Jump to content

Archived

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

badfish

SDSU AD is touring stadium designs by our architects, Populous

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

I don't want to get in the middle of two other guys' debate but for the record, a source inside the AD told me the same info SDSUfan related above.

Doesn't matter anymore, as Soccer City is dead.

Regarding our funding now, the funds for the Stadium are already allocated. SDSU will be getting a loan, backed by the CSU system to build out the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SDSUfan said:

I'm trying to stay out of this discussion,understanding that dissension is not something Aztec snowflakes are very good at handling....BUT..... BULLSHIT!

The SDSU-FS Investors finance proposal called for equal shares of $100million. SDSU committed to $20 million in startup capital based upon the reasonable assumption that they could raise that much from their donor base. The remainder would be financed through CSU revenue bonds to be serviced by revenue generated by the developed 5 acre parcel.  An addition 35 acres  are made available AT MARKET rate to the university.

Tell me how SDSU West will be cheaper?

.

 

It's a question of what SDSU receives in this deal.  What FSI is currently offering is a 30k seat soccer stadium and some land - with the exact area and pricing to be determined.  It's hard to say that one is a "better" deal than the other when you don't have anything to measure.  When I say that the SDSU West option would be "cheaper", I should have more accurately said that the SDSU West option will provide a better value for SDSU than what they would likely receive via the FSI proposal.  One of the major issues that I see is the disconnect between the amount of land SDSU wants and how much FSI is willing to part with.  Then we get into the question of defining 'market value'.  Is it current market value for undeveloped land in a flood plain? Is it the market value of the undeveloped land after the basic demolition but before any other improvements? Or is it the value of the land after FSI has put condos, stores and an "entertainment district" nearby?  Anyone who's played Monopoly can tell you that developed land costs much more than undeveloped land. 

SDSU said that it wants 47 acres of the site - 12 acres under the stadium and 35 acres for future expansion. I haven't heard that FSI has agreed to this amount of acreage.  It appears that there is a disconnect here - so, yes, FSI has offered SDSU an option to buy land, but again - how much and at what price?

This article in the U-T from March says that one option that was discussed is for 30 acres of land to be made available to SDSU is at the projected market rate in 30 years.  I don't know about you, but my forecasts get a little sketchy after years 3-5. A forecast variance in year 1 within +/-3% is considered to be really good and anything within +/- 10% in year 5 is fantastic.  To go out to 30 years for a valuation basis stretches the term "wild ass guess" to its most encompassing meaning.  (The same information contained in this piece by Fox5 San Diego from May states that SDSU would have the right to buy the land in 30 years at the market value at that time.)

Quote

SDSU wants at least 35 acres for future expansion from its present constrained, 238-acre home on Montezuma Mesa. FS pledges 12 acres under the stadium and five more next to it plus one of three choices: 10 contiguous acres in exchange for covering its share of development and parking preparation expenses; 2,000 student apartments and 200,000-square-feet of scientific research facilities by 2024, while not saying how much SDSU would have to pay; or 30 acres priced at the projected value in 30 years, the time horizon campus planners have said they would be needed.

There are no audited financials or independently validated forecasts for either side - which makes this very difficult to put a value on for comparison basis.  The devil's in the details - especially when you're dealing with what may be the most valuable contiguous plot of land in San Diego county. 

The most practical comparison I can use for this deal is one of those car leases you see advertised where you get an incredibly low payment of less than $200 a month for what looks like a really nice car - but when you read the fine print, you can only drive the car 5,000 miles a year without incurring punitive charges per mile.  At the end of the day, what looks like a great deal on the face could cost you a lot more in the long run and you receive far less than what you needed.  Ultimately, you're better off buying the car at a slightly higher up front cost and avoiding getting duped into paying more than you should have.

That's what I mean by "cheaper" - don't pay more than you should.   Based on the information available, I can't conclude that the FSI deal is a good deal - let alone that it's fairly priced.

