Jump to content

Archived

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

Willie Cee

Please Stop Implying - No Home for Aztecs

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, LPH-10 said:

From what I have been able to gather from the SDSU fans, they seem to know that a new stadium is in the bag, so they have no worries.  Anyone who does not share that opinion is uninformed.  I think that is basically all we need to know.  Oh yeah, and they will be out of this shitty conference, that they are to good for, in a few years.

 

I would never say "in the bag" at this time.

I will say I feel it is about 75/80 % that the Aztecs will get what they want in Mission Valley.  And that % could jump up considerably over the next few months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, LPH-10 said:

From what I have been able to gather from the SDSU fans, they seem to know that a new stadium is in the bag, so they have no worries.  Anyone who does not share that opinion is uninformed.  I think that is basically all we need to know.  Oh yeah, and they will be out of this shitty conference, that they are to good for, in a few years.

 

I think that about sums it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, HighNTight_SD said:

I will once again point out that your opinion is uninformed and your thoughts on the perceived choices before the city are similarly useless. I suggest you put your brain housing group to work a little and understand that the city has no role in funding higher education, let alone investing in San Diego State. Your speculation regarding the influence of developers with respect to the property in question is greatly exaggerated. I again suggest that if you wish to offer an opinion, you get yourself informed of the relative legal issues regarding the sale or lease of the 166+ acre city-owned site. As for your other projections on what the city would do with the site in terms of annual maintenance costs, debt service and demolition -- I will once again suggest you educate yourself on the facts and figures at play before giving your unsolicited advice.

In short, you don't seem to know anything -- so maybe stop pretending that you do.

 

18 hours ago, fanhood said:

Ah, there you go. I see now. You have an agenda. 

Take High n Tight's advice and educate yourself. Read some articles. Investigate the details of the law. Hell, read some posts on this board. Nobody has time to rehash and correct every false statement you make.

Blah blah blah. Same old story. "Anyone who isn't an SDSU fan can't possibly understand this complicated sale of a piece of property. We know so much more than you that we can't be bother to post a single link to substantiate any of our claims." It sounds to me like you're simply talking out of your ass. Did you even read the article that the OP posted? It said that the city council wants to get other proposals for the MV property (aside from the Soccer City proposal and SDSU's proposal to buy the entire site). It also says that SDSU is negotiating with the city to take over Qualcomm in case SDSU doesn't have a long-term stadium plan by the end of 2018. If it's a done deal that SDSU is going to be able to purchase the MV property, then why are they talking to the city about taking over Qualcomm? You keep saying that I know nothing about this, but you make wild claims that are contradicted by every published source I have seen. If it's a given that SDSU will get to purchase the property, why is it so difficult to provide a link to defend that claim? I'm guessing it's because no such link exists and you're simply in denial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, StanfordAggie said:

 

Blah blah blah. Same old story. "Anyone who isn't an SDSU fan can't possibly understand this complicated sale of a piece of property. We know so much more than you that we can't be bother to post a single link to substantiate any of our claims." It sounds to me like you're simply talking out of your ass. Did you even read the article that the OP posted? It said that the city council wants to get other proposals for the MV property (aside from the Soccer City proposal and SDSU's proposal to buy the entire site). It also says that SDSU is negotiating with the city to take over Qualcomm in case SDSU doesn't have a long-term stadium plan by the end of 2018. If it's a done deal that SDSU is going to be able to purchase the MV property, then why are they talking to the city about taking over Qualcomm? You keep saying that I know nothing about this, but you make wild claims that are contradicted by every published source I have seen. If it's a given that SDSU will get to purchase the property, why is it so difficult to provide a link to defend that claim? I'm guessing it's because no such link exists and you're simply in denial.

I will take this reply to mean you have no interest in understanding the exigencies of the situation, the laws and regulations that govern the process or anything else that will remotely cause you to have to actually work and think before offering an opinion.  You seem to be trying a "cliff notes" version of topic based on one piece written for an audience that has a greater understanding of the events that have already transpired or are related -- and you try to BS opine on the subject as if you are now an expert.

