Links: Election Fallout, Port's Open House

Today was spent at the BACCS event, and a report on that can be expected tomorrow. In the meantime, how about those elections?

The important races with the stadium in mind were seats three and four on the Chula Vista City Council. In the next few days, expect to see how all four candidates feel about a stadium in Chula Vista. Another proposition was shot down that would have restricted the height of buildings in the city, similar to the rule San Diego has.

Mayor Sanders won re-election outright last night, and today said that he will not assist the Chargers in staying in Mission Valley during his new term in office.

As for the Port of San Diego, the Enviromental Impact Report concerning the bay front is up for public review from now until July 8th. An open house meeting is scheduled for June 16 at the South Bay Fish and Grill. You can find the EIR here.

Dean Spanos talks about the stadium

Chargers.com has an interview with team president Dean Spanos concerning the team's preparation for the fall and stadium progress.

Spanos says that management is "concentrating all of [its] efforts on the last possible San Diego County sites." He notes the financing study, which he says will come in the next two to three months. He noted the Gaylord site as most critical to the stadium's viability.

Here's part of his comment addressing his relationship with Ed Roski:

“Ed Roski is a friend of mine. Our fathers were in the development business together, and we’ve talked about various development projects over the years. Ed has told me about his plans for a Los Angeles stadium. And I’ve told Ed that the Chargers’ focus continues to be in San Diego. We’ve tried very hard to work something out here.”

A Couple Of Links & The May Rundown

Happy end of April to all the stadium watchers out there. Let's get to the quick links.

-A Nick Canepa column details the links between Ed Roski and Chargers ownership.

Last week, when Roski proposed building an $800 million NFL stadium on 600 acres of pre-zoned land he owns in the lovely City of Industry – about 20 miles east of L.A. – I wondered aloud: “What's in it for him?”
...And, of course, the Chargers immediately came to mind, because they're looking for new digs and can take off following the 2008 season. Do not rule that out.

-Another SDUT article shows a link between campaign finaning and bay front development. Alfred and James Baldwin, developers from Orange County, have spent over $11,000 on various campaigns. The stadium link comes with eastern Chula Vista, a place where the team would most likely build homes and commercial space to help fund a bay front stadium. Baldwin companies have special rights to that land, and would collect major funds if the Chargers built in the area.

Baldwin money has gone to three main people - Mayor Sanders and two candidates for City Council, April Boling and Carl DeMaio. The two have similar plans and backgrounds, and both are not critical of Sanders' policies. Do the Baldwins favor these two with Sanders because they may not want a new stadium in Mission Valley? There are other factors. Both the candidates largely favor remaking infrastructure, something that the Baldwin companies can work on. There is certainly more to this, and Stadium Watch will have it.

Now, let's talk about May. There are a lot of things going on this month - and SDSW has a lot of plans.

On May 4th, SDSW will be at Chargers Mini-Camp in Kearny Mesa taking opinions from Charger fans about the negotiations. This will lead to SDSW's first podcast, coming sometime during that week.

May 6th is the scheduled date for the Port Commission to meet with San Diego Community Solutions about the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal. While SDSW won't be at the meeting, there will certainly be coverage of what takes place.

For May 9th, there will be a feature on the Chula Vista Police Department. Is law enforcement ready and able to control a stadium on the bay front? What steps will they have to take? Does stepping up the force mean more taxes for Chula Vistans?

Finally, the last week of May will come with a new look for SDSW. New colors, fonts, bars, links - we're changing everything for the summer. Stay tuned.

A new stadium to keep watch of?

San Diego isn't the only place in Southern California trying to get a stadium built.

Stephen Roski, a billionaire developer, announced yesterday his plans to build an $800 million stadium in Eastern Los Angeles.

Here is the official report from ESPN and the San Diego Union-Tribune.

I've seen ambition for stadiums in Los Angeles and San Diego over the years, but this is the only time I've seen these ambitions come to fruition. Usually, a random developer expresses plans for a major outfit that will change a city's economy, but they either aren't serious enough or realistic enough.

This is different. Roski means business. He's got the location, he owns it, he wants it.

I spoke to Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani this morning, and while he expressed that the team stays out of what other cities are doing (a wise choice, considering the smallest leak could do unfixable harm to the Chula Vista project), he did comment of the links that have been made between Roski and the Spanos family.

"The Roski and Spanos families have been friends for many years," Fabiani said, "and Ed Roski and Dean Spanos speak often about potential non-sports real estate deals. During the course of those conversations Ed has explained his stadium concept to Dean. So we know something about Roski’s stadium plans, but we are continuing to focus our efforts on our remaining two options in Chula Vista and working as hard as we can to make something happen there."

So can we turn this into a conspiracy theory? Certainly, but I'd press the brake button on it. This stadium will be Roski's privately funded project, which means he'll want a major return on the investment if he can bring the NFL back to Los Angeles. To me, this would mean a major stake in whatever team came. The Chargers have been owned by Alex Spanos since 1984, and I'm not sure if they are willing to just hand a large piece of a team valued at $826 million in September 2007, especially when that team is so close to stability in the region for the next 50 to 75 years. Would Spanos make more money by selling a piece, paying outrageous rent for Roski's stadium, or staying put?

Spanos has already spent $10 million to fund this project, and will have to spend much more along the way. Would he eschew money spent for this opportunity?

