Jump to content
SDSUfan

SDSU Plays Hide The Ball

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, nocoolnamejim said:

Er...my mom's dead man.

Just jokes my man.  Long standing MWC Board joke.  Dre needs to come back and liven this place up a little.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wyobraska said:

Just jokes my man.  Long standing MWC Board joke.  Dre needs to come back and liven this place up a little.

Oh I know. I'm familiar with the Dre meme.

I'm totally just messing with you brother. Mom's alive and well I'm not above lying about a dead mother if the joke is good enough. 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, k5james said:

Reread the UTs CPRA request the UT submitted...

"all consultants retained by SDSU to perform work/ services related to the SDSU West project, and the amounts paid to each — by month — since January 2017." 

 

Since SDSU cannot publicly support SDSU West you know damn well any discussion of SDSU West had an attorney involved. 

If I knew exactly who it was that made the decision to rely on attorney-client privilege as the basis for declining to turn the documents over to the U-T I might feel better about it. However, a couple of the names which have been identified as representing the university in this matter are not close to being people I would choose for such an immensely important task.

That said, although all members of the media always want access to everything a public agency does, the U-T has been one of the media organizations at the forefront of such demands and it clearly doesn't always win when trying to get it. As an example, see this: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1226511.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

With all due respect to Mug's board, I don't think it has sufficient clout to sway the vote in San Diego...

Maybe not, but the pics in the Pick 10 threads could cure erectile dysfunction.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2018 at 4:39 PM, SDSUfan said:

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sd-me-sdsu-west-20180625-story.html

 

The University has put on the ballot an initiative basically written in crayon on the back of napkin with no details, only a promise of a "transparent" process so that the good citizens of San Diego will know what the plan to put there after they win.   that's it.  Transparency!

not so much......

The problem as I've stated all along, is that SDSU is running a DIShonest campaign. 

This pretty much proves my point.

 

 

The article explains that the ballot initiative committee and the university are distinct.  That is still irrelevant to a Public Records Act request.

Perhaps SDSU is trying to broaden the PRA objection based on litigation to include actions taken in anticipation of possible litigation as well.  Usually it's easy to distinguish between the present and the future.

Usually there is a lawsuit which allows someone to determine the relevance of objecting to admitting otherwise admissible evidence based on that evidence being developed in anticipation of litigation because that evidence is relevant to a case filed in court.

Way to go SDSU admin.  This hullaballoo might sink the citizen effort lead by SDSU alums that created the initiative to compete with Soccer City!

If there is no MLS team committed by the election I seriously doubt that many voters would be inclined to vote for Soccer City regardless of a competing initiative.

At the very least more voters will be aware of the issue which helps when seeking to simultaneously defeat one initiative and win another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2018 at 8:56 AM, SDSUfan said:

Well if there's one thing transparent it's your abject ignorance. 

SDSU is running a con. It will be exposed. 

The one major daily newspaper in town files a FOIA and the university ducks behind a specious privilege claim?

Do you expect an endorsement?

Why would anyone in the community trust the university at this point?

You better hope for better news from the judicial review the city attorney requested. Something tells me things won't get better.

Liars and cheats ultimately get caught.

 

 

Not always.  Some become President and tweet about how they can pardon themself.

 

:rimshot1:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be down to come watch a USNT soccer game in SD if they had a proper stadium to play in. MLS is also awesome to watch in person

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those with an interest in the whole situation, San Diego/SoccerCity's chances of getting an MLS franchise just got a little harder.  St. Louis' expansion bid has been revived, with new ownership (the family that owns Enterprise Rent-A-Car - net worth 9 billion) that will include female majority owners (a nice little PR move), and a stadium plan that will include less public financing (tax breaks only) and will not require a public vote.  And StL has always been a market MLS desperately wants to be in.

 

 

https://www.stltoday.com/business/local/soccer-gets-another-shot-in-st-louis-as-family-that/article_f77a29a7-9a97-577e-84ea-92107ace964c.html

http://www.espn.com/soccer/major-league-soccer/story/3665217/st-louis-back-in-mls-expansion-mix-with-majority-female-ownership-group

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some in San Diego have short memories and have already forgotten what the last Professional Sports Franchise Owners/Developers did to the City.