 

 

Aztec-Nation-Banner2010-03.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Monty93 said:

It's a question of what SDSU receives in this deal.  What FSI is currently offering is a 30k seat soccer stadium and some land - with the exact area and pricing to be determined.  It's hard to say that one is a "better" deal than the other when you don't have anything to measure.  When I say that the SDSU West option would be "cheaper", I should have more accurately said that the SDSU West option will provide a better value for SDSU than what they would likely receive via the FSI proposal.  One of the major issues that I see is the disconnect between the amount of land SDSU wants and how much FSI is willing to part with.  Then we get into the question of defining 'market value'.  Is it current market value for undeveloped land in a flood plain? Is it the market value of the undeveloped land after the basic demolition but before any other improvements? Or is it the value of the land after FSI has put condos, stores and an "entertainment district" nearby?  Anyone who's played Monopoly can tell you that developed land costs much more than undeveloped land. 

SDSU said that it wants 47 acres of the site - 12 acres under the stadium and 35 acres for future expansion. I haven't heard that FSI has agreed to this amount of acreage.  It appears that there is a disconnect here - so, yes, FSI has offered SDSU an option to buy land, but again - how much and at what price?

This article in the U-T from March says that one option that was discussed is for 30 acres of land to be made available to SDSU is at the projected market rate in 30 years.  I don't know about you, but my forecasts get a little sketchy after years 3-5. A forecast variance in year 1 within +/-3% is considered to be really good and anything within +/- 10% in year 5 is fantastic.  To go out to 30 years for a valuation basis stretches the term "wild ass guess" to its most encompassing meaning.  (The same information contained in this piece by Fox5 San Diego from May states that SDSU would have the right to buy the land in 30 years at the market value at that time.)

There are no audited financials or independently validated forecasts for either side - which makes this very difficult to put a value on for comparison basis.  The devil's in the details - especially when you're dealing with what may be the most valuable contiguous plot of land in San Diego county. 

The most practical comparison I can use for this deal is one of those car leases you see advertised where you get an incredibly low payment of less than $200 a month for what looks like a really nice car - but when you read the fine print, you can only drive the car 5,000 miles a year without incurring punitive charges per mile.  At the end of the day, what looks like a great deal on the face could cost you a lot more in the long run and you receive far less than what you needed.  Ultimately, you're better off buying the car at a slightly higher up front cost and avoiding getting duped into paying more than you should have.

That's what I mean by "cheaper" - don't pay more than you should.   Based on the information available, I can't conclude that the FSI deal is a good deal - let alone that it's fairly priced.

 

 

There's no definition of cheaper you can come up with that will make SDSU West a better deal than what FSI is offering..The problem you are going to have is the ABJECT dishonesty with which the university is undertaking this effort. You'll be exposed once the voters understand that there are NO CLASSROOMS and "Research" space = office space. There's no formulation, no spin that can be applied that will prevent SDSU from looking very bad as this thing goes along.  Transparency and truth are your enemies. That's a  tough way to run a campaign.

“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

5 hours ago, SDSUfan said:

There's no definition of cheaper you can come up with that will make SDSU West a better deal than what FSI is offering..The problem you are going to have is the ABJECT dishonesty with which the university is undertaking this effort. You'll be exposed once the voters understand that there are NO CLASSROOMS and "Research" space = office space. There's no formulation, no spin that can be applied that will prevent SDSU from looking very bad as this thing goes along.  Transparency and truth are your enemies. That's a  tough way to run a campaign.

Lol, so you ignore all of the holes he poked in your statement and continue with your hypocrisy about truth and transparency being an enemy...

SDSU is being pretty damn transparent.  They're even having shots taken at them on Twitter for the media being allowed in their planning meetings and posting images of proto drawings of the proposed site plan.

Keep carrying water for SoccerCity though.  They've managed to turn a sure thing into an unlikely thing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SDSUfan said:

There's no definition of cheaper you can come up with that will make SDSU West a better deal than what FSI is offering..The problem you are going to have is the ABJECT dishonesty with which the university is undertaking this effort. You'll be exposed once the voters understand that there are NO CLASSROOMS and "Research" space = office space. There's no formulation, no spin that can be applied that will prevent SDSU from looking very bad as this thing goes along.  Transparency and truth are your enemies. That's a  tough way to run a campaign.

Did you just build lies for SDSU, so you could "expose" them?  :rotflmfao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SpartaRick said:

You say that the CSU system will pay for the land.  Is that a real commitment by the system or a "hope".

What he means to say is that it goes with the Cal State signed-off campus master plan.  There has not been an appropriations meeting.  But this fits exactly for what Cal State has given its agreeance on, in terms of SDSU expansion.

