San Diego State Is Out

[East Coast Aztec]

18 minutes ago, SDSUfan said:

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.

Actually, there is no disagreement on university leadership acting on their best interest.  Of course they are.  Otherwise they would have agreed to screw over themselves, and the people through a bad financial transaction with FS for the stadium.

[Guest Dr. Dre]

6 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

Actually, there is no disagreement on university leadership acting on their best interest.  Of course they are.  Otherwise they would have agreed to screw over themselves, and the people through a bad financial transaction with FS for the stadium.

and the city

[Guest Dr. Dre]

55 minutes ago, badfish said:

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

It's actually Jack McGrory (former city manager and head of the Campanile Foundation) on Mighty 1090 (My bad)

But he CRUSHED it!

[kalua pig]

taco trucks,59 el camino,and the big west.welcome home.

[k5james]

2 hours ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

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. 

The list of opposition groups is growing.  I don't think a special election is even going to get approved.

[Aztec Since 88]

Now that the FS proposal has enough signatures and they have been verified, I believe it has to go to a vote.  The question is whether the city council wants to do a special election in Nov. 2017 for this initiative and the Mayor's Convention Center expansion or wait til 2018.   I believe in the last election 2016,  Measure L passed and it requires citizens' initiatives and veto referendums to appear on general election ballots.  The city council can override this, but at a cost of about 5 million for a special election for a city that can't fill its pot holes or wait till 2018.   I believe there will be enough pressure on the council to hold off on the vote to 2018, which will give SDSU more times to get their ducks in row. 

[badfish]

5 minutes ago, Aztec Since 88 said:

Now that the FS proposal has enough signatures and they have been verified, I believe it has to go to a vote.  The question is whether the city council wants to do a special election in Nov. 2017 for this initiative and the Mayor's Convention Center expansion or wait til 2018.   I believe in the last election 2016,  Measure L passed and it requires citizens' initiatives and veto referendums to appear on general election ballots.  The city council can override this, but at a cost of about 5 million for a special election for a city that can't fill its pot holes or wait till 2018.   I believe there will be enough pressure on the council to hold off on the vote to 2018, which will give SDSU more times to get their ducks in row. 

Or enough time to see if the MLS deadline is legit or not. 

[Old_SD_Dude]

1 hour ago, k5james said:

The list of opposition groups is growing.  I don't think a special election is even going to get approved.

It doesn't need approval by the City Council. Because the number of verified signatures exceeded 10% of eligible voters in the City, per the City Charter the Council must either approve the project or put it on the ballot. The Council could put the election off until the 2018 primary instead of November. There are no other options.

[k5james]

15 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

It doesn't need approval by the City Council. Because the number of verified signatures exceeded 10% of eligible voters in the City, per the City Charter the Council must either approve the project or put it on the ballot. The Council could put the election off until the 2018 primary instead of November. There are no other options.

That's why I said special election.   If the vote gets pushed to 2018 this scam is done.

[RSF]

9 hours ago, badfish said:

Or enough time to see if the MLS deadline is legit or not. 

There's 2 deadlines.  1st 2 expansion teams chosen this year (stated time is 'fall', probable date is around MLS Cup Final week in early December), 2nd 2 at a later date (probably late 2018).

[k5james]

27 minutes ago, RSF said:

There's 2 deadlines.  1st 2 expansion teams chosen this year (stated time is 'fall', probable date is around MLS Cup Final week in early December), 2nd 2 at a later date (probably late 2018).

Everybody knows this bit FSI continues to push agenda that it's now or never.

[RSF]

11 minutes ago, k5james said:

Everybody knows this bit FSI continues to push agenda that it's now or never.

It might be.  Sacramento is a favorite to be one of the 1st 2, and MLS might not want to have 5 California teams (so the conventional thinking goes).  Plus, the 2nd deadline gives St Louis (where MLS wants a team badly) time to come up with their own stadium Plan B. If they do, they're in.  Several other cities have their stadium situations resolved or at least farther along.  SD is not a given for MLS even if FSI gets what it wants.  So for those opposed to FSI's plan, simple stalling tactics might be the best strategy.