Lets see, Capitalism>Education? Yaa, that's brilliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOLZ, as long as they don't try to make another lame CEQA exemption for the project, I think they'll be okay 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ViAggie said:

LOLZ, as long as they don't try to make another lame CEQA exemption for the project, I think they'll be okay 

Are you referring to the soccer folks? Because that is what they did in their initiative (Measure E)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rev McQuervo said:

Some in San Diego have short memories and have already forgotten what the last Professional Sports Franchise Owners/Developers did to the City.

Lets see, Capitalism>Education? Yaa, that's brilliant.

Why did this thread float to the top again?  I was going to let sleeping dogs lie(pun intended) but since it  seems like it's back on, I'll defend myself:

Capitalism>Education is not not what's at work here and you know it.  It's more like

capitalism = capitalism

"Education" is nothing but a veneer. The state has concluded that there in no need expand the CSU system. that there currently exists sufficient  capacity to accommodate future student needs with no construction of new facilities and more than sufficient capacity for growth within existing plans.  "SDSU West" is NOT part of any existing plan. You don't need to believe me. You can read the study yourself but here's the key section and the conclusion:

https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2017/3532/uc-csu-enrollment-capacity-011917.pdf

Quote
New CSU Campus Not Warranted at This Time.
As with UC, our analysis indicates CSU has ample capacity to accommodate its projected enrollment growth of 15,000 additional students between now and 2024-25. If they used their existing facilities during the fall and spring terms according to legislative guidelines, they could accommodate an additional 31,000 students. If CSU campuses used their existing facilities during the summer term according to legislative guidelines, CSU could accommodate another 61,000 additional students. Such results indicate CSU has considerable existing capacity even without building out existing campuses to their planned capacities. Were CSU to begin adding new facilities according to those long-range plans, it could accommodate another 139,000 students. Between reaching current capacity and building out to planned capacity, CSU could serve a total of more than 200,000 additional students. Given the magnitude of these results, various assumptions could be changed (such as assuming higher demographically driven enrollment growth or expanding eligibility policies) and CSU still likely would have ample physical capacity. Even using a different set of regions does not dramatically alter these results (as discussed in the box on the next page).

Here's the conclusion:

Quote
CONCLUSION
Under current state policy, UC and CSU are projected to experience modest enrollment growth over the next decade. The state has many options to accommodate this growth at existing campuses, including by increasing the use of existing facilities and constructing new facilities. Because these options can accommodate all projected growth, we believe a new campus is not warranted at this time.

Want to dig a little  deeper? Here's an article from one of the very few institutions committing acts of journalism here in San Diego that shines the light on costs and where the money will be coming from.  It's not pretty and frankly combined with above analysis indicates EXACTLY what I have been saying all along: SDSU West is a fraud and a scam.

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/government/sdsu-cant-say-how-it-will-pay-for-everything-in-sdsu-west-plan/

Quote

But what happens if Measure G passes – is SDSU the dog that catches the car?

Right off the bat, the university expects to need $550 million to build a new stadium and begin preparing the land. SDSU officials have repeatedly promised they will not raise student tuition or fees, but they are uncertain or secretive about how exactly everything would play out.

Quote

The university remains coy or perhaps just uncertain about how and when it would actually transform the site.

In early 2016, SDSU’s chief financial officer, Tom McCarron, told a SoccerCity investor in an email that the university wouldn’t need student housing in the near future and wouldn’t want units in Mission Valley. In spring 2017, Bob Schulz, the university’s vice president for real estate assets, said the university would build a new football stadium soon but wouldn’t need the whole site for another 30-50 years, though he quickly walked back that statement.

Now, the university is talking with more clear and consistent urgency.

“The university has needs today – demand today for housing, demand today for research space,” Gina Jacobs, an SDSU assistant vice president, said in a recent interview.

Quote

The university plans to work with private partners to develop Mission Valley. These deals, known as public-private partnerships, shield universities from some risks and can help prop up a university’s bottom line. SDSU expects to get over $200,000 this year from a new dorm built this way by Alabama-based Capstone Development Partners.

“The university is behaving like a private buyer of this real estate,” Kratzer said.

