The Chargers' $1.8B downtown stadium and convention center plan yesterday "got mostly tepid or negative reviews," but many politicians, community leaders and merchant groups noted they "would need more time to analyze it before taking an official position," according to a front-page piece by Garrick & Weisberg of the SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE. The primary concerns raised were the plan’s "potential adverse effect on local tourism and jobs, because it would increase the city’s hotel tax" by 32% and relocate a "long-awaited convention center expansion several blocks off-site." The Chargers "stressed that the higher taxes would be paid almost entirely by visitors from out of town, and that the public would cover about one-third of the stadium’s cost -- the same ratio in a plan that Mayor Kevin Faulconer proposed last August." Faulconer yesterday said that jobs and city taxpayers "will be his focus while evaluating the plan, which would require approval from voters in November if the Chargers gather the roughly 70,000 signatures needed to get it on the ballot." Several other Republicans "offered more harsh assessments of the plan." San Diego City Council member Scott Sherman said, "Once again, it appears the Chargers have chosen the path of most resistance. At first glance, I am not encouraged." Garrick & Weisberg note the negative reviews "have been bipartisan." Chargers Special Advisor Fred Maas in a video interview on the team's website "stressed that local residents wouldn't see a tax increase." Maas said, "There will be a lot of misinformation out there, but this is a visitor-based tax. So if you live in San Diego and you don't stay in a hotel, you won't pay one dime for the facility" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 3/31).
