AEG on Thursday warned that its proposal to build Farmers Field in downtown L.A. "could be jeopardized if state lawmakers fail in the next two weeks to approve special legislation limiting legal challenges to the project," according to Patrick McGreevy of the L.A. TIMES. AEG Chief Legal & Development Officer Ted Fikre said, "If we don't succeed in getting something this session, that will be a significant blow to the project, and we would have to reevaluate the path forward from here." Fikre said that it "will cost up to $50 million to complete design and environmental work needed to move the $1.2-billion project forward in the coming months, and legislation defining the process for resolving legal challenges will be essential." For the first time, he "outlined a possible legislative solution: Any legal challenge to the stadium project on environmental grounds would have to be resolved in three months, either through binding arbitration or a limited court review." Fikre said that AEG's "preference would be that no appeal be allowed after the initial decision by the courts or arbitrator, but talks with lawmakers may result in a limited appeal process after an initial ruling." McGreevy notes the "idea of custom legislation requiring binding arbitration for one billionaire's project drew opposition" from Natural Resources Defense Council Senior Attorney David Pettit. The NRDC "might be open to a bill that puts time limits on lawsuits in the court system," but Pettit said that a "three-month limit is 'unrealistic,' given that the environmental study on the project is likely to be 10,000 pages." California's state Senate Select Committee on Sports & Entertainment on Friday will hold a public hearing in L.A. "to examine whether legislation is warranted to protect the stadium project from environmental challenges" (L.A. TIMES, 8/26).
A TALE OF TWO CITIES: In San Diego, Nick Canepa writes while AEG and L.A. are "in a hurry" to bring pro football back to the city, "the NFL, which had done without an L.A. stadium for 15 years, is not." There will "have to be many, many more meetings and agreements on L.A.’s downtown stadium project." There also will be an "environmental impact report that has to be studied and approved," and then "there probably will be litigation to overcome, possibly a referendum." Canepa notes the Chargers "could leave after this season, move north and play football in the Rose Bowl until a new stadium is completed." But there are "no guarantees one will be built." Chargers Special Counsel Mark Fabiani: "There's a risk. There could be no leverage. You could be stuck.” At the same time, the Chargers are working on a new stadium project in San Diego, and Fabiani said, "Until you satisfy NFL owners and guidelines, you’ve got nothing, and that’s the truth. We have what no one else in the process has -- a team" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 8/26). ESPN L.A.'s Arash Markazi noted Fabiani is "hesitant to talk specifically about the advantages for the Chargers in playing in Los Angeles as opposed to San Diego," but he "loves AEG's idea of a downtown convention center expansion tied to a retractable roof football stadium." Fabiani: "We have an idea of building a sports and entertainment district, which we frankly borrowed from L.A. Live. We're proposing a retractable roof stadium, which is another idea we borrowed from what Tim Leiweke and AEG are proposing." Fabiani, who has traded jabs with Leiweke in recent days, concedes that "some within AEG have given him a hard time about the copycat proposal." But he said, "We think the world of Tim and AEG, we know them well. They're brilliant at what they do. We're not ashamed to borrow from their ideas" (ESPNLA.com, 8/24).
TIME TO SHOP AROUND? City of Industry Mayor Dave Perez on Thursday revealed that Majestic Realty Chair & CEO Ed Roski "has talked to Industry officials about the possibility of building retail stores instead of an NFL stadium." Perez said that Roski is "uncertain about whether his plans for an $800 million NFL stadium will ever come to fruition and wants a contingency in place." Perez: "(Roski) doesn't know where this stadium will go at the end of the day. I got a feeling if he can still get the football stadium, he would love to have it, but he's covering all of his bases." He noted that "long before Roski announced plans in April 2008 to build a 75,000-seat stadium at the site, he intended to use the land for retail stores and other businesses." But Perez revealed that "about a month ago, Roski expressed renewed interest in developing the site without a stadium." Still, Majestic Realty VP John Semcken on Thursday said that he "met with his boss Wednesday and that he's still committed to building a stadium." Semcken said Roski "looked me in the eye, and he said, `John, we are 1,000 percent closer than we were a month ago'" (SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBUNE, 8/26).
