Jump to content
fanhood

Nothing happens without SDSU's needs being met

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Fort Fun said:

LOL, that thread was so absurd that I quit posting here for about a month. TCSUF gonna TCSUF. 

haha, couldn't help it...

I do sense that a hate parade is about to get up and running the closer a stadium comes to being reality...and in that regard Aztecs will have something in common with Ram fans from the previous couple years. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Fort Fun said:

If SDSU structures their deal like CSU did (40 years, interest rates in the low 3's), they'd be looking at annual payments of about $6.5 millioin to $7 million a year.

I know a lot of people here on MWCBoard are debt-averse, but right now is a great time to take on debt and build a large project. 

This is very very true. For those who understand how stadiums are actually financed (or any large scale building project) we are in a time that project approvals and ground breaking need to start happening soon or lose out on low rates as the fed starts to raise the prime rate. Luckily the fed seems content to slowly re-inflate the economy. But even a .25 point difference can be significant over such a long time frame. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fort Fun said:

If SDSU structures their deal like CSU did (40 years, interest rates in the low 3's), they'd be looking at annual payments of about $6.5 millioin to $7 million a year.

I know a lot of people here on MWCBoard are debt-averse, but right now is a great time to take on debt and build a large project. 

Definitely, especially when you take into account SDSU athletics has almost zero debt.  I think they have like a few hundred grand out on the new lights at the practice fields.

Money isn't going to be the hold up for SDSU.  It will be the land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, fanhood said:

isn't that what your new stadium plan calls for?

 

 

www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/land-use/sdsu-reveals-it-doesnt-need-qualcomm-stadium-land-yet/

Schulz said to the crowd of land-use experts that the university is ready to build a $150 million stadium. And, ideally, the university would get 35 acres of the city’s Mission Valley land now, but not for educational uses.

“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.

“We are confident we have the means to proceed with a 30-35,000-seat collegiate football stadium. Our best guess is that is $150 million, and yes, we have the resources and debt capacity to build that stadium,” Shulz said.

......Again, nothing happens without SDSU.

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.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

-Richard Feynman

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

-P.J. O’Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, SDSUfan said:

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.

Your post is ill-formed, if you believe SDSU expects the city "needs to provide".  They explicitly stated they will "purchase fee simple title" or "lease".  

 

Speculative?  Pray tell, how is this speculative?  Moreover, since you seem to favor the other idea, how is SDSU's speculative in comparison?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

Your post is ill-formed, if you believe SDSU expects the city "needs to provide".  They explicitly stated they will "purchase fee simple title" or "lease".  

 

Speculative?  Pray tell, how is this speculative?  Moreover, since you seem to favor the other idea, how is SDSU's speculative in comparison?

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.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

-Richard Feynman

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

-P.J. O’Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate the fact SDSU is in this predicament. I did mention 2-3 years ago this would be the case once the Chargers leave - of course I was ridiculed and told I didn't know anything. Well, the measures for Qualcomm and SDSU stadium/offsite housing didn't pass. I knew that area would be too valuable and that developers would get their way. Unfortunately there wasn't a lot of forward thinking 10+ years ago.  

Now, I think Soccer City is SDSU's best bet. There's still some leverage to get the soccer stadium AND accommodate the SDSU football team. Let's see if the decision makers are forward thinking enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SDSUfan said:

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.

There would be no convention center, Horton Plaza, Sports Arena, or Gaslamp revitalization without public-backed bonds.  And SDSU is not building office space to lease out to others.  And after years of knowing what the revenues at Qualcomm are (not to mention what it loses), I think they can comfortably build in the assumptions.

 

Honestly, that response doesn't make much sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, crimsoncuda said:

I hate the fact SDSU is in this predicament. I did mention 2-3 years ago this would be the case once the Chargers leave - of course I was ridiculed and told I didn't know anything. Well, the measures for Qualcomm and SDSU stadium/offsite housing didn't pass. I knew that area would be too valuable and that developers would get their way. Unfortunately there wasn't a lot of forward thinking 10+ years ago.  

Now, I think Soccer City is SDSU's best bet. There's still some leverage to get the soccer stadium AND accommodate the SDSU football team. Let's see if the decision makers are forward thinking enough. 

Wtf are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, East Coast Aztec said:

There would be no convention center, Horton Plaza, Sports Arena, or Gaslamp revitalization without public-backed bonds.  And SDSU is not building office space to lease out to others.  And after years of knowing what the revenues at Qualcomm are (not to mention what it loses), I think they can comfortably build in the assumptions.

 

Honestly, that response doesn't make much sense.

“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?

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

-Richard Feynman

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

-P.J. O’Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SDSUfan said:

“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?

Again, we aren't going into the leasing to others game.  Your quote states as much.  It would be our colocation with another entity in office space.  Your fear of office space is noted.  What happens to the 2 million SF that the other plan is going for?  

