Two ballot measures that "could have brought a combined convention center annex and Chargers stadium" to downtown San Diego were "soundly defeated" yesterday by voters, according to David Garrick of the SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE. The results "could prompt the Chargers to exercise an option they have to relocate" to L.A., but the team "may decide to search for another local stadium solution instead." Measure C, which included a hotel-tax increase sponsored by the Chargers, received support from 41% of voters, "far short" of the 66.7% needed for approval. Measure D, which also had a hotel-tax increase and was placed on the ballot by environmentalists and other community leaders, received support from 40%, "similarly short of a two-thirds majority." Chargers Chair Dean Spanos "posted a letter to fans on the team’s website after midnight thanking all those who helped put Measure C on the ballot." He said that there would be "no immediate decision about the way forward." He wrote, "In terms of what comes next for the Chargers, it’s just too early to give you an answer." Garrick notes the team "has until Jan. 15 to exercise an option to move" to L.A. and join the Rams. The Chargers spent "millions on TV and radio commercials and launching a strong ground campaign including volunteers and paid professionals knocking on doors throughout San Diego." Under Measure C, the Chargers would have contributed $650M for the stadium portion of the project, using $300M from the NFL and $350M "from the team, licensing payments, sales of 'stadium-builder' ticket options to fans, and other private sources." Under Measure D, the only public subsidy to the Chargers "would have been land" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 11/9).
TWITTER REAX: CBS Sports Radio's Doug Gottlieb tweeted, "San Diego lost the Final Four, Super Bowl, Bowl Championship Series and likely the Chargers last night by saving tourist's money. Congrats." Dallas Morning News' Tim Cowlishaw: "We NEED the San Diego Chargers, not the damn Los Angeles Chargers." In light of the MLB Rangers ballpark bill passing, the N.Y. Times' Ken Belson posted, "Blue state CA says no taxes for rich team, red state TX says yes" (TWITTER.com, 11/9).
WHAT'S NEXT? USA TODAY's Brent Schrotenboer notes besides L.A., the Chargers' options are "limited or riddled with uncertainty." Spanos can "keep his team in San Diego’s Qualcomm Stadium, one of the oldest and worst stadiums in the league," or he can "search for other solutions in San Diego." It is "unclear where the Chargers would obtain funding for a new San Diego stadium." The California Supreme Court "eventually could remove the two-thirds approval threshold for tax hikes proposed by citizens’ initiatives like this." But even with a "favorable ruling, it might not retroactively apply to Measure C" (USATODAY.com, 11/9). In San Diego, Kevin Acee notes the sense from talking to prominent people on both sides of Measure C was that "virtually everyone was roundly confident a solution can be found." None had -- or "were willing to share -- a concrete idea." But they were "certain that once dialogue with multiple parties began, it could get done." The Chargers "continue to put out the vibe that they are in wait-and-see mode." Still, the consensus is that the Chargers are "staying in San Diego indefinitely." Acee: "Spanos wants to be in San Diego. The NFL wants to be in San Diego." However, Spanos’ claim that there is no Plan B "is to be believed" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 11/9).
IF YOU LEAVE ME NOW: In L.A., Vincent Bonsignore notes the NFL "covets the San Diego market and wants to stay there." Spanos "wants to remain in San Diego for now and forever." For everything L.A. offers Spanos and the Chargers, it is "just a chip to play." There "might come a day soon in which L.A. ceases to be leverage and becomes the only real option." But for now, Spanos’ heart is "in San Diego" (L.A. DAILY NEWS, 11/9). In San Diego, Dan McSwain notes it "seems likely that some mixture of emotion and prudence will drive the Chargers’ decisions about what comes next." The "logical business move is to bolt" for L.A. Their deal is "officially secret," but published reports put the estimated $2.6B of construction capital risk for the Inglewood Stadium on Rams Owner Stan Kroenke, "offset perhaps by licensing deals and sales of 'personal seat licenses.'” The NFL "would charge each team" $650M in relocation fee, "payable over 10 years." But after that, the Chargers "could look forward to annual revenue of easily double that in a new San Diego stadium" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 11/9).
