San Diego State Is Out

[Guest Dr. Dre]

30 minutes ago, Rampage said:

No, they should change it to this: (Zebra donk since they are the next BSU in the MWC)

Its @hawkeyelobo's wife's donkey! Man that thing looks worn out!

[Rampage]

12 minutes ago, SDSUfan said:

SDSU isn't an autonomous entity. Campus expansion requires CSU and the State legislature to be on board.  The city wants the Qualcomm mess in its rearview mirror ASAP. Soccer City will do just that. Big time blunder by the school IMO.

There's only thing I can surmise, given some of the other tidbits floating around is that they think they have some other stadium solution that doesn't require the Qualcomm property.  D Manchester owns and plans to develop the old UT property gutter west in the valley. I think he may also control the golf course property. That may be what's cooking in the background but I admit I'm at a loss to understanding how SDSU plans to move forward. Hoping Soccer City gets voted down isn't a strategy IMO.

It is a state university the SDSU strategy better be open records. If that is not the case, the president is playing it my ear...Thus, no plan. SDSU is going to be screwed.

 

CSU thinking about a plan to build the new stadium was open records from the beginning before $1 was raised.

[SleepingGiantFan]

6 minutes ago, Rampage said:

It is a state university the SDSU strategy better be open records. If that is not the case, the president is playing it my ear...Thus, no plan. SDSU is going to be screwed.

 

CSU thinking about a plan to build the new stadium was open records from the beginning before $1 was raised.

Under the California Public Records Act documents involving the negotiation of contracts are not discoverable until after completion thereof.

Just providing that info, not saying I'm aware they're actually negotiating with Doug Manchester or other rumored business alternatives.

[toonkee]

1 hour ago, NevadaFan said:

Reno smack? It was a response to smack and which part isn't true? The fact that the atmosphere at Vegas football games is currently garbage or the fact that Vegas crowds are going to look silly in an NFL venue. 

I found some left over materials after the recent Mackay renovations.

[SDSUfan]

8 hours ago, k5james said:

WHEN this Soccercity thing fails they aren't going to shut down the Q.  Who's going to pay for razing it?  There's a reason the city hasn't outright told SDSU no on a lease extension.

razing and shuttering are two different things. They city can simply choose to not operate it, let the field go to seed and shut off utilities as a cost saving measure. Happens all the time.

 

7 hours ago, k5james said:

You couldn't be more wrong.  SDSU West's economic impact dwarfs the sales tax impact of the FSI development.

It's not about sales tax alone.  It's about economic activity; sales, income, TOT wages etc in addition to savings from the removal of a giant albatross from around the neck of the city.

Besides. the only difference between the FS plan and SDSU's plan, other than the fact that FS is up front about their plan, is that FS wants to build a stadium, housing and office space and SDSU wants to build office space , housing and a stadium.  All this high and mighty talk about education, research etc is utter bullshit. They can only do what they plan to do, to the extent that there even IS a plan, is through revenue bonds meaning academic facilities are off the table. Period.

[DestinFlPackfan]

57 minutes ago, toonkee said:

I found some left over materials after the recent Mackay renovations.

It's called 'inventory '.

[Old_SD_Dude]

3 hours ago, SDSUfan said:

SDSU isn't an autonomous entity. Campus expansion requires CSU and the State legislature to be on board.  The city wants the Qualcomm mess in its rearview mirror ASAP. Soccer City will do just that. Big time blunder by the school IMO.

There's only thing I can surmise, given some of the other tidbits floating around is that they think they have some other stadium solution that doesn't require the Qualcomm property.  D Manchester owns and plans to develop the old UT property gutter west in the valley. I think he may also control the golf course property. That may be what's cooking in the background but I admit I'm at a loss to understanding how SDSU plans to move forward. Hoping Soccer City gets voted down isn't a strategy IMO.

I agree with you. Hoping the proposal gets voted down is a poor strategy. I think many of my Aztec brethren are underestimating the support for Soccer City. It sounds like the mayor is going to come out in support despite being an alum. Little chance of a stadium on the golf course. My company is working a project right now that will propose 4K residential units. 

[badfish]

Just read this:

http://fw.to/i71eUCB

 

and no, he isn't not an SDSU homer. 

[NWRebel]

2 hours ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

I agree with you. Hoping the proposal gets voted down is a poor strategy. I think many of my Aztec brethren are underestimating the support for Soccer City. It sounds like the mayor is going to come out in support despite being an alum. Little chance of a stadium on the golf course. My company is working a project right now that will propose 4K residential units. 

I'm on the outside looking in but, I read the SD Tribune articles and it seems to me that the Mayors office is dismayed (my words) over SDSU's decision.  Even the councilman who's office is over that particular property was not all that enthused with SDSU.  The communication between SDSU and their local government seems weak.  I just don't see a good outcome for SUDS when they seem to want to call the play when nobody (political support) is listening.  Like I said in an earlier post there are those that want this SoccerCity/MLS thing to move forward.

[fanhood]

2 minutes ago, CockyUNLVPoster said:

I'm on the outside looking in but, I read the SD Tribune articles and it seems to me that the Mayors office is dismayed (my words) over SDSU's decision.  Even the councilman who's office is over that particular property was not all that enthused with SDSU.  The communication between SDSU and their local government seems weak.  I just don't see a good outcome for SUDS when they seem to want to call the play when nobody (political support) is listening.  Like I said in an earlier post there are those that want this SoccerCity/MLS thing to move forward.

