Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

masterfrog

San Diego State Is Out

Recommended Posts

On 5/20/2017 at 7:46 AM, East Coast Aztec said:

It literally states the private developers capitalize their investments and then SDSU takes over.  You appear to have selective reading, and your conclusions are foregone despite what is presented to you.  I am going to stop wasting my with you SDFan.  Good day.

Apologize... or at least have the balls to admit you were wrong

A: Yeah, I mean along those lines. You look at our Zahn Innovation Center. That’s something that could move down there and flourish. Whatever, as we look to research, and Engineering and Interdisciplinary Sciences building where that’s a lot of lab space and things like that where people can come in and do research and development. Whatever it might be. And it’s not something we’re ready to jump into in the next five years. It’s further down the road. It’s 20, 30, 40 years. But initially, we can go down there and build out space that’s thoughtful for what we would need. And rent that space and be generating revenue back to the university to help the university as a going concern. And then as we need the space, take it back over time.

JD Wicker...Sooper Genius

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2017/may/22/sdsu-athletic-director-university-explores-its-sta/?utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=kpbs-facebook&utm_source=facebook.com

“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

11 minutes ago, SDSUfan said:

Apologize... or at least have the balls to admit you were wrong

A: Yeah, I mean along those lines. You look at our Zahn Innovation Center. That’s something that could move down there and flourish. Whatever, as we look to research, and Engineering and Interdisciplinary Sciences building where that’s a lot of lab space and things like that where people can come in and do research and development. Whatever it might be. And it’s not something we’re ready to jump into in the next five years. It’s further down the road. It’s 20, 30, 40 years. But initially, we can go down there and build out space that’s thoughtful for what we would need. And rent that space and be generating revenue back to the university to help the university as a going concern. And then as we need the space, take it back over time.

JD Wicker...Sooper Genius

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2017/may/22/sdsu-athletic-director-university-explores-its-sta/?utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=kpbs-facebook&utm_source=facebook.com

Fair enough.  My statement of knowledge on hand 3 days ago was proven wrong with a statement one day ago.  It's good to  have more information, is it not?  Now, with a PPP, it is even more enticing for all parties, as the development is consistent with long-range planning with ability to capture sunk costs, and not an in and out scenario that most development is with a bunch of crap left behind. 

Thank you for proving me wrong.  I apologize.  :D:cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

Fair enough.  My statement of knowledge on hand 3 days ago was proven wrong with a statement one day ago.  It's good to  have more information, is it not?  Now, with a PPP, it is even more enticing for all parties, as the development is consistent with long-range planning with ability to capture sunk costs, and not an in and out scenario that most development is with a bunch of crap left behind. 

Thank you for proving me wrong.  I apologize.  :D:cheers:

One must assume that the market will always be up, not a valid assumption when it comes the the finances of public entities. The market ,for office space in San Diego generally and Mission Valley specifically is very volatile.  MV usually leads on the down side and lags on the upside. What happens to the "Grand Plan" when, not if, the market turns?  SDSU can't go bankrupt so TAXPAYERS are put on the hook to cover the bond payments and the athletic budget will be left holding the nut for stadium operation  expenses.  Given all the excess cash floating around the Athletic department, I'm sure this won't be a problem.

A state entity acting as the prime developer in a speculative land deal is a terrible idea.

There's still a play to be made and I fail to understand  why is hasn't been addressed: SDSU should negotiate a right of first refusal for the NFL parcel when the 5 year clock runs out. Get into the 32K stadium/5acre deal now. Establish yourself  as a marketable product, work the fund raising in the background  and be prepared to strike in 5 years. I believe that parcel is 16 acres, plus the 5 acres on offer AND control of the 12 acre soccer stadium, that's 33 acres by advanced math.

I guess JD Wicker, Sooper Genius is too busy beating the bushes trying to find a Pro Frisbee golf team to share a stadium with to do any hard thinkin' and cogetatin'

“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 minute ago, SDSUfan said:

One must assume that the market will always be up, not a valid assumption when it comes the the finances of public entities. The market ,for office space in San Diego generally and Mission Valley specifically is very volatile.  MV usually leads on the down side and lags on the upside. What happens to the "Grand Plan" when, not if, the market turns?  SDSU can't go bankrupt so TAXPAYERS are put on the hook to cover the bond payments and the athletic budget will be left holding the nut for stadium operation  expenses.  Given all the excess cash floating around the Athletic department, I'm sure this won't be a problem.

A state entity acting as the prime developer in a speculative land deal is a terrible idea.

There's still a play to be made and I fail to understand  why is hasn't been addressed: SDSU should negotiate a right of first refusal for the NFL parcel when the 5 year clock runs out. Get into the 32K stadium/5acre deal now. Establish yourself  as a marketable product, work the fund raising in the background  and be prepared to strike in 5 years. I believe that parcel is 16 acres, plus the 5 acres on offer AND control of the 12 acre soccer stadium, that's 33 acres by advanced math.

