San Diego developer Floyd Kephart “submitted a refined plan for the Coliseum City mega development Friday amid growing doubt” that he can keep the Raiders from leaving Oakland, according to Matthew Artz of the OAKLAND TRIBUNE. Kephart's confidential filing “must include a proposal for financing the construction of an estimated $900 million football stadium adjacent to O.co Coliseum, as well as the redevelopment of nearly 100 surrounding acres into a mini-downtown full of homes, offices and shops.” He also is “required to disclose his financial backers and submit the final terms needed to get one of Oakland's sports teams to back the project.” Kephart’s initial proposal submitted in June was “widely panned, and he still doesn't have a buy-in from the Raiders, who are pursuing” a joint L.A.-area stadium plan with the Chargers. Kephart, who is “scheduled to address an invitation-only audience Tuesday morning in Oakland, declined Friday to discuss the filing, which is not slated to be released publicly.” Oakland Assistant City Administrator Claudia Cappio said that if Kephart's “final proposal fails to gain traction, Oakland and Alameda County, which jointly own the 120-acre Coliseum site, can cut ties with him when his exclusive negotiating rights for the project expire on Sept. 24.” Artz noted if lawmakers “like what they see this time around, they could also extend the agreement or move forward with a deal.” Kephart “has a daunting challenge in making Oakland's Coliseum City vision a reality.” He must “satisfy the Raiders and the NFL, which want the focus to be on the stadium rather than the ancillary development, and expect some public money for stadium construction” (OAKLAND TRIBUNE, 8/22).
IN NEED OF A RE-CHARGE? San Diego Mayor Mayor Kevin Faulconer wrote an op-ed for the SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE under the header, “Stadium Saga: The End Game.” Faulconer: “We have a compelling case as to why San Diego makes business sense for the NFL.” City residents are “rightfully frustrated that Chargers ownership walked away from negotiations without discussing finances.” Their recent comment that they are “committed to L.A. all but confirms the Chargers won’t be returning to the table in time for a January election.” A new stadium “can serve as an iconic home for Super Bowls, provide economic stability for the team and help San Diego taxpayers replace an aging facility." If the Chargers’ L.A. plans falter, San Diego “has the opportunity to end decades of bad stadium deals and get a new multiuse public asset at the same time” (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 8/23). In San Diego, Nick Canepa wrote if the Chargers "pack up and leave town," they should "take everything with them." The team name “should go right along with them” (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 8/23).
