San Diego officials yesterday announced that a citywide vote on a possible new Chargers stadium "could happen as early as Dec. 15," a few weeks before the January window the NFL has "tentatively set for teams to apply for relocation" to the L.A. area, according to David Garrick of the SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE. Officials said that an election "could be held that quickly if ongoing negotiations with the Chargers about a stadium financing plan are accelerated." A deal "would have to be reached and the City Council would have to approve the ballot measure by Sept. 18, because state law requires at least 88 days to elapse between a city placing something on the ballot and a public vote taking place." The announcement came "shortly after the second negotiating session between the city and the Chargers." San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer said that the parties agreed to "have a third meeting that hasn’t been scheduled but will take place in 'the next couple days.'" The June '16 primary and the November '16 general election have "previously been mentioned as likely times for a public stadium vote." San Diego would "quicken the process by opting not to have the ballot measure be an initiative, which would have required the time and expense of gathering signatures from thousands of registered voters." The city would "cover all of the election costs," with $2M being a "rough estimate." The ballot will "likely be based, at least in part," on a $1.4B financing plan released last month by Faulconer’s stadium task force. Among the public contributions in that plan are $121M "each from county and city taxpayers" and $225M "from selling city land at the Qualcomm stadium site where the new stadium would be built." The proposal also includes a $300M "contribution from the Chargers" and $200M from the NFL (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 6/9).
NO ROOM FOR ERROR: In San Diego, Kevin Acee writes the proposed timeline to get to a Dec. 15 special election is "fraught with challenges." The commitment by the city to an election will "bring out the anti-stadium factions that have until now been relatively quiet," and those folks "have a right to be heard." But what Faulconer's office did yesterday is "all that could be asked at this point." Acee: "It is a start." At the very least, the Chargers are "now obligated to show why the city/county proposal won’t work." They "better do an excellent job at that if it’s the road they choose, because they would be battling the perception they simply don’t want to stay" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 6/9).
DOWN BY THE RIVER: In St. Louis, David Hunn reports the proposed stadium for the Rams "has already cost taxpayers" $3M. Five invoices released late last week from financing advisers, railroad track engineers, contract attorneys and management show that the public board that owns and operates the Edward Jones Dome "is paying nearly all of the bills." The state is "covering some financial advice" (ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, 6/9).
