, is hoping that we replace the Q with a new stadium. If one side is always vilified while the other is treated with kid gloves they are doing us, the taxpayers and residents of San Diego a disservice.
@Edward Moretti None of your opinions are based in fact, that's a huge problem for you and every other stadium proponent. Claiming the Q's luxury suites are "like prison cells" and your inability to comprehend the scheduling problems of a shared "Convadium" proves that you can't be taken seriously.
The Chargers plan is completely similar to the one in Indianapolis. Just look at scenario E in the JMI drawings. The new expansion to the convention center and the stadium are, just like in Indianapolis, separated by a street.
And, if you have the time, read Nicole's comment from above. It includes a PDF from the County that basically disproves this entire article and proves my "ignorant" rantings pretty spot on.
@Edward Moretti WRONG, once again you are making up nonsense.
JMI's Scenario E is one building with the stadium actually on top of the main exhibit hall. You are allergic to facts, it's people like you that have nearly bankrupted San Diego.
@David Benz @Edward Moretti Although you are absolutely right while I was wrong about them being one building, one look at that schematic and the artist's rendering shows that there is more than enough room to separate the two (that's what's great about a design-you can always re-design it before actually construct it).
And BTW- it's people like the Mayor and the City Council who nearly bankrupted the City not people like me.
@David Benz @Edward Moretti You are again right. None of my assumptions were based on fact. They were only assumptions made on my half baked intuition. However, Nicole's post above goes along way in proving that most of my assumptions are true. Or are you now going to say that you believe Kinder Morgan's statements more than the County Grand Jury's statements. Who's agenda is wrong now?
@Edward Moretti You clearly do not understand the concept of a shared space. You can't have a convention in the same building that's hosting a football game. You also can't book any convention that would use the "Convadium" while it is reserved for the Chargers and that's from the beginning of preseason through the playoffs.
The Indy situation is not comparable, they are 2 separate venues. Every one of your posts are flat out ignorant. For once think before you post and do some research for a change.
@Edward Moretti It's my understanding that some agency will require soil testing before any construction is permitted. I don't know what they will find so I'm not going to make wild arsed assumptions. You should do the same.
@Edward Moretti WRONG. Once again you are making stuff up.
The main exhibit hall and its necessary support, mechanical, and loading areas are the same footprint area of the stadium(see pg. 32 of the pdf). There is no room to separate the two buildings which is precisely why JMI stacked them on top of each other.
Sadly it is clear you will say anything, no matter how wrong, to push your agenda. This is ridiculous.
I think a link from two years ago would have to be updated to current information for me to put any merit into it. Also, the City/Mayor and Chargers will always have their own agendas. It is up to the citizens to do their due diligence and take either's comments with a grain of salt. Unfortunately, most people believe what they want and do not look for facts unless they back their agenda. That is why we have so many people against a new stadium and keeping our team here. Its sad...
These determinations cannot possibly be true. I base my assertion on the well accepted fact that the NFL never obfuscates for the advantage of team owners. They love us all and want us to be happy.