I would engage in an actual debate with you if I thought you had any real knowledge about the situation -- but over several posts you have exposed yourself as both lazy and ignorant. If you think that you are fooling anyone by recycling the same opinion without doing any of your own work to gain a better understanding of the issues you seek to be taken as knowledgeable about ... then you are even dumber than others here have intimated you are.

LBH45AqczF9hO5XyQxqE.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, HighNTight_SD said:

I will take this reply to mean you have no interest in understanding the exigencies of the situation, the laws and regulations that govern the process or anything else that will remotely cause you to have to actually work and think before offering an opinion.  You seem to be trying a "cliff notes" version of topic based on one piece written for an audience that has a greater understanding of the events that have already transpired or are related -- and you try to BS opine on the subject as if you are now an expert.

I would engage in an actual debate with you if I thought you had any real knowledge about the situation -- but over several posts you have exposed yourself as both lazy and ignorant. If you think that you are fooling anyone by recycling the same opinion without doing any of your own work to gain a better understanding of the issues you seek to be taken as knowledgeable about ... then you are even dumber than others here have intimated you are.

That would be impressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2017 at 1:06 PM, Willie Cee said:

SDSU and Aztec Football are attached at the hip. SDSU is the third or fourth leading economic driver and the oldest local institution in the city (estimated economic impact is over 2 billion per year) with an expanded campus, this impact could more than double. Point being this; No politician will ever allow Aztec Football to be harmed because it would harm SDSU. The solution is not clear, just that there WILL be a solution. All of the red herrings thrown about implying a lack of satisfactory playing options for the Aztecs is simply that, a red herring. 

Wherein Qualcomm Stadium, the bane of Aztec football, its anchor, its albatross becomes a "satisfactory playing option"

“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 8/12/2017 at 2:57 PM, Bruininthebay said:

The title is the worst ever, but it's clear that SDSU and the  Cal State Chancellor's office are now putting the wheels in motion to just take over the entire stadium and property as is because that is really the best way to save money given their resources and the opportunity.

It will happen but the public process in California is drawn out.  The best part is how it makes the mayor look like a dope.

How? Sending in the National Guard? The city has no plans to declare the land surplus.  There's a little matter of a public initiative that must be voted on WITH or WITHOUT the immediate  prospect of a MLS franchise.

The state chancellor has no authority to "take over" a hot dog stand. Taking over a large, valuable piece of commercial real estate, in the face of any municipal or local business/industry resistance would require legislative and gubernatorial action. IOW, a practical impossibility.

Face the facts; SDSU is at the mercy of the mayor.

“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 8/12/2017 at 6:59 PM, HighNTight_SD said:

From a 2010 Study:

The $2.4 billion impact on the region was a decade ago ... the new numbers should be released soon.

This doesn't require a football team. nor does it require the procurement of a large tract of prime real estate.  It's a bullcrap, politically vulnerable argument. SDSU would do well to stop making it.

“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 8/13/2017 at 0:41 AM, fanhood said:

Oh dear, this has been answered dozens of times. SDSU already has offered to  buy the land at FMV, which is just over $100 million. And if it gets approved, SDSU would have the opportunity to go back and get the previously offered terms. There is no scenario where SDSU is homeless. Don't comment unless you have actual took the time to read about the issue.

Again, SDSU is not entitled to the property, there's a little matter of a public initiative that must be voted on, now scheduled 1 month before SDSU's lease expires.

“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 8/13/2017 at 2:06 PM, StanfordAggie said:

I'm aware of that. And I hope the city council accepts SDSU's offer. But the article that was posted earlier said that the city council wants to see other proposals for the land aside from Soccer City (and SDSU's proposal). So I find the premature ejaculation from the SDSU contingent to be a bit weird. I work in higher education; I'd love it if the city council decides that it's better to sell the land to a university than to a well-connected developer. But usually developers have better lobbyists than universities, and allowing the university to buy that land would cost the city an enormous amount of future property/sales tax revenue. So I'm not optimistic that it will be that easy.

