San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer’s stadium task force yesterday released a proposal for a new $1.1B stadium that "could be funded with an array of revenue sources including large contributions from the team, the NFL, taxpayers and fans attending games," according to a front-page piece by Garrick & Weisberg of the SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE. The financing plan includes $200M from the NFL, $300M from the Chargers and $173M in bonds "secured by future rent from the Chargers." County and city taxpayers would contribute $121M each, but "no tax increases would be required because the money would come from each agency’s general fund over a 30-year period." The Chargers' rent "would start" at $10M per year and increase 3% "each year." In addition, the city would "sell 75 acres of the 166-acre Qualcomm Stadium site to a developer" for an estimated $225M. Fans would "contribute by paying ticket and parking surcharges that would generate" $111M over 30 years and by purchasing an estimated $120M in PSLs. Another revenue source "could be rent increases" for San Diego State football, the Holiday Bowl and the Poinsettia Bowl. The task force said that those increases "would yield an estimated" $43M over 30 years. But how one counts the rent, ticket and parking revenues is "already fueling the debate over whether the cost is mostly borne by public funds or private monies." The revenue proposals "would generate a combined" $1.4B, nearly $300M "more than the task force estimates the stadium would cost." That surplus "could provide the necessary wiggle room when the team and consultants hired recently by the city and county begin negotiating a possible deal to keep the Chargers from moving" to L.A. Meanwhile, Faulconer yesterday said that he "still considers a vote essential" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 5/19). Downtown San Diego Partnership President & CEO Kris Michell said, “They didn’t overstate numbers or understate numbers to make the argument. They’re very realistic" (FOX5SANDIEGO.com, 5/18).
IRONING OUT DETAILS: In L.A., Tony Perry notes Faulconer and San Diego County Supervisor Ron Roberts met recently with Chargers Chair Dean Spanos to "brief him on the outlines of the financial proposal." Spanos is said to have been "cordial but noncommittal." One "sticking point could be that Chargers feel the team is being asked to contribute far more than other NFL teams have been required to pay when their stadiums were built." Putting the issue to a public vote "might be the undoing of the plan" (L.A. TIMES, 5/19). Architect Dan Meis said that the Chargers’ new stadium should "be like an iPhone: simple, elegant and functional." He added that the proposed stadium should "take advantage of its mild climate and convey a 'California convertible feel.'” In San Diego, Roger Showley notes Meis "donated his design concepts, including renderings and a model, developed over the last two weeks, at the behest" of former NFL exec Jim Steeg, who is a member of the task force. Although many details "remain to be filled in," Meis came up with a few "main elements." The stadium footprint is "just about the same as Qualcomm Stadium but its shape is oval rather than round." Its size "would be about 1.65 million square feet and hold 65,000 permanent seats." Approximately "7,000 temporary seats could be added next to the scoreboard and tucked into other areas if San Diego hosts a future Super Bowl or other mega events." The field would be "excavated about 28 feet below ground so that fans would enter directly onto the concourse level rather than take escalators up to main level." A canopy would be "installed around the top rim of the stadium to provide shade" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 5/19).
GOOD START: In San Diego, Nick Canepa writes the task force "appears to have scored and taken the lead in the new stadium game." This was the "skeleton plan put together by smart, dedicated people." Canepa: "Bones will be picked by the football team, mayor and city council, and meat will be added here and there. But these appear to be good bones." If the franchise "turns this down, it simply will mean it doesn’t want to stay here" because there is "enough for them to remain -- maybe not L.A. money, but enough." This would be a "state-of-the-art facility, maybe not with the frills of the ones in Dallas or other cities, but plenty good enough." Canepa: "Most important, the plan doesn’t call for increased taxes to pay for the project" (
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 5/19). A SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE editorial states, "This seems to be a serious proposal that should be viewed as such by the Spanos family. ... Now that there’s a substantive stadium proposal, we share the mayor’s hope that the team will try -- sincerely -- to make this work" (
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 5/19). KNSD-NBC's Gene Cubbison noted "much is left to the imagination" with the new stadium plan, but "at least it's a starting point" (
NBCSANDIEGO.com, 5/18). The UNION-TRIBUNE's Steve Breen draws his latest political cartoon around the Chargers' stadium proposal (
UTSANDIEGO.com, 5/18).
NOT SO FAST: In San Diego, Matt Calkins writes under the header, "Stadium Plan Full Of Potential Problems." Calkins: "When you look a little closer, you can't help but wonder how viable some of these ideas are. You can't help but conjure up some skepticism about whether the Chargers -- or the citizens of San Diego for that matter -- will consider this plan reasonable. ... Give credit to the [task force] for spending hundreds if not thousands of hours figuring out a way to raise money. But as innovative as the proposal was, it probably also raised a few eyebrows." Hopefully "this is the start of a plan that keeps the Chargers in their true home town." But with "all the potential problem areas, 'start' is probably the operative word" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 5/19). In L.A., Michael Hiltzik writes the financing plan "sets a new standard for allowing the league to exploit municipal panic and using financial sleight-of-hand to make the process look painless." The committee proposing this plan "actually is proud of its handiwork," but they "should have kept working." Hiltzik: "What's most bizarre about this financing plan is that some of its most glaring shortcomings are depicted by the committee as great virtues." There is "still the chance that the Spanos family will reject this deal, if they think the public isn't putting up enough" (L.A. TIMES, 5/19). In San Diego, Kevin Acee writes, "For all that has been said and done, little of substance has been said and done. And because of all the time that has been wasted, precious little time remains" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 5/19).