I could go on  but I don't want to beat a dead horse.  It would be much simpler and even garner a few additional votes if the university simply owns up to what it wants; a stadium of their very, very own like all of the big boys have.  The lies they've told in pursuit of this end are disgusting in the extreme.

Now to contradict myself:  As much as I despise the way SDSU is going about this business, I'm leaning towards voting yes on both. This is because I HATE.....HATE...did I say HATE the no growth NIMBY shitheels that have held this city back for too long and on too many fronts to allow a chance to accomplish something...ANYTHING to slip through our hands again. I'm still not there yet but as of today, that's how I plan to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SDSUfan said:

Why did this thread float to the top again? 

Try reading the post that did it, genius.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, RSF said:

Try reading the post that did it, genius.

What you know about the MLS plan related to SD is zero, genius

Additionally, Einstein, there's this:

Quote

On the other hand, San Diego’s stadium site is at the intersection of two major freeways and SDSU hopes to attract a professional soccer team that will mean more people at the stadium for more games that just the college football season

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/government/sdsu-cant-say-how-it-will-pay-for-everything-in-sdsu-west-plan/

So sort of an own goal there, doncha' think?

It's hard to keep track of the lies though, I get it.

24831071_1622332291138652_8585190136593055861_o.thumb.jpg.96fc96c700465390df175bce70696c17.jpg22179709_1557431887628693_670294803950824887_o.thumb.jpg.cf427d9969a3b32741fac2cc13e31fc1.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2018 at 3:42 PM, SDSUfan said:

Oh, it's Faaaar worse that THAT!  I'm  an actual resident of San Diego.  I live close enough to the stadium that I can watch the fireworks from my porch. When there's a flyover, they fly practically over my house.  I shop at Ralph's on Friars.  I fill my tank at Costco next to the stadium, I'm at Lowe's at least once a week. I frequent Sansai next to Food4less when I hanker for Japanese.   In short, THIS IS A LOCAL ISSUE FOR ME! I spend time in the valley almost daily.  What happens on that site will impact my life and my property value.

 

 


Whoopee...  I've lived close to the stadium, too.  Right up in Mission Village - I actually heard Roseanne butcher the national anthem from my yard. I also lived in a townhouse overlooking the San Diego River and watched the B-2 Flyover for the Super Bowl right out of the sliding door to the front porch. Physical proximity doesn't make your analysis any less unsound. Sucker City is a bad deal. If you've lived in the area long enough, you remember back in the 90's when the overgrown strip mall and condo hell that is Friars Road used to be mostly empty fields. I don't see how cramming more apartments, condos and restaurants into that last remaining parcel of Friars Road - along with all of the attendant traffic - is any great deal for anyone.  I'd prefer to see SDSU West win between the two, but wouldn't be too put out if both propositions lost and everyone went back to the planning table.

Your property value will be better off if Sucker City loses, otherwise there will be more housing supply in the area and more traffic - and all of those people will be driving on the same roads and shopping in the same stores.

That parcel of land is too valuable to rush into a bad decision just because one side or the other has to win. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Monty93 said:


Whoopee...  I've lived close to the stadium, too.  Right up in Mission Village - I actually heard Roseanne butcher the national anthem from my yard. I also lived in a townhouse overlooking the San Diego River and watched the B-2 Flyover for the Super Bowl right out of the sliding door to the front porch. Physical proximity doesn't make your analysis any less unsound. Sucker City is a bad deal. If you've lived in the area long enough, you remember back in the 90's when the overgrown strip mall and condo hell that is Friars Road used to be mostly empty fields. I don't see how cramming more apartments, condos and restaurants into that last remaining parcel of Friars Road - along with all of the attendant traffic - is any great deal for anyone.  I'd prefer to see SDSU West win between the two, but wouldn't be too put out if both propositions lost and everyone went back to the planning table.

Your property value will be better off if Sucker City loses, otherwise there will be more housing supply in the area and more traffic - and all of those people will be driving on the same roads and shopping in the same stores.

That parcel of land is too valuable to rush into a bad decision just because one side or the other has to win. 