I guess JD Wicker, Sooper Genius is too busy beating the bushes trying to find a Pro Frisbee golf team to share a stadium with to do any hard thinkin' and cogetatin'

Or FSI has told them that isn't an option.  The initiative has that land returning to FSI after five years written into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, k5james said:

Or FSI has told them that isn't an option.  The initiative has that land returning to FSI after five years written into it.

They're going to sell it at market. SDSU can still negotiate a first refusal, no skin off FSI's nose.

“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

Just now, SDSUfan said:

They're going to sell it at market. SDSU can still negotiate a first refusal, no skin off FSI's nose.

At $13 million an acre?  Nah, better to fight and kill this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SDSUfan said:

One must assume that the market will always be up, not a valid assumption when it comes the the finances of public entities. The market ,for office space in San Diego generally and Mission Valley specifically is very volatile.  MV usually leads on the down side and lags on the upside. What happens to the "Grand Plan" when, not if, the market turns?  SDSU can't go bankrupt so TAXPAYERS are put on the hook to cover the bond payments and the athletic budget will be left holding the nut for stadium operation  expenses.  Given all the excess cash floating around the Athletic department, I'm sure this won't be a problem.

A state entity acting as the prime developer in a speculative land deal is a terrible idea.

There's still a play to be made and I fail to understand  why is hasn't been addressed: SDSU should negotiate a right of first refusal for the NFL parcel when the 5 year clock runs out. Get into the 32K stadium/5acre deal now. Establish yourself  as a marketable product, work the fund raising in the background  and be prepared to strike in 5 years. I believe that parcel is 16 acres, plus the 5 acres on offer AND control of the 12 acre soccer stadium, that's 33 acres by advanced math.

I guess JD Wicker, Sooper Genius is too busy beating the bushes trying to find a Pro Frisbee golf team to share a stadium with to do any hard thinkin' and cogetatin'

That would be at $13M/acre, as the term sheet is apparently stating though, wouldn't it?  Your third paragraph would still be available until AFTER the November vote, would it not?

 

Speaking of the volatility of the commercial market, it is a definite cause for concern and is hovering at about 10% vacancy.  So, why again are we wanting more office space developed?  Wouldn't industrial/R&D space be the better option, as Colliers analysis report has it at 4%, and not much coming online, even with an increase demand? 

Quote

A state entity acting as the prime developer in a speculative land deal is a terrible idea.

So, we are concluding that SDSU is doing this alone, and not doing a PPP?  I highly doubt that to be the case.  They don't do it for student housing now, I don't see them doing MV alone.

 

But maybe in 3 days, they will state that outright, and you will ask me for apologies.  IconLOL.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, k5james said:

At $13 million an acre?  Nah, better to fight and kill this.

That's only 200mil. That's a workable number. besides, I think they'll have to come off that price. 

“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

Guest Dr. Dre
1 hour ago, SDSUfan said:

Apologize... or at least have the balls

I've got 'em! On your ole lady's chin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, East Coast Aztec said:

Seems like the City could sell it for 100M.  That would be about $99,990,000 than what they might get soon!

You guys are whistling past the graveyard. 

“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

On 5/20/2017 at 5:49 PM, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Word is Hawaii has offered to rent SDSU your stadium for however long the Aztecs would need. They gonna pay travel subs for SDSU AND opponents.

Hawaii would get to keep parking and food profits and rent would be $100 per game. Would help Hawaii's bottom line.

No, there's a better option. Wyoming owns a stadium outside of Ft. Collins that isn't currently in use. My understanding is that it's much nicer than the current Hawaii stadium and SUDS wouldn't have to travel so far to get there. Of course you would lose out on the free Hawaii subsidies and Ft. Collins does have kind of funky smell to it. Coin toss really, but there are options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, East Coast Aztec said:

That would be at $13M/acre, as the term sheet is apparently stating though, wouldn't it?  Your third paragraph would still be available until AFTER the November vote, would it not?

 

Speaking of the volatility of the commercial market, it is a definite cause for concern and is hovering at about 10% vacancy.  So, why again are we wanting more office space developed?  Wouldn't industrial/R&D space be the better option, as Colliers analysis report has it at 4%, and not much coming online, even with an increase demand? 

So, we are concluding that SDSU is doing this alone, and not doing a PPP?  I highly doubt that to be the case.  They don't do it for student housing now, I don't see them doing MV alone.

 

But maybe in 3 days, they will state that outright, and you will ask me for apologies.  IconLOL.gif

Waiting until after the vote is a bad strategy.   You can't spend months poisoning the well and then expect your donors to drink.

Office space and R&D space is a distinction without a difference.  At my current location, we leased 500k' of office space and in a year, we took down 150k' of cubicles and built out 3 labs.  It's just space.   There's little to no mid city tech presence. Kearny Mesa, just up the hill has a strong defense population with Northrop Grumman Mission Systems, Cubic, Raytheon, L3,  a dozen or more smaller  firms and Solar Turbines. RB has NGAS and GA and could rightfully be considered  the center of the UAV universe.  Sorrento Valley/Mesa has the GA/UCSD/Qualcomm  technology cluster Torrey Pines has the huge Biotech cluster.   A couple of dozen acres in MV among condos and tilt-up big boxes will not materially change this paradigm.