SDSU's plan has nothing to do with education. It's a for profit speculative real estate venture, Nothing more, nothing less.

Expansion of actual academic capacity requires legislative action. Strange nobody mentions this.

The sales pitch is that SDSU will procure the land, build a stadium, build market rate rental and subsidized housing, which they will own, control and rent to incoming freshmen and sophmores required to stay in student housing by (a very convenient) rule. Office space ( referred to as "lab space" to sound all academic n' stuff will be built and leased to the private sector until SDSU "needs the space" 20-30 years from now.

 

“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 8/13/2017 at 3:45 PM, HighNTight_SD said:

Tell you what ... why don't you put your brain to work and research the development already underway in Mission Valley and that which has already been approved without the stadium site. Then take a look at the effect of that development on public infrastructure has already been approved that will be a cost to the city like roads and traffic mitigation.

Now put your developer hat on and tell me how much developers will have to invest in order to see a return on the stadium site factoring in purchase, permitting, flood plain mitigation as well as other factors that affect that area like overcrowded public schools and a lack of fire, police and emergency services that will have to be increased or built in support at developers expense.

This is without even talking about the legal issues regarding selling city owned property sized 80 acres or more for private development. There is a reason that FSI is trying to use pro soccer and an initiative to do an end run around CEQA.

The city will also factor in ROI for the city when comparing university expansion to private development. Adding another 10K students is estimated to increase the already size-able economic impact of SDSU by 50% or more ... and this is on top of the CSU buying the property for $100M.

This is incoherent.  At best, you make an argument that development of the Site is far too expensive for SDSU to take on.    The requirement BTW, it to increase student capacity  by 10K over a speified time period. This doesn't mean that they need to be accommodated in brick an mortar.  It also doesn't mean they need to be accommodated in MV. MV is a (very expensive)  preference borne of aesthetic more so that any real practicality. As I've stated before; Chula Vista, 15 miles to the south has 275 fully entitled acres set aside for a college or university they will GIVE to the state . I actually heard Roush use the argument that MV was "closer to the library" and thereby a preferred location

“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

The bottom line here is that SDSU is contemplating operating a facility , in partnership of course, that will cost the program $3-5 million/year  IF THEY IMPROVE OPERATING EFFICIENCY BY 30- 50%. As SDSU has chosen to throw sand in the gears by backing out of the FSI deal, the likelihood is that these are losses the program must absorb for the foreseeable future.

This for a stadium the university admits is killing their program

Phucking brilliant!

Are-college-students-more-brilliant-The-

“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 8/12/2017 at 9:33 PM, Dr. Dre said:

Listen, (and I mean this in the most honest way). You're too stupid and fixated on JA's ball sack placed squarely on your chin to engage with. Seriously, you are a total idiot and  beneath acknowledgement. Do yourself a favor and concentrate on bringing your WHYome logo knee pads to the WAR this year, and maybe JA will accommodate you. Don't worry about SDSU's stadium situation- it's been hashed out over and over again. We're going to be fine. In fact, MORE than fine- we're going to be leaving you WHYome turds in the dust within 5 years. Now, wipe the drool off your keyboard, be sure to kiss your JA poster above your bed, and scram simpleton

 

Just like y'all left for the BIG Least?  You track record for leaving the conf is stellar!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, StanfordAggie said:

 

Blah blah blah. Same old story. "Anyone who isn't an SDSU fan can't possibly understand this complicated sale of a piece of property. We know so much more than you that we can't be bother to post a single link to substantiate any of our claims." It sounds to me like you're simply talking out of your ass. Did you even read the article that the OP posted? It said that the city council wants to get other proposals for the MV property (aside from the Soccer City proposal and SDSU's proposal to buy the entire site). It also says that SDSU is negotiating with the city to take over Qualcomm in case SDSU doesn't have a long-term stadium plan by the end of 2018. If it's a done deal that SDSU is going to be able to purchase the MV property, then why are they talking to the city about taking over Qualcomm? You keep saying that I know nothing about this, but you make wild claims that are contradicted by every published source I have seen. If it's a given that SDSU will get to purchase the property, why is it so difficult to provide a link to defend that claim? I'm guessing it's because no such link exists and you're simply in denial.