As for a stadium, college is different than pros, and you know that.  Many college's stadiums are generations-old.  It isn't solely profit-minded like the pros.  Perhaps SDSU loses 1 million a year from the difference of debt service to ticket , concession and parking revenue.  What would be the difference between now and then?  And that is a pessimistic outlook.  At worst, i see a wash on stadium funding from now to future scenario.  Would you disagree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, masterfrog said:

I see that the voting for naming the San Diego soccer team has taken an ugly turn.  In the final round of voting, Footy McFooty Face is leading by a wide margin and San Diego Bad Hombres is in second.

on the radio somewhere i heard the team is going to be named the san diego immigrants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dr. Dre said:

Dude is a tool. 

It saddens me that an intellectual titan such as yourself should think that about me.  It saddens me further that  so many SDSU grads seem incapable of strategic thought and /or lack the ability to see through the nonsense that the “leadership” of the school is putting forth.  I find it utterly laughable that so many SDSU folks are so insecure that they lash out against even mild dissent, as sure a sign of insecurity as there ever was.

Meanwhile, the plan moves forward and pathetically, the university leaves it to the mayor to do its negotiating for them while the feckless administration sits on the sidelines, mired in the delusion that anyone outside of a few similarly self-deluded fans and alumni gives one shit about the fate of SDSU in general and SDSU football in particular. I didn’t think it possible but SDSU is managing to turn a golden opportunity to get the community behind it into a chance to shed support due to unwarranted arrogance and intransigence.

PATHETIC

 

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/columnists/kevin-acee/sd-sp-acee-0326-story.html          

San Diego State has begun to dribble out information about what it wants and might be able to do in Mission Valley over the next few years. And/or decades.

Included in its vision for a long-term solution it maintains is best for the school and the city, SDSU said it can finance its own stadium and is seeking solutions regarding a place to play until that stadium is built.

Such talk at least constitutes a step.

A bounding leap — such as engaging in negotiation and clearly elucidating options for possible compromise — would be more appropriate if someone were striving with any urgency for the finish line.

But SDSU does not seem to be interested in actually  trying to participate in this race. Rather, virtually everyone in and around this process believes the university is attempting to bring the process to a halt.

School officials essentially inserted what they knew were poison pills into the Mission Valley conversation Tuesday, making public their desire for 47 acres on which SDSU would oversee construction of a stadium and office space that would in 30 years or more be converted to facilitate campus expansion.

An SDSU athletic department spokesman did not respond to a request for comment Friday, but a university official speaking at a forum Thursday said the school would initially build “office-type space” with a development partner. That land would be taxable and “support revenue for the city,” SDSU associate vice president Bob Schulz said at the Citizens Coordinate for Century 3 forum.

In addition to SDSU continuing to move the goal line it says it must cross, the city’s concern is that there is no actual plan provided by SDSU – as opposed to the SoccerCity proposal by FS Investors which addresses upfront costs and assures a return for the city in a finite time frame, as well as timely completion of a river park.

That 47 acres requested by SDSU is well more than half the developable land on the Qualcomm Stadium site, which would render SoccerCity a non-starter since FS Investors needs more of that land to make the project worthwhile.

While certainly offering solutions and even a measure of benevolence, FS Investors has never pretended it is running a charity.

That is in contrast to what SDSU is doing.

The way many city officials polled in recent weeks see this play by San Diego State is that the school is asking for land to essentially be donated. Only when that land is sold or leased to an outside party would it be taxable and, thus, beneficial to the city.

No one disputes that education is an economic driver over the long haul. But San Diego State wants this land for nothing from a city that needs a lot of something to help alleviate an immediate fiscal crisis.

That is the reality from which SDSU has audaciously removed itself without providing an actionable alternative.

Until Schulz’s statements as part of the C3 panel, the university had presented its needs as being for university use. While Schulz clarified the potential of taxable development, his revelation also suggests SDSU is looking to make money off sale or lease of the land.

Lacking from SDSU’s two-page list of needs was any clarity on financing, land preparation or creation of parkland. It is known that multiple developers have approached the school with ideas, but none has provided a plan.

In its meeting with the city, SDSU officials offered as an example of what it can do a 30,800-capacity stadium built by the University of North Texas. Construction on that stadium began in 2009, and it opened in 2011. The cost of the UNT venue is cited as $87 million, which stadium experts consulted this week said almost certainly did not include the “soft costs” of architects, attorneys and traffic or environmental mitigation.

Accounting for inflation and the increased cost of building in California, it would seem possible SDSU could build a similar stadium for $150 million (“hard costs” only) if construction began in 2018.