So, the plan is to  get in bed with Sudburry and Fenton, World Class Condo Crammers.  the two parties MOST responsible for  the current state of Mission Valley to build out  the Q site?  Are you on crack?

my analysis isn't baed on my proximity. It's based in FACT. and the FACT is that SDSU is lying its ass off.  They are committing a fraud on the public.  They say they need the site to expand the education mission of the University. This is a foundational untruth and they know it.  The tune they sing now, as they dance for their puppet masters Sudburry and Fenton, is a different tune than when they had agency.

Like i said, admit this is nothing more than a play to get a stadium. PERIOD. Admit that the rest of whatever is built there... could be a phuking water park and whore house as far as anyone knows , will exist solely to pay for a 1/2 billion dollar stadium for a G5 football team. Admit those things, be much closer to the truth and possibly win more votes.

  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RSF said:

Try reading the post that did it, genius.

Props to you if you actually took the time to read that novel. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SDSUfan said:

So, the plan is to  get in bed with Sudburry and Fenton, World Class Condo Crammers.  the two parties MOST responsible for  the current state of Mission Valley to build out  the Q site?  Are you on crack?

my analysis isn't baed on my proximity. It's based in FACT. and the FACT is that SDSU is lying its ass off.  They are committing a fraud on the public.  They say they need the site to expand the education mission of the University. This is a foundational untruth and they know it.  The tune they sing now, as they dance for their puppet masters Sudburry and Fenton, is a different tune than when they had agency.

Like i said, admit this is nothing more than a play to get a stadium. PERIOD. Admit that the rest of whatever is built there... could be a phuking water park and whore house as far as anyone knows , will exist solely to pay for a 1/2 billion dollar stadium for a G5 football team. Admit those things, be much closer to the truth and possibly win more votes.

I wouldn't admit that because that isn't true.  Your half-billion dollar stadium statement is wrong or at the very least being hyperbolic.  Total site prep isn't a stadium cost.  Acting as if no one is going to want to want to work with SDSU in Mission Valley to insinuate that half a billion dollars is a sunk cost with no development is pretty silly a notion.  Anyone could get someone to work with them in Mission Valley.  Set a fair term and you will have developers ready to work with you. 

 

To your other point, i don't live there to vote but I would only be motivated to vote for G if the academic side was the driver.  Having experienced what collaboration between university research and private agencies can do for an area, that is a huge attraction.  That can bear more fruit for a long-term regional asset and the support industry increases.  So if people solely want a stadium, they should vote no on G.

 

I would never vote yes on the soccer thing.  The reversion clause section is absolutely slanted, and there is a probability the citizens get much less than what is being stated.  If the voters are even remotely educated in real estate or contract law, they would vote no on E.

 

And yes, I am biased toward SDSU.  I have seen the steady improvement in academics and research, and believe it can be even better organically.  Which is a true job creator.  New jobs, not moved jobs.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m just an outsider with limited knowledge of the situation but had a few questions as it relates to the MWC.

1) Where is SDSU playing their home games the next few years?

2) What is your best guess at this time for the most likely location scenario for a new stadium? Will Qualcomm be torn down?

3) How can SDSU afford a new stadium in the current day and times? Aren’t we talking $200 million plus? Who will pay for it? 

4) What size stadium are you looking at?

5) If a new stadium is built what is the likely opening date? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

I’m just an outsider with limited knowledge of the situation but had a few questions as it relates to the MWC.

1) Where is SDSU playing their home games the next few years?

SDSU plays in the current stadium until it is knocked down

2) What is your best guess at this time for the most likely location scenario for a new stadium? Will Qualcomm be torn down?

Both initiatives require Q to be razed.  Soccer says 3 years, but not firm, SDSU says required 7 years after sale.  Difference is soccer plan, the stadium and its O&M stay with the city.  SDSU assumes O&M immediately.  SDSU will want to knock it down quickly.

3) How can SDSU afford a new stadium in the current day and times? Aren’t we talking $200 million plus? Who will pay for it? 

Similar model to CSU

4) What size stadium are you looking at?

30-35k With it being expandable

5) If a new stadium is built what is the likely opening date?   USU gets one more game in the old stadium.  Soccer says 2021, SDSU will depend on sale date, as it will still need to pass review.

If I am mistaken, please correct.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×