The Chargers on Friday "gave San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer a 33-page response to his long list of questions presented on April 15 about the team’s ballot initiative, which would raise hotel taxes to build and operate a downtown stadium and convention center," according to Dan McSwain of the SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE. The team said the initiative “would not impose any obligation on the city to pay for operations and maintenance and capital costs for the convention center expansion and stadium out of the general fund.” Overall, the team’s response "bore the hallmarks of extensive legal work and hewed closely to the language of the ballot initiative itself" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 4/30). In San Diego, Michael Smolens wrote, "The mayor hasn’t announced his stand and he certainly hasn’t told me what he’s going to do. But this really isn’t going out on much of a limb." It would "defy political logic for Faulconer to back the hotel tax increase for a downtown stadium-convention facility." Smolens: "If he’s not going to raise taxes for his top priorities, how in the world could he back a tax increase for a hotly disputed stadium, even if it mostly hits visitors?" Beyond Faulconer, it is "an open question as to how much it means to the Chargers to have other local elected officials lined up behind their hoped-for November stadium initiative." Smolens: "So what does Faulconer do? Does he come out strongly against it, proclaim it’s a bad deal for his constituents and becomes a leader of the opposition? Or does he demur and sit on the sidelines?" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 5/1).
SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO? A S.F. CHRONICLE editorial noted Bay Area residents "loathe corporate welfare and are savvy enough to realize that stadiums represent a poor return on investment for taxpayers." However, it "can be done" in Oakland, "with hard work, ingenuity and a commitment to the community." Raiders Owner Mark Davis "has applied too little of each while paying lip service to a desire to stay in the East Bay." His actions "have made clear that he wants an easy way out of Oakland." Meanwhile, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf "is staying the wise course: She wants the team to stay, but only with a deal that is fair to 'the Raiders, the fans and the taxpayers'” (S.F. CHRONICLE, 4/30). In Boston, Ben Volin wrote he is "having a hard time buying the 'Raiders to Las Vegas' theory as anything more than leverage for the Raiders to get a new publicly funded stadium from Oakland." It is "hard to see the NFL succeeding in Vegas." Having an NFL team in Las Vegas "might create some immediate buzz, but to think that the Raiders will draw 60,000-plus fans each game for the long term seems like a pipe dream" (BOSTON GLOBE, 5/1). ESPN's Gene Wojciechowski said Davis "has a better chance of relocating his team to Las Cruces than Las Vegas." Wojciechowski: "Kansas State has a better chance of winning the Super Bowl than the Raiders ending up in the 702." NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is "being polite about it," noting the Raiders are "simply exploring their options, but they'll need the approval of 24 of the league's 32 owners for a move." Wojciechowski: "Translation: Good luck with that. Officially speaking the NFL is allergic to Vegas and gambling and as long as those owners keep sneezing the Raiders aren't coming to Sin City" ("The Sports Reporters," ESPN, 5/1).