However, SDSU stated it wants to build a 35,000-capacity stadium and would presumably have to account for the cost of preparing the land, which anyone who has ever discussed developing the Mission Valley plot has acknowledged could get tricky (expensive).

One architect with a prominent national design firm said he considers Texas the easiest state in which to complete a development and California to be the most difficult.

Additionally, the UNT stadium is entirely bleacher seating and has no LED ribbon signage for advertising. Two stadium construction experts said Friday that those factors drastically reduce costs. One said that what $150 million could get done in San Diego was “no frills” and the other said it was “the bottom of the bargain basement.”

Such a stadium might be determined to be adequate for SDSU. But we must understand the school does not seem to be envisioning a stadium in the same class as the $200 million venue FS Investors has proposed – a project on which it would split the cost with SDSU and then donate the building after five years.

There is a belief among SDSU officials that they have time to build a stadium, possibly by “taking over the operational cost” of Qualcomm Stadium, according to Schulz.

The city estimates that cost at $12 million per year, though officials acknowledge that could be less now that the Chargers have vacated the building. San Diego State could conceivably make up some of the difference between its current $100,000 annual rent and the $8 to $10 million or more that could be required to keep Qualcomm open after 2018 via increased sponsorship and seat revenue now that the Chargers have departed.

“In the face of lean budget years ahead where we have to prioritize neighborhood services, it’s very hard to see operating and maintaining the stadium, which costs taxpayers millions of dollars every year after the city’s contractual obligations expire in 2018,” mayoral spokesman Matt Awbrey said Friday.

Schulz also said at the C3 forum that SDSU is exploring the possibility of temporarily playing its home games at Balboa Stadium, which currently holds 3,000 people but could be expanded.

Multiple sources confirmed this week that SDSU’s issues with the SoccerCity plan center on buildings directly outside the project’s proposed stadium that SDSU says make future expansion too costly, the proposed management of the stadium and division of non-sports revenue and the ability to acquire that extra land it desires.

These are issues city sources and FS Investor point man Nick Stone have said can be discussed. The buildings are an integral part of the SoccerCity development, but FS and SDSU previously discussed ways to incorporate the buildings into the game day experience. And there were discussions about how to make expansion of the stadium easier and more cost-effective via design alterations in the original construction.

Talks regarding those topics have been on hold, because the university is essentially operating as a rogue state now. Its main goal seems to be providing enough distraction to have SoccerCity meet its demise.

City officials, including Mayor Kevin Faulconer, were blindsided by SDSU going public with its list of needs after their Tuesday meeting.

Faulconer plans to endorse SoccerCity, contingent on FS Investors accepting a list of caveats on which the mayor will insist in order to protect the city’s interests, including the provision that eliminates the much-publicized possibility FS Investors gets the land for $10,000 after expenses. And despite what multiple sources characterized as Faulconer’s displeasure over how SDSU has dealt with the city and FS Investors, included in the mayor’s provisos will be requirements that San Diego State can expand the stadium in a cost-effective manner and also acquire land for expansion at a fair rate. This is according to multiple sources familiar with the city’s process of vetting the SoccerCity proposal.

FS Investors is currently gathering signatures for a citizens’ initiative it will present to the city. The city council has the option of adopting the initiative without a public vote, but multiple sources said the council is expected to place the measure on the same special election Faulconer envisions for a vote on a convention center expansion in the fall.

San Diego State was a part of an informal coalition with FS and the city for several months leading up to the unveiling of the SoccerCity plan. Now, university sources have acknowledged SDSU has stalled communication and ceased cooperation due to its judgment that not enough of its needs were going to be met.

So as the Mission Valley race rolls on, SDSU puts up roadblocks in an attempt to gain a restart.  Maybe that’s just how we have always done things in sleepy San Diego.

But at some point we have to take a look at our undersized convention center, ongoing waterfront property paralysis and NFL-less NFL stadium and ask how laissez faire is working out for us.

Often, the dribble has led to no finish line at all.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

-Richard Feynman

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

-P.J. O’Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lmfao at using Acee to support your position.

I'm equally as shocked at how pathetic and limp wristed a portion of our fan base is.  Just because they lack the intestinal fortitude to stand up and fight and bend over at the first sign of trouble they consider it arrogance that SDSU has the gall to not do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, k5james said:

Lmfao at using Acee to support your position.

I'm equally as shocked at how pathetic and limp wristed a portion of our fan base is.  Just because they lack the intestinal fortitude to stand up and fight and bend over at the first sign of trouble they consider it arrogance that SDSU has the gall to not do the same.

What EXACTLY is SDSU doing  to "fight"?  Calling the other guy a meaney while he punches your face in isn't fighting. SDSU is losing the PR battle, damaging the credibility of the institution and pissing off potential fans in the process. When this is over, 30k seats will be too many.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

-Richard Feynman

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

-P.J. O’Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...