And it will likely be mostly CSU-backed bonds, not 100% taxpayer money, to fund the construction.  And no, I do not know the income streams tied to the payback.  It is early in the game, and I am an outsider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, k5james said:

Lol, so you ignore all of the holes he poked in your statement and continue with your hypocrisy about truth and transparency being an enemy...

SDSU is being pretty damn transparent.  They're even having shots taken at them on Twitter for the media being allowed in their planning meetings and posting images of proto drawings of the proposed site plan.

Keep carrying water for SoccerCity though.  They've managed to turn a sure thing into an unlikely thing...

Thanks for your typically content free contribution.

 

“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

14 hours ago, Monty93 said:

It's a question of what SDSU receives in this deal.  What FSI is currently offering is a 30k seat soccer stadium and some land - with the exact area and pricing to be determined.  It's hard to say that one is a "better" deal than the other when you don't have anything to measure.  When I say that the SDSU West option would be "cheaper", I should have more accurately said that the SDSU West option will provide a better value for SDSU than what they would likely receive via the FSI proposal.  One of the major issues that I see is the disconnect between the amount of land SDSU wants and how much FSI is willing to part with.  Then we get into the question of defining 'market value'.  Is it current market value for undeveloped land in a flood plain? Is it the market value of the undeveloped land after the basic demolition but before any other improvements? Or is it the value of the land after FSI has put condos, stores and an "entertainment district" nearby?  Anyone who's played Monopoly can tell you that developed land costs much more than undeveloped land. 

SDSU said that it wants 47 acres of the site - 12 acres under the stadium and 35 acres for future expansion. I haven't heard that FSI has agreed to this amount of acreage.  It appears that there is a disconnect here - so, yes, FSI has offered SDSU an option to buy land, but again - how much and at what price?

This article in the U-T from March says that one option that was discussed is for 30 acres of land to be made available to SDSU is at the projected market rate in 30 years.  I don't know about you, but my forecasts get a little sketchy after years 3-5. A forecast variance in year 1 within +/-3% is considered to be really good and anything within +/- 10% in year 5 is fantastic.  To go out to 30 years for a valuation basis stretches the term "wild ass guess" to its most encompassing meaning.  (The same information contained in this piece by Fox5 San Diego from May states that SDSU would have the right to buy the land in 30 years at the market value at that time.)

There are no audited financials or independently validated forecasts for either side - which makes this very difficult to put a value on for comparison basis.  The devil's in the details - especially when you're dealing with what may be the most valuable contiguous plot of land in San Diego county. 

The most practical comparison I can use for this deal is one of those car leases you see advertised where you get an incredibly low payment of less than $200 a month for what looks like a really nice car - but when you read the fine print, you can only drive the car 5,000 miles a year without incurring punitive charges per mile.  At the end of the day, what looks like a great deal on the face could cost you a lot more in the long run and you receive far less than what you needed.  Ultimately, you're better off buying the car at a slightly higher up front cost and avoiding getting duped into paying more than you should have.

That's what I mean by "cheaper" - don't pay more than you should.   Based on the information available, I can't conclude that the FSI deal is a good deal - let alone that it's fairly priced.

 

 

It's a question of what SDSU receives in this deal. ….

No it isn’t. It’s about what’s best for the City. SDSU does not own the land, SDSU has no claim to the property.

 What FSI is currently offering is a 30k seat soccer stadium and some land - with the exact area and pricing to be determined. …

34,000 seat stadium. The price is $100,000,000 for a stadium +5 acres.

 It's hard to say that one is a "better" deal than the other when you don't have anything to measure. 

 The first correct thing you’ve said.  SDSU West isn’t a plan, it’s nothing more than a slogan and an attitude.

 When I say that the SDSU West option would be "cheaper", I should have more accurately said that the SDSU West option will provide a better value for SDSU than what they would likely receive via the FSI proposal.  

How do you know? A 200 mil stadium is twice as expensive when you don’t split the cost. Operations costs will be twice as expensive and the lack of a second tenant will add additional burden to find events to cover them.

 One of the major issues that I see is the disconnect between the amount of land SDSU wants and how much FSI is willing to part with.

