A.G. Spanos sees optimism in stadium plans

[unhappycamper]

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/may/29/ag-spanos-chargers-super-bowl-spanos-stadium/

?75d51d0aea2efce5189afce216053cbc530c46a8

Left to right: Chargers Owner Alex Spanos, President Dean Spanos, Executive Vice President of Football Operations John Spanos, and CEO A.G. Spanos

A.G. Spanos sees optimism in stadium plans
By Tom Krasovic
10:50 a.m.May 29, 2014

While the NFL may not be headed to Los Angeles soon, in San Diego the football stadium issue appears unchanged in one major aspect.

Without a new home here for the Chargers, San Diego cannot expect to host another Super Bowl.

The Chargers and the mayor's office are having regular conversations about how to get a stadium built. Talking with ESPN's Eric D. Williams, Chargers CEO A.G. Spanos provided an update Thursday.

~snip~

Spanos didn't say how much the Chargers are willing to pay of the estimated $1 billion needed to build such a facility. In Oakland, where the Raiders play in an old multi-purpose venue similar to Qualcomm Stadium, Raiders owner Mark Davis also seeks public funding for a new home. Davis told NFL.com the Raiders have $400 million to put toward a new stadium.

--

Getting into a Superbowl is the least of San Diego's problems.

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Will California allow another $billion in taxpayers' money to 'subsidize' more 'new'

stadiums? Are they willing to starve libraries, parks, bridge safety, schools, and other public 'perks' to enrich more billionaires?

[Mr.Bill]

2. Tax dollars should not be used to build

sports stadiums and line the pockets of team owners. AT&T Park in San Francisco was built without taxpayer money and it is wildly successful.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Not really.

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/05/14_gordonj_sanfranpark/

While the team did pay for construction of SBC Park, it also benefited from significant public contributions. The park sits on city-owned property at the foot of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, near downtown. It's probably some of the most expensive real estate in the country, and the Giants get to use it for free. The city also kicked in $80 million in infrastructure improvements.

Joel Ventresca headed up a citizens group called "Committee to Stop the Giveaway," which opposed public financing of a baseball stadium in San Francisco. He says residents are paying indirect costs -- for city services to the park, and the loss of land that could be used for housing or industry that would generate more tax dollars than baseball.

"For PR purposes they claim it's privately financed," said Ventresca. "In reality when you look at the hard numbers, the stadium in San Francisco is heavily subsidized by the local taxpayers. And that means tax dollars are going to support this sports team and their sports palace instead of those tax dollars going for public education, public parks or other types of high-need services that exist here in San Francisco."

[Mr.Bill]

4. You are correct,

but the structure itself was built with private money.

Real estate values in that area have risen dramatically, giving the city a return in tax dollars. I know a guy who lives in a condo in that neighborhood. It's under 1,000 square feet and is worth 1.2 million.

[sinkingfeeling]

5. Read "Free Lunch" by David Cay Johnston, chapters 7 and 8 about the cost of

any subsidy to 'big sports'.

[Mr.Bill]

6. Honestly, I'm not going to seek that out and read it,

but it sounds like something I would agree with.

[mackerel]

7. Will it be as successful as Spanos Park?

Half empty, short sales for the past 5 years.