• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SDSUfan

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Team
    San Diego State
  • Gender
  • Location
  1. “Initially, we would develop that with a joint venture partner. It would probably be office-type space that would go on the tax rolls and support revenue for the city of San Diego, and we would actually grow into it over the next 30 to 50 years after it’s been capitalized,” Schulz said. The instance of Gaslamp and Hortoncity (and state) simply created beneficial conditions that made it attractive for private entities to assume a measure of risk and develop. Sports Arena was built in 1967 and hasn't been replaced. Care to take a guess why? Qualcomm, built around the same time has degraded to its current state. Care to guess why? Qualcomm loses money for the city. SDSU will lose money on its stadium should it ever come to pass. Where will that money come from? If football stadiums were good investments, NFL owners would build their own. And again, I ask. what happens if office space takes a hit in Mission Valley?
  2. ALL development deals are speculative. What happens to SDSU's budget should their market rate office space go unleased due to an economic downturn? Does the state backstop any losses or is the plan to leave the private partner holding the bag? What happens if the 359 days SDSU doesn't play football in their stadium go unfilled or under-filled and operating expenses exceed revenue? Again, is Joe Taxpayer on the hook? Public institutions have no business participating in speculative land deals.
  3. So please, henceforth spare me all the BS talk about how the city needs to provide a resource to SDSU in order to enhance its educational and research profile. SDSU's plan is a speculative venture and a bad, ill-formed one at that.
  4. Civita is an absurdly dense development. That's why they had to "jump through hoops". They are selling 3-story 2200sq' homes with 700sq' footprints stacked so closely you can smell your neighbor's farts, all for the low low price of $800,000 and up. NOTHING planned on the Qualcomm lot comes even close to the Civita densities. Same with Fenton. Not a single solitary leg to stand on given the combined veal pen/rabbit warren they tossed together on the north side of Friars. If your concern is development density, Fenton and Sudbury are your worst nightmares. But I have news for all of the out-of-towners; San Diego has a deliberate strategy for development going forward they call "Densification". What this means is that zoning restrictions are changing to allow for denser development and "infills" are allowed to be even denser. You can see its results all over town. Density is now seen as, if not a good thing, a necessary evil to accommodate a 5% population growth rate in a geographically limited area. This thing will come to a public (50%+1) vote in a special election and it will in all probability pass. SDSU needs to get on board.
  5. Does SDSU want to bear the cost of bringing 25% of the total land up to a buildable standard and pay 25% of the cost of Qualcomm demolition, or is this a gift? What about infrastructure? Does SDSU plan to pay for 25% of the required site infrastructure? So if I'm reading you correctly; SDSU DEMANDS that FS pay for 1/2 of a stadium built to SDSU's specifications AND SDSU DEMANDS that they be gifted 25% of the developable parcel ready to build, free of charge.
  7. Not from the perspective of the balance sheet. Not sure what $1.6M is about but sales and property taxes combined with taxes paid on wages etc far exceed 1.6 mil. The SDSU plan is essentially the same; housing. retail, offices, stadium. with the benefit redounding to the university and by extension, students and faculty. This is a very narrow subset of the larger community. The university has no play. It needs to get on board.
  8. 80 acres and yes, money will change hands and someone will make a profit. God help us all. I'm also unclear as to why it's a "land grab". It's a business deal. The details will be either approved by the city council or voted on by the residents. A "land grab" would be a state institution gaining control for little or no money and removing the parcel from the tax role in perpetuity.
  9. So is Qualcomm. The perfect is the enemy of the good. A 32,000 seat stadium is more than adequate for a few years. It gives everybody breathing space; the city gets out from under its White Elephant, SDSU gets a more than adequate venue, the city gets an MLS franchise and the taxpayers get some relief from paying out the ass to keep an empty stadium. SDSU has no leadership since Hirschman is a lame duck. The CSU system has been invisible in all of this as has the legislature. To turn FS into some sort of villain out to steal lunch money from school kids is patently asinine when they are offering a lifeline to the University. Negotiate, make a suitable deal for the near term and move forward on a long term plan. Not sure what all the angst is about.
  10. The land as it sits now is effectively worthless. If the city is to sell it to another party, the deal would be similar. Tearing down the Q is an expensive undertaking. Entitling the land, working the EIRS , fixing the infrastructure and mitigating surface contamination is likewise difficult and expensive. The city has a money pit on it's hands. Any sane landlord would do the necessary thing to cut losses asap
  11. Money = clout. To think otherwise is a mistake. This will go forward with or without SDSU. FS is collecting the sigs and will bankroll the special election. A 50%+1 result will be a penalty kick (haha... see what I did there?)
  12. That's not how I read it. Sounds to me like SDSU is being told to get on board and to accept what ever terms the mayor negotiates for them. if SDSU wants to actually make things happen, the opportunity is there they're just not forward thinking enough to grasp it. Maybe I'll help them along. A parcel of land is being set aside for the next 5 years to accommodate a new NFL stadium. The odds of SD getting back in the NFL game in the next 5 years are long at best. SDSU should negotiate the right of first refusal on that parcel when the clock runs out. On it, they can build their 44,367.3456832 seat football( scientifically calculated to the correct SDSU size) stadium and a few offices and publically subsidized housing they so desire.
  13. Alas, no. Strange how times change though. It was utterly uncontroversial back then to drag a bunch of 4th graders to a slaughterhouse. I can't imagine that happening today.
  14. Never played in a Mormon League but I was in a Mormon Cub Scout troop. The Den Mother's husband took us on a field trip to his place of work; the local slaughter house.
  15. HaHa. Played in a Baptist league with some of my friends when I was in jr high (Catholic boy ringer :-) ). The diversity of congregations made for some laughably lopsided match-ups. Play was always rough as the "refs" (fat dude+ whistle = ref) were usually not up to the task.