The Chargers yesterday challenged the city of San Diego "to avoid any 'half-baked scheme' to get them a new stadium," according to Roger Showley of the SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE. Chargers Special Counsel to the President Mark Fabiani told the advisory group that the likely cost of the stadium "could exceed the current estimate" of $1.2-1.5B. Fabiani: "This is a real world fact that simply cannot be ignored when putting together a truly workable plan." San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer's nine-member stadium task force "has until this fall to present a site and financing plan." Committee Chair Adam Day said that the group "agreed with Fabiani that producing an insufficient plan was not the objective." Fabiani, who released his comments to the task force in a six-page statement, "did not offer any specifics on size, design, funding or location other than to refer the task force to previous site studies." Fabiani "offered two principles and four 'stress tests' for the stadium task force members to consider as they evaluate choices" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 2/17). Fabiani's remarks to the task force can be read in full here.
|
FABIANI'S PRINCIPLES & "STRESS TESTS" FOR STADIUM TASK FORCE
|
| Principle I |
"Resist the political pressure you will feel to make a proposal simply for the sake of making a proposal." |
| Principle II |
"The Chargers have no intention of quietly participating in an effort to provide political cover for elected officials." |
| Stress Test A |
"Is the proposal one that has a strong chance of being approved by two-thirds of the public?" |
| Stress Test B |
"Are the mayor and a strong majority of the City Council prepared to support the recommendation of your task force?" |
| Stress Test C |
"Does the proposal recognize the economic realities of our local marketplace and of the NFL?" |
| Stress Test D |
"It should not be enough to suggest a plan that might succeed under perfectly controlled laboratory conditions -- but that is unlikely to succeed in the real world of San Diego politics." |
TO THE POINT: ESPN.com's Eric Williams wrote the Chargers "provided a blunt assessment on the city's effort to build a new NFL stadium that would keep the team in San Diego -- come strong or stay home." Fabiani in his statement "emphasized the team's effort to get a new stadium built in town, and the potential threat" of the Rams or Raiders moving to the L.A. market, where the team says 25% of its ticket base comes from. Fabiani: "If another team -- or two teams -- enters the L.A./Orange County markets, most of that Chargers' business there will disappear. This will put the Chargers at a significant competitive economic disadvantage." Fabiani also said the Chargers "have no intention of quietly participating in any effort to provide political cover for elected officials." Fabiani: "Simply put, we have no intention of allowing the Chargers franchise to be manipulated for political cover -- and we will call out any elected official who tries to do so." He added, "The Chargers do not intend to waste years of time and millions of dollars on a proposal that city leaders simply do not have the capacity to actually implement. In short, a proposal that looks good on paper should not be sufficient. What we all need is a proposal that our city government has the capacity to actually implement" (
ESPN.com, 2/16). In L.A., Sam Farmer writes the Chargers "warned San Diego to either step up or step aside in the pursuit of a new NFL venue, and again raised the specter of a relocation" to L.A. The Chargers "made no secret of their displeasure with the forming of yet another task force, put in place to recommend a site and financing plan for a new venue" that could go on the November '16 ballot (
L.A. TIMES, 2/17). In San Diego, Dan McSwain writes Fabiani's statement at first glance "might look like a series of threats designed to discourage politicians and pave the way" to L.A. McSwain: "But I see this as a refreshingly honest opening gambit." San Diego’s fact-finding exercise "may have turned into an actual negotiation, with the Chargers showing they will be happy to conduct much of it in public" (
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 2/17).
BOLTS BOLTING? In San Diego, Matt Calkins writes the Chargers "aren't gone, but that day has never felt closer." The language in Fabiani's statement "sounds like 'later!'" and the tone "suggests 'ta! ta!'" Calkins: "This doesn't look good at all" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 2/17). A UNION-TRIBUNE editorial calls Fabiani's statement "no-nonsense talk about what it will take to get a stadium built." But a "more pessimistic reading" suggests the Chargers "are as good as gone and the team is merely positioning itself to blame City Hall when the team bolts to L.A." But it "makes no sense for Fabiani to continually poke a finger in the eye of the one guy, Mayor Faulconer, who is trying to finally develop a stadium proposal that will be good for the team and City Hall and will be accepted by voters." If the Chargers "are not willing partners in that process, then this is all a waste of time" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 2/17).
LA LA LAND: In L.A., Jennings & Logan cited campaign finance reports as showing that Hollywood Park Land Co., the development company that "is on a fast track to building a professional football stadium" in Inglewood, Calif., has "poured more than $100,000 in campaign contributions to elected city officials." The S.F.-based developer, which has included Rams Owner Sam Kroenke since last year, "donated $118,500 to the city's mayor and two Inglewood city councilmen" since '06. The bulk of the contributions went to Inglewood Mayor James Butts, a "staunch supporter of the proposed 80,000-seat, NFL-quality stadium" (L.A. TIMES, 2/16).
