Programming note: This afternoon’s Culture Report will be the last – for a while, at least. We’re taking a bit of a hiatus to step back, refocus and figure out how Voice of San Diego in particular can add value to local arts coverage. Got ideas? Lay ‘em on us.
Oh, the suspense! Watching the Chargers dance unfold would almost be fun if public dollars – many, many public dollars – weren’t at stake.
Later today, city and county negotiators sit down with NFL vice president Eric Grubman and Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani. And Grubman’s going to ask a question: Just how does San Diego plan to pay for a new stadium? At this point, that financing plan is starting to resemble a rousing game of Jenga.
Remember, the mayor and City Council have removed the option of selling land around Qualcomm Stadium to help pay for the new stadium. So slip that piece out of the tower. They’ve also removed the option of developing that land to help pay for it. That’s another piece of the tower gone.
What’s left? General fund dollars, Scott Lewis writes, and that tipsy tower isn’t going to be an easy sell to voters: “Without tax increases, you have to admit that the payments on the new stadium will come at the expense of other city needs.”
We Stand Up for You. Will You Stand Up for Us?
I think cities are only beginning to realize how much this sports entertainment costs. Boston dropped out of the very expensive Olympics running. I think they're still paying off repairs to the crummy Big Dig project.
Los Angeles has facilities left over from the last time, but I bet you the Olympics Committee will demand all new facilities.
Olympics are expensive. So are ball parks and stadiums, and it makes no sense for the lucrative business of major league sports to beg for tax funding when they could easily afford to buy land and develop it themselves.
@barb graham --The Olympic Committee didn't demand all new facilities in 1984, and if they did, LA (if that becomes the chosen city by the USOC) will tell the Olympic Committee to pound sand.