Worst case scenario for SDSU is we play in a shitty soccer stadium. Best case scenario is we get a great football stadium, but more importantly, expand the campus which allows for future growth, research, prestige, and maybe, just maybe a P5 invite someday. SDSU has to oppose this proposal. They would be foolish not to.

 

[Old_SD_Dude]

39 minutes ago, fanhood said:

Worst case scenario for SDSU is we play in a shitty soccer stadium. Best case scenario is we get a great football stadium, but more importantly, expand the campus which allows for future growth, research, prestige, and maybe, just maybe a P5 invite someday. SDSU has to oppose this proposal. They would be foolish not to.

 

One group has $$ and it ain't us... The City wants rid of the Q. 

[Wyobraska]

How common is this type of flooding?  Would making sure this doesn't happen again cost a lot of money?

[East Coast Aztec]

5 hours ago, Wyobraska said:

How common is this type of flooding?  Would making sure this doesn't happen again cost a lot of money?

Looks like what it is.  A flooded toilet.  Yes, it can flood, but that was the worst I saw in my decade there.  The drainage is pretty poor in that area and it is a floodplain.  Great place to maximize the impervious surface!

[k5james]

12 hours ago, SDSUfan said:

razing and shuttering are two different things. They city can simply choose to not operate it, let the field go to seed and shut off utilities as a cost saving measure. Happens all the time.

 

It's not about sales tax alone.  It's about economic activity; sales, income, TOT wages etc in addition to savings from the removal of a giant albatross from around the neck of the city.

Besides. the only difference between the FS plan and SDSU's plan, other than the fact that FS is up front about their plan, is that FS wants to build a stadium, housing and office space and SDSU wants to build office space , housing and a stadium.  All this high and mighty talk about education, research etc is utter bullshit. They can only do what they plan to do, to the extent that there even IS a plan, is through revenue bonds meaning academic facilities are off the table. Period.

Shuttering it won't make the bond payments to away.  SDSU has offered to take over running it and the costs that come with it.  It isn't am albatross at all for the city.  Having the Chargers play there made it an albatross.  With them gone the only albatross is the bond payments and that isn't going away with FSI.

 

As for your second paragraph they clearly stated that they want to build offices/research facilities to attract tech startups to combine with increased research a la GA Tech.

 

Just because you wanted SDSU to bend over for FSI don't come on here and spread falsehoods.

[k5james]

8 hours ago, CockyUNLVPoster said:

I'm on the outside looking in but, I read the SD Tribune articles and it seems to me that the Mayors office is dismayed (my words) over SDSU's decision.  Even the councilman who's office is over that particular property was not all that enthused with SDSU.  The communication between SDSU and their local government seems weak.  I just don't see a good outcome for SUDS when they seem to want to call the play when nobody (political support) is listening.  Like I said in an earlier post there are those that want this SoccerCity/MLS thing to move forward.

Two council members have already come out publicly in support of SDSU.  The mayor's office is dismayed because they've been bought off by FSI and were hoping for a smooth quick transaction so they could brag about how great they were in bringing a pro sports franchise back after losing the Chargers.  It's going to be hard to run for governor as the guy who lost the Chargers.

[k5james]

10 hours ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

I agree with you. Hoping the proposal gets voted down is a poor strategy. I think many of my Aztec brethren are underestimating the support for Soccer City. It sounds like the mayor is going to come out in support despite being an alum. Little chance of a stadium on the golf course. My company is working a project right now that will propose 4K residential units. 

They want the city to put a RFP initiative on the  November ballot to go against Soccer City or flat out deny the request for a special election.  That's pretty much the only thing they can do at this point given that FSI smartly greased all of the right palms in getting a head start on their initiative.

[Old_SD_Dude]

8 hours ago, Wyobraska said:

How common is this type of flooding?  Would making sure this doesn't happen again cost a lot of money?

That was a 50-year storm event affecting the San Diego River on the left and tributary Murphy Creek at the bottom of the screen. The stadium was built in 1967. This was the worst event that occurred in the timespan since. The receding water left the field flooded. 

[Old_SD_Dude]

1 hour ago, k5james said:

They want the city to put a RFP initiative on the  November ballot to go against Soccer City or flat out deny the request for a special election.  That's pretty much the only thing they can do at this point given that FSI smartly greased all of the right palms in getting a head start on their initiative.

If the submitted signatures are validated I don't think they can deny putting the measure on the ballot. I believe if they meet the threshold it's automatic.

[SDSUfan]

1 hour ago, k5james said:

Shuttering it won't make the bond payments to away.  SDSU has offered to take over running it and the costs that come with it.  It isn't am albatross at all for the city.  Having the Chargers play there made it an albatross.  With them gone the only albatross is the bond payments and that isn't going away with FSI.

 

As for your second paragraph they clearly stated that they want to build offices/research facilities to attract tech startups to combine with increased research a la GA Tech.

 

Just because you wanted SDSU to bend over for FSI don't come on here and spread falsehoods.

Bullshit, not what they said AT ALL. Sgt Shultz said they wanted to build offices for SDSU Research Foundation. That's not research. That's space for a non profit that already has space. The rest is simply off I e space and it doesn't matter who fills it. SDSU has no meaningful research presence and that's not going to change. Pie in the sky cover story BULLSHIT.  What SDSU wants is revenue streams to keep the admin gravy train running. I cannot believe ostensibly intelligent people believe the crap SDSU is laying down. 

 

[East Coast Aztec]

17 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

If the submitted signatures are validated I don't think they can deny putting the measure on the ballot. I believe if they meet the threshold it's automatic.

For the sake of the will of the citizenry, I would hope so.