I have made zero wild claims. I simply said that your post indicated that you had no understanding of the situation. I have commented on this topic for months, and laid out the scenarios. All information has been based on actually reading the law, the initiative, as well as other open sources pieces of information. You however, clearly have not. Thus, your opinion is not to be respected nor considered. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, HighNTight_SD said:

I will take this reply to mean you have no interest in understanding the exigencies of the situation, the laws and regulations that govern the process or anything else that will remotely cause you to have to actually work and think before offering an opinion.  You seem to be trying a "cliff notes" version of topic based on one piece written for an audience that has a greater understanding of the events that have already transpired or are related -- and you try to BS opine on the subject as if you are now an expert.

I would engage in an actual debate with you if I thought you had any real knowledge about the situation -- but over several posts you have exposed yourself as both lazy and ignorant. If you think that you are fooling anyone by recycling the same opinion without doing any of your own work to gain a better understanding of the issues you seek to be taken as knowledgeable about ... then you are even dumber than others here have intimated you are.

 

12 hours ago, fanhood said:

I have made zero wild claims. I simply said that your post indicated that you had no understanding of the situation. I have commented on this topic for months, and laid out the scenarios. All information has been based on actually reading the law, the initiative, as well as other open sources pieces of information. You however, clearly have not. Thus, your opinion is not to be respected nor considered. 

So in other words, neither of you have any evidence whatsoever to support your claims and you're talking entirely out of your ass? Gotcha. I'm not claiming to be an expert on the situation. But I did at least read the article in the OP, and that article makes it very clear that it's far from a done deal that SDSU will eventually own the property. It appears that neither of you have even done that. If I'm wrong, please provide a link that provides more information about these supposed "laws and regulations that govern the process" that show that SDSU is guaranteed to own the property. I've looked, and I don't think that such a link exists. In fact, I'm pretty sure I read something about a ballot initiative that's going to happen next year that will give a developer the rights to the property if it passes.  If you can provide a link saying that SDSU will definitely get to own and develop the property, I'll happily eat crow. But I don't think you can, because I think you've simply got your head in the sand and you're talking out of your ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, SDSUfan said:

SDSU's plan has nothing to do with education. It's a for profit speculative real estate venture, Nothing more, nothing less.

Expansion of actual academic capacity requires legislative action. Strange nobody mentions this.

The sales pitch is that SDSU will procure the land, build a stadium, build market rate rental and subsidized housing, which they will own, control and rent to incoming freshmen and sophmores required to stay in student housing by (a very convenient) rule. Office space ( referred to as "lab space" to sound all academic n' stuff will be built and leased to the private sector until SDSU "needs the space" 20-30 years from now.

 

I think you're being a little harsh here. If a large piece of property suitable for development is available within a reasonable distance of SDSU's main campus, they would be foolish not to try to acquire some or all of it. Even if SDSU doesn't necessarily need the space for the time being, they aren't exactly creating new real estate in San Diego, and it will be far cheaper and easier to acquire this undeveloped land now than to try to find other land for expansion in the future when the need is more urgent. And if SDSU acquires the property, I can't fault SDSU for trying to get the best possible return on their investment until the land is actually needed for academic purposes.

My criticism of SDSU right now, at least with regards to athletics, is that it's far from certain that they will eventually own the property at all, much less be able to build a stadium on that property. If the Soccer City initiative passes or if some other developer buys the land with no plans to build a stadium, SDSU is in a really bad spot. And it seems fairly likely that the city council could end up debating about what to do with the property for years, in which case SDSU's only option is to keep playing in Qualcomm at enormous expense (and hope that the entire thing isn't condemned before they find a new home). I think SDSU really needs a Plan B for a long-term stadium if they can't build a new one at MV, and so far I haven't seen one. That would concern me if I were an SDSU fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...