Agreed. At least for the time they remain in SD County, which may not be too long.

I am about to join your club; Go Chargers

The sad thing is that we have had so many problems with our local government (the City of SD) that they have lost all credibility the locals (understandably). Now, when we have the opportunity to get a world class development, no one has the huevo’s to lead. I agree that Oceanside would be a tantalizing location when considering its relative location in SoCal, but I am still hoping and holding out for the current Q site.

I would love to see a game at your new stadium, but when Bidwell took the Big Red and left St. Louis, I made a pledge to never give the bastard another penny.

As a misplaced fan of the pitiful Cardinals and Sun Devils, I can tell you that the new stadium in AZ is a hit. I went over for the Bears game and what that stadium did for Glendale can happen in Oceanside.

Oceanside makes so much sense for the site because of the train hookup and proximity to Orange County. I’m sure that you and Jeff will want the Q site (and it ain’t bad) but I think the Bolts could touch ‘em all (to use a baseball term) in O-side.

As for the Bidwell family, well…well…I’ll refrain from the expletives

As for the reference to the pitiful Cardinals, well, you’re right. They stink. The owner is a fool. Nice stadium though. Resulted in the first Cardinal sell outs in… ages (ever?). And it’s going to be the home of the Superbowl next year. Maybe the Cardinals will go to the Superbowl and have home field advantage? Yeah, when pigs fly….

As for the Dallas Plowboys, they never actually played in Dallas. Texas Stadium is located in Irving. As for their new stadium, I can only wish it was located on the Pacific ocean floor.

Apella – You’re right that it’s all about ROI, but on behalf of the taxpayers we also need to be concerned about risk. How to manage/reduce risk, yet maximize returns and still attract the huge amount of capital that this project requires is the question of the hour. The answer is out there…

(Not hard to tell from which school I graduated, huh?)

I am also relieved to see that Detroit is not the only community that has this kind of issue, although if you really want a challenge.

I agree with you in the fact that there is much more at risk then the land issue. 500 million is not that much in business anymore and sure it is an amount that catches people ears because how many people have that amount them selves and that is why the Not In My Back Yard people use those kind of numbers. To be honest if the city was a business then 500 million is nominal amount in today’s business world. How many millionaires live in California alone, I would bet more then 500 total.

Two Ideas that automatically come to mind is first, you are right, add on additional uses for the stadium even if it means commercial or retail above the upper decks. I bet that would make for a great dinning view. Second is have the city lease the land to the company, they can barrow against the income and reduce the 500 million loss and offer an operational cost for the company. Same concept as any normal business lease back commercial deal. Once again a win – win for both parties. If worst comes to worst make a reit, bottome line is cities everywhere need to use what they have to the best that they can.

The question that you so well bring to light is Return On Investment for the community.

Keep up the great topics I will be enjoying them!

“Giving free land to billionaires…”

Misinformation!! This has been an ongoing problem. If you had read my post carefully you would know that I suggested that changes are needed in the deal that would give the City a return on the value of the land. This may be accomplished in several ways – a long term ground lease or a joint venture with a preferred return to the City are just two of many ways this may be accomplished. BTW, please recall the pristine land the City pretty much gave away (or sold at wholesale prices) in Torrey Pines. Do you think that companies like Merck, Pfizer or J&J are non-profits and need to be subsidized?? Or how about The Irvine Company buying a huge chunk of Eastgate Technology Park at a discount from the City. People were screaming about those deals then. But now we have the 3rd largest concentration of biomedical companies in the nation at Torrey Pines and we have many Fortune 500 companies with campuses in Eastgate. The employment and salaries/income generated by the City “seeding” these deals has created an enormous economic engine that has tremendously and positively benefited San Diego and will continue to do so for many years to come. Tax revenues have also soared as a result of these deals.

Look at what Petco Park has done for what was the worst part of downtown San Diego. We are talking Billions of $$ in private investment and huge increases in tax revenues for the City. It is a model that most City’s would kill to be able to duplicate, but few have actually pulled it off. The Qualcomm Stadium site is a natural for this same kind of thing. I am not talking about a giveaway but a win-win.

Unfortunately, your reaction is consistent with those few vocal people who caused the delays to Horton Plaza, the Convention Center and Petco Park, resulting in many millions of dollars in cost overruns and litgation expenses at the expense of all of us taxpayers. All are now considered to be “trophy” projects that most San Diegans are proud of.

Before you fully join the ranks of the uninformed in your opposition to a new, potentially world class mixed-use project at the stadium site, you may want to consider how to make a positive contribution as to how to make it work, rather than to sit back and blindly criticize it.