SDSU 's plan is to act as the prime developer. To the extent there's a "partnership", it will be with a firm capable of build out.  SDSU cannot escape risk exposure. The game doesn't work that way.

“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

3 minutes ago, SDSUfan said:

Waiting until after the vote is a bad strategy.   You can't spend months poisoning the well and then expect your donors to drink.

Office space and R&D space is a distinction without a difference.  At my current location, we leased 500k' of office space and in a year, we took down 150k' of cubicles and built out 3 labs.  It's just space.   There's little to no mid city tech presence. Kearny Mesa, just up the hill has a strong defense population with Northrop Grumman Mission Systems, Cubic, Raytheon, L3,  a dozen or more smaller  firms and Solar Turbines. RB has NGAS and GA and could rightfully be considered  the center of the UAV universe.  Sorrento Valley/Mesa has the GA/UCSD/Qualcomm  technology cluster Torrey Pines has the huge Biotech cluster.   A couple of dozen acres in MV among condos and tilt-up big boxes will not materially change this paradigm.

SDSU 's plan is to act as the prime developer. To the extent there's a "partnership", it will be with a firm capable of build out.  SDSU cannot escape risk exposure. The game doesn't work that way.

Turning commercial to think tank space is one thing, to make it a space for tech innovation and research, design labs, or data intensive space, you need a different buildout.  And it is not about shifting industries, it is adding or supplementing them.  As you have shown, multiple locations have differing clusters.  Unlike what FS is so far looking to do, you don't have to develop to shift people from one part of the city to another, rather, it invites new people in, and new money. 


I can understand your first sentence, it is a very logical one.  A bite the hand that may or may not feed you scenario for sure.  But as I am seeing it, it makes no sense to let the hand slap you around and you continue to wag your tail and act happy.  For SDSU, until I see otherwise, it is a financial ripoff for the stadium, and fits no criteria of what they are looking for expansion-wise (whether you agree with it or not is immaterial), and frankly, it is a bad proposal for the fact that the city's asset value is going to take a beating to the tune of a couple hundred million dollars with the financial structure in play.  That is just what I see, there still would need to be questions on downstream flood control, off-site infrastructure upgrades, and increased public safety coordination (any project will have these issues though).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labor Unions oppose Special election

and now Past SDSU Alumni Presidents join in their support:

www.protectsdsu.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, East Coast Aztec said:

Turning commercial to think tank space is one thing, to make it a space for tech innovation and research, design labs, or data intensive space, you need a different buildout.  And it is not about shifting industries, it is adding or supplementing them.  As you have shown, multiple locations have differing clusters.  Unlike what FS is so far looking to do, you don't have to develop to shift people from one part of the city to another, rather, it invites new people in, and new money. 


I can understand your first sentence, it is a very logical one.  A bite the hand that may or may not feed you scenario for sure.  But as I am seeing it, it makes no sense to let the hand slap you around and you continue to wag your tail and act happy.  For SDSU, until I see otherwise, it is a financial ripoff for the stadium, and fits no criteria of what they are looking for expansion-wise (whether you agree with it or not is immaterial), and frankly, it is a bad proposal for the fact that the city's asset value is going to take a beating to the tune of a couple hundred million dollars with the financial structure in play.  That is just what I see, there still would need to be questions on downstream flood control, off-site infrastructure upgrades, and increased public safety coordination (any project will have these issues though).

We turned office space to functioning lab space.  We're currently turning office space into a production floor. Again, it's just space. The one thing all of the clusters have in common is that they developed organically; companies located there for obvious and compelling reasons.  If there were obvious and compelling reasons to locate in MV or around SDSU, they would already be there.  I've seen these "technology zones" in various places around the country and typically, they have very high vacancies and end up leasing out space to operations looking for cheap square footage.

I think we'll continue to disagree on whether or not FSI  represents a good or bad deal for the university and whether or not university leadership is acting in its best interest.

“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

Guest Dr. Dre
4 minutes ago, badfish said:

Labor Unions oppose Special election

and now Past SDSU Alumni Presidents join in their support:

www.protectsdsu.com

he was on with the loose cannons at 3 (check it out on the podcast if you missed it) and he'll be on with the clown and circus seal (Scott and BR) at 5pm. Listen in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dr. Dre said:

he was on with the loose cannons at 3 (check it out on the podcast if you missed it) and he'll be on with the clown and circus seal (Scott and BR) at 5pm. Listen in.

Caught end of loose cannons segment. Better speaker than JD, but nice to finally have a second voice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I don't think it's been mentioned that a day ago the City Clerk verified sufficient signatures to ensure that the proposal must either be approved by the City Council or placed on the ballot for approval or disapproval with a simple majority.

In my opinion SDSU needs to engage. I think it will pass. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...