San Diego mayor gets concessions, endorses team’s stadium plan

AP

The Chargers blew another lead and lost another game yesterday, but they may have gained something more important if they want to stay in San Diego.

According to David Garrick of the San Diego Union-Tribune, mayor Kevin Faulconer has endorsed the team’s stadium ballot measure after getting “financial safeguards and other concessions” from the team.

The relationship between the mayor and the team hasn’t always been so positive, but the thaw between the two sides could help toward some arrangement for the team even if the Nov. 8 ballot known as “Measure C” fails.

This is about working toward common goals that will get solutions for the public good,” Faulconer said. “We put aside differences to find common ground.”

Faulconer said the team agreed to eight concessions which strengthen the chance of success for the measure, which would raise hotel taxes from 12.5 percent to 16.5 percent to pay for a downtown stadium and convention center annex. The team agreed to cover any overages in construction costs or land costs beyond current estimates, and guarantees the city’s general fund won’t be used for the project.

The team also agreed to give the city all the revenue from non-NFL events at the stadium and committed to stay in San Diego until the initial debt on the project is paid off, as well as promising to pay off preliminary costs if the team leaves before construction begins, among others.

Measure C would require two-thirds of the vote to be approved, but having Faulconer on board seems to be a strong step toward its chances. If approved, the Chargers would pay $650 million for their share of the stadium portion of the project, with $300 million of that coming from the league. The remaining $1.15 billion would be funded by selling bonds which would be paid back with the higher hotel tax money.

28 responses to “San Diego mayor gets concessions, endorses team’s stadium plan

  1. This is really good news!!! However, 2/3’s vote is next to impossible. If (or when) Ballot Measure C gets denied, the Chargers are going to have to refocus on the Mission Valley site (in the Q’s parking log). Downtown is already too jam packed, with not enough parking either.

  2. So the City is shelling out 1.15 Billion!??!?!
    How long will it take to pay that down?

    What hidden costs to the city are there like police presence, transportation/infrastructure upgrades, etc.

  3. That’s a ton better. I myself may vote yes for it now. Residents saw how St Louisnstrapped its people for the next ten years with no football team in town and also had to eat about 15 mil in preliminary plans for a new stadium that was never built. Spanos finally took business out of where the sun don’t shine.

  4. Why has it taken so long to get this deal on the table?

    Seems like this would have sped up the process quite some time ago…….

  5. So the team only has to come up with $350 Million to get a new stadium? What a great deal for the Chargers!
    “The team also agreed to give the city all the revenue from non-NFL events at the stadium”
    How generous of someone who put up less than 1/4 of the money.
    How about the Public fund 100% of it and rent it to the chargers for $50 Million a year?
    Sounds like that might be better for the city and the Chargers get to stay.

  6. My team plays in a stadium owned by the city and operated by the Park District of Chicago. Yet they are among the top 10 in valuation as a franchise. The lack of an owned stadium does little to negatively impact their valuation as a franchise. And to boot, the McCaskey family does not operate another business empire to fall back on for cash

    My reason for stating this is simply that teams that take public funding for their stadiums should not get to own that stadium. The stadium should belong to everyone that helped pay for it. The NFL, the Chargers, and the city all would hold partial ownership in the amounts they contributed, and then would have the option of buying out the other shareholders.

    The biggest hurdle in securing funding is that the return on investment is not always clear. This would resolve that, and the facility would generate income while the ultimate ownership of the facility resolves itself either into the hands of the team, or into the hands of the city, like in Chicago.

  7. If approved, the Chargers would pay $650 million for their share of the stadium portion of the project, with $300 million of that coming from the league. The remaining $1.15 billion…
    +++++++++++++++

    My math skills may not be all they might be but that total anticipated price tag of $2.1B just seems ridiculous. The cost of new stadiums is preposterous. Hopefully that ‘convention center annex’ is a good portion of the price tag. A football stadium in the city with the league’s best weather shouldn’t have to be an enclosed palace with a diamond paneled roof.

  8. thingamajig says:
    Oct 3, 2016 12:21 PM
    Why does an open air stadium cost 1.8 billion dollars?

    It has a retractable roof that can close when there’s an event that requires a large indoor space. It also has a convention center expansion attached to it.

  9. thingamajig says:
    Oct 3, 2016 12:21 PM
    Why does an open air stadium cost 1.8 billion dollars?

    ————

    because California, that’s why

  10. Why do the NFL and their owners think that taxpayers should foot the bill. They make billions. I would rather have my tax dollar go to more important issues.

  11. scarletmacaw says:

    Oct 3, 2016 1:48 PM

    16.5% tax. Remind me to never stay in San Diego.

    __________________________

    I see its working already on keeping the riff raff out, it has my vote for sure now.

  12. Let’s vote this thing in!!!! It will ease everyone’s mind. Our team’s future, and other things wills be secure. Being an ex NFL city would be a major loss.

Leave a Reply