It’s called compromise. It’s what is expected of a state institution that has a primary mission of conferring Bachelor’s degrees; not “research” and NOT football. In that context, the monies SDSU is choosing to expend on this little venture should be minimized.  Instead, SDSU seems to be choosing the most expensive path, burdening the SUBSIDIZED athletics budget with outsized debt service payments and asking the citizens of the city to continue to operate a money pit into the indefinite future

  Then we get into the question of defining 'market value'.  Is it current market value for undeveloped land in a flood plain?

Is it the market value of the undeveloped land after the basic demolition but before any other improvements? Or is it the value of the land after FSI has put condos, stores and an "entertainment district" nearby?  Anyone who's played Monopoly can tell you that developed land costs much more than undeveloped land. 

If you buy a floodplain, the market value is the floodplain. If you buy a pad, the value is that of a pad. If you buy a building the value is the building. In a large development, you can’t set aside a plot of undeveloped floodplain. It all has to be graded and services installed at the same time.

 

SDSU said that it wants 47 acres of the site - 12 acres under the stadium and 35 acres for future expansion. I haven't heard that FSI has agreed to this amount of acreage.  It appears that there is a disconnect here - so, yes, FSI has offered SDSU an option to buy land, but again - how much and at what price?

It doesn’t matter what SDSU “wants”. It isn’t SDSU land and SDSU has no claim to it. It’s city land and it’s what’s best for the city that matters first and foremost.

This article in the U-T from March says that one option that was discussed is for 30 acres of land to be made available to SDSU is at the projected market rate in 30 years.  I don't know about you, but my forecasts get a little sketchy after years 3-5. A forecast variance in year 1 within +/-3% is considered to be really good and anything within +/- 10% in year 5 is fantastic.  To go out to 30 years for a valuation basis stretches the term "wild ass guess" to its most encompassing meaning.  (The same information contained in this piece by Fox5 San Diego from May states that SDSU would have the right to buy the land in 30 years at the market value at that time.)

This is only one of three options offed to the university IN ADDITION to the stadium and 5 adjacent acres.  It seems fair to me that if SDSU purchases the land 30 years hence, it should pay the market rate at the time of purchase. This is just dumb.

There are no audited financials or independently validated forecasts for either side - which makes this very difficult to put a value on for comparison basis.  The devil's in the details - especially when you're dealing with what may be the most valuable contiguous plot of land in San Diego county. 

You have no SDSU West details…Hello?...is this thing on?

The most practical comparison I can use for this deal is one of those car leases you see advertised where you get an incredibly low payment of less than $200 a month for what looks like a really nice car - but when you read the fine print, you can only drive the car 5,000 miles a year without incurring punitive charges per mile.  At the end of the day, what looks like a great deal on the face could cost you a lot more in the long run and you receive far less than what you needed.  Ultimately, you're better off buying the car at a slightly higher up front cost and avoiding getting duped into paying more than you should have.

Well you’re right in that cars and stadiums are equally bad investments. Other than that, your analogy is incoherent.

That's what I mean by "cheaper" - don't pay more than you should.   Based on the information available, I can't conclude that the FSI deal is a good deal - let alone that it's fairly priced.

At best, SDSU West will be twice as expensive. At worst, it could virtually bankrupt the athletics department ( See Cal Berkley)

“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, Scooter said:

Image result for pop up canopy

wyoming beer garden.  Complete with picnic table.

Try harder.  No way is that Wyoming, the tent isn't anchored and would be in Lincoln by now.  Up your game.

Though, the seismic load of a tent is minimal, should help keep costs down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SDSUfan said:

It's a question of what SDSU receives in this deal. ….

No it isn’t. It’s about what’s best for the City. SDSU does not own the land, SDSU has no claim to the property.

 What FSI is currently offering is a 30k seat soccer stadium and some land - with the exact area and pricing to be determined. …

34,000 seat stadium. The price is $100,000,000 for a stadium +5 acres.

 It's hard to say that one is a "better" deal than the other when you don't have anything to measure. 

 The first correct thing you’ve said.  SDSU West isn’t a plan, it’s nothing more than a slogan and an attitude.

 When I say that the SDSU West option would be "cheaper", I should have more accurately said that the SDSU West option will provide a better value for SDSU than what they would likely receive via the FSI proposal.  

How do you know? A 200 mil stadium is twice as expensive when you don’t split the cost. Operations costs will be twice as expensive and the lack of a second tenant will add additional burden to find events to cover them.

 One of the major issues that I see is the disconnect between the amount of land SDSU wants and how much FSI is willing to part with.