[Guest Dr. Dre]

20 minutes ago, RSF said:

  Plus, the 2nd deadline gives St Louis (where MLS wants a team badly) 

but the city of St. Louis wants nothing to do with the MLS. 

[RSF]

12 minutes ago, Dr. Dre said:

but the city of St. Louis wants nothing to do with the MLS. 

Not exactly.  The vote was close on 60 million in public funding, and fell along certain geographic lines within the city.  But that's why they need a Plan B.  The group driving the bid had originally said they'd fold their effort if the vote failed.  But they've been noticeably quiet since then, suggesting alternative efforts are being pursued.  At least 4 other cities - Sacramento, Phoenix, San Antonio and Tampa - all have teams in place and stadium plans ready to turn dirt or initiate expansion of their current stadium.

[East Coast Aztec]

I can see where cities wouldn't mind working with NFL expansion, the amount of attendees and their cash could have a good spillover effect (stadium itself is a lost cause).  I have much less optimism of a city working with an entity that brings a 1/3rd less of the crowd, and won't ever have a major, major event like the Super Bowl, or U2 and the other megabands.  St. Louis is probably doing the right thing.

[RSF]

Difference in attendance isnt as stark as you would think (in Atlanta and Seattle more people will watch the soccer team than the football team, albeit with less expensive tickets), and the public dollars being asked for is a lot less.  The lack of 'big events' is valid.  In St Louis, it boils down to a segment of the populace being burned by the big bucks spent on the Dome only take have its primary tenant take a powder.  And also the city is on the hook for renovations to the Scotttrade Center where the Blues play (the city owns the arena).  60 million was chump change by comparison (and would have come on a tax from ticket sales to the new facility), but the emotions involved were still valid to reject it.  In Phoenix and Tampa Bay there are no public funds involved, while the new stadium in Orlando got about 40 million in public funding.  In San Diego, the situation seems much more complicated (to an outsider, anyways).

[East Coast Aztec]

20 minutes ago, RSF said:

Difference in attendance isnt as stark as you would think, and the public dollars being asked for is a lot less.  The lack of 'big events' is valid.  In St Louis, it boils down to a segment of the populace being burned by the big bucks spent on the Dome only take have its primary tenant take a powder.  And also the city is on the hook for renovations to the Scotttrade Center where the Blues play (the city owns the arena).  60 million was chump change by comparison (and would have come on a tax from ticket sales to the new facility), but the emotions involved were still valid to reject it.  In Phoenix and Tampa Bay there are no public funds involved, while the new stadium in Orlando got about 40 million in public funding.  In San Diego, the situation seems much more complicated (to an outsider, anyways).

Economic analysis reports were too differing to reconcile the accuracy, but the loftiest predictions, which the City's economic analysis absolutely obliterated, was only a net return of $79M over 30 years.  If I gave someone $60, and said "pay me back in 30 years", hopefully, I would get more than $19 in interest. 

[RSF]

Always been dubious of the Battle of the Economic Impact Studies.  Both sides can make the numbers say what they want.  And, like politics, which one a person chooses to believes usually involves which one fits there own personal beliefs.  If a city wants to pay for something, they will.  If they dont, they wont.

[East Coast Aztec]

10 minutes ago, RSF said:

Always been dubious of the Battle of the Economic Impact Studies.  Both sides can make the numbers say what they want.  And, like politics, which one a person chooses to believes usually involves which one fits there own personal beliefs.  If a city wants to pay for something, they will.  If they dont, they wont.

And they didn't.  And St. Louis' $60 million pales in comparison to the sale price deduction of the land in Mission Valley that FS is pulling, including site remediation and soccer facility subsidy.  Which would be all well and good to sell to the city, yet they continue to say "No taxpayer money".  Slick wordplay, gotta give them that.

[SleepingGiantFan]

17 hours ago, k5james said:

The list of opposition groups is growing.  I don't think a special election is even going to get approved.

As I understand it the FSI submitted valid sigs from a high enuf % of registered voters that the only discretion the city council now has is when the election will be.