It’s called compromise. It’s what is expected of a state institution that has a primary mission of conferring Bachelor’s degrees; not “research” and NOT football. In that context, the monies SDSU is choosing to expend on this little venture should be minimized.  Instead, SDSU seems to be choosing the most expensive path, burdening the SUBSIDIZED athletics budget with outsized debt service payments and asking the citizens of the city to continue to operate a money pit into the indefinite future

  Then we get into the question of defining 'market value'.  Is it current market value for undeveloped land in a flood plain?

Is it the market value of the undeveloped land after the basic demolition but before any other improvements? Or is it the value of the land after FSI has put condos, stores and an "entertainment district" nearby?  Anyone who's played Monopoly can tell you that developed land costs much more than undeveloped land. 

If you buy a floodplain, the market value is the floodplain. If you buy a pad, the value is that of a pad. If you buy a building the value is the building. In a large development, you can’t set aside a plot of undeveloped floodplain. It all has to be graded and services installed at the same time.

 

SDSU said that it wants 47 acres of the site - 12 acres under the stadium and 35 acres for future expansion. I haven't heard that FSI has agreed to this amount of acreage.  It appears that there is a disconnect here - so, yes, FSI has offered SDSU an option to buy land, but again - how much and at what price?

It doesn’t matter what SDSU “wants”. It isn’t SDSU land and SDSU has no claim to it. It’s city land and it’s what’s best for the city that matters first and foremost.

This article in the U-T from March says that one option that was discussed is for 30 acres of land to be made available to SDSU is at the projected market rate in 30 years.  I don't know about you, but my forecasts get a little sketchy after years 3-5. A forecast variance in year 1 within +/-3% is considered to be really good and anything within +/- 10% in year 5 is fantastic.  To go out to 30 years for a valuation basis stretches the term "wild ass guess" to its most encompassing meaning.  (The same information contained in this piece by Fox5 San Diego from May states that SDSU would have the right to buy the land in 30 years at the market value at that time.)

This is only one of three options offed to the university IN ADDITION to the stadium and 5 adjacent acres.  It seems fair to me that if SDSU purchases the land 30 years hence, it should pay the market rate at the time of purchase. This is just dumb.

There are no audited financials or independently validated forecasts for either side - which makes this very difficult to put a value on for comparison basis.  The devil's in the details - especially when you're dealing with what may be the most valuable contiguous plot of land in San Diego county. 

You have no SDSU West details…Hello?...is this thing on?

The most practical comparison I can use for this deal is one of those car leases you see advertised where you get an incredibly low payment of less than $200 a month for what looks like a really nice car - but when you read the fine print, you can only drive the car 5,000 miles a year without incurring punitive charges per mile.  At the end of the day, what looks like a great deal on the face could cost you a lot more in the long run and you receive far less than what you needed.  Ultimately, you're better off buying the car at a slightly higher up front cost and avoiding getting duped into paying more than you should have.

Well you’re right in that cars and stadiums are equally bad investments. Other than that, your analogy is incoherent.

That's what I mean by "cheaper" - don't pay more than you should.   Based on the information available, I can't conclude that the FSI deal is a good deal - let alone that it's fairly priced.

At best, SDSU West will be twice as expensive. At worst, it could virtually bankrupt the athletics department ( See Cal Berkley)

Lol

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Lol

My reaction exactly.  There's so much factually wrong with that post I don't know where to begin but I will say FSI has NOT proposed a 34k seat stadium.  It's 33.5k INCLUDING 3.5k SRO spaces.  Monty93 was absolutely correct that it's a 30k seat stadium they want to build.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, k5james said:

My reaction exactly.  There's so much factually wrong with that post I don't know where to begin but I will say FSI has NOT proposed a 34k seat stadium.  It's 33.5k INCLUDING 3.5k SRO spaces.  Monty93 was absolutely correct that it's a 30k seat stadium they want to build.

That poster may root for the Aztecs. MAY. However, even assuming he does, his top priority is seeing the FSI thing come to fruition.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

That poster may root for the Aztecs. May. However, even assuming he does, his top priority clearly is seeing the FSI thing come to fruition.

Yup, we won't even get into how FSI planned on have SDSU finance the entire stadium project in a move that I'm sure has nothing to do with tax savings in mind...

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...