What's interesting about the Forbes value chart is that 12 percent of the team's value comes from outdated Qualcomm Stadium, totaling $100 million. The Chargers have sold out their last 30 home games, which is over 3 years worth of time, but still fall back in revenue. Here are the stadium values of top five teams in overall value:

Dallas: $237 million, 16 percent
Washington: $362 million, 25 percent
New England: $231 million, 19 percent
Houston: $178 million, 17 percent
Philadelphia: $180 million, 17 percent

Make whatever sense of that you want, but four of those fives teams had stadiums either built or completely remodeled since 2000, and the other (Dallas) moves into a new facility in Arlington next year that is expected to generate even more money than the Irving site.

What's your price?

A new poll on ESPN.com's Page 2 asks how much money you'd take in return for your team leaving town, how much you'd pay to keep them in town, and many other piercing questions about how people operate with sports in mind.

The question key for this blog is #5:
5) Your local government agrees to build a new sports complex to keep your favorite team in town. But spending on roads and education will be cut. Are you OK with this?

With 17,000 votes cast so far, 52% said they'd be OK with it. Makes me wonder what a group of Chula Vistans would answer...

A Small Helping Of Links

- Organizations in the San Diego business community have declared their support of the Chargers' efforts, according to an opinion piece in the San Diego Union-Tribune. San Diego Regional Economic Development Corp., San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce and San Diego International Sports Council are on the list. The letter asks for San Diegans to support Chula Vista government, get involved, put pressure on other politicians and to not be derailed by fantasy offers that detract from Chula Vista's progress.

- More on Wednesday's news over the Marine Terminal - the Port Commission has hired laywers to assist defending the terminal against San Diego Community Solutions.

- The stadium negotiation came up in last week's San Diego mayoral debate. Mayor Jerry Sanders was taken to task by his main rival Steve Francis over Sanders' inaction with the Chargers. Here's the part you need to see:

Francis knocked Sanders for refusing to negotiate with the Chargers, who are studying two sites in Chula Vista for a stadium.

Sanders has said keeping the team should be a regional concern, not only San Diego's, and he would support a regional plan that does not rely on taxpayer money to build a stadium.

Francis agreed that taxpayer money should not be used. But he said San Diego's mayor should be more involved.

That's it for now. I'll talk to y'all during the weekend. Don't forget to leave a comment or mail me if you've got something to say.

Port Commission and SDCS at odds over 10th Avenue Marine Terminal

From the Daily Business Report of San Diego Metropolitan Magazine:

The Board of Port Commissioners will challenge a proposed ballot initiative that would amend the Unified Port District's master plan to allow hotels, restaurants and possibly a sports stadium at the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal. The initiative, “The Port of San Diego Marine Freight Preservation and Bay Front Redevelopment Initiative,” is being proposed by a group known as San Diego Community Solutions LLC. The group is headed by Richard W. Chase, Nancy Chase and Frank Gallagher. The sponsors must obtain at least 75,000 signatures of valid registered voters to qualify the measure for the ballot in November.

Possibly a sports stadium? Interesting words from the Metropolitan, because the words of SDCS spokesman Scott Maloni and Chargers spokesman Mark Fabiani don't reflect much chance of one. We've talked about this on Stadium Watch on two occasions:
Stadium not in 10th Avenue plans, group says
Fabiani open to discuss Terminal site

Draw your own conclusions, but I don't think the Chargers will stick their heads into this situation for a while. Maybe they'll peek through the window, but another battlefront to go along with the bay front doesn't seem like the best thing for them at this time.

Coming Back From The Quiet

Hey, I'm still here!

I decided to take a break from the blogging world, but trust me - we're not through yet. Keep the month of May in your calendar. Some very important things will be coming out on this site, including some redesign, new marketing and some new features (did someone say podcast?).

I'm jazzed about the next phase of this site, and I hope you readers out there are excited as well.

In the meantime, Susan Luzzaro of the San Diego Reader put out a massive article analyzing the environment of the bay front and the actions of the main players thus far. It's a big read, but let's take a look at some of the important highlights.

But the stadium is not a part of the master plan, nor has its impact on the environment been addressed in the master plan’s environmental impact report.

“It’s beginning to feel like bait and switch,” says Laura Hunter, who works for the Environmental Health Coalition and was a member of the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. “Why are they encouraging the Chargers? The language of CEQA is not benign. It requires analysis of projects that are reasonably foreseeable.” CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act, is the law that requires an analysis of environmental impacts from proposed projects, which are often disclosed in environmental impact reports (EIRs). It’s no secret to anyone, including the California Coastal Commission and the State Lands Commission, that Chula Vista is considering a Chargers stadium. If the master plan is submitted without mention of the stadium and without environmental analysis of the stadium’s impact, the commissions may send everyone back to square one.

For any environmentalist looking to knock the stadium plans out of the way, this is their bread and butter. Chula Vista has allowed the Chargers to work on the project without requiring an environmental study thus far. The studies have included financial analysis currently on tap as well as economical studies for the fall, but there is no environmental impact report currently scheduled. The Chargers have acknowledged this, but have not yet made anything happen.

He calls the economic feasibility study “silly and dysfunctional.” He argues that you cannot do a real cost study unless you look at what constraints the project will have to mitigate the environmental impacts. “How much area will you need for a buffer? What would it cost to prevent that light pollution to the J Street Marsh? What kind of trash handling and food storage will be required to avoid attracting feral animals that would kill the marsh wildlife? And what about the cost and the area that it would take to treat the runoff water from the huge parking lot before it goes into the bay. How much room will it all take? How can they compute the cost or what they could earn without knowing the answers to these basic questions?”

The bayfront area where the Chargers propose to build is next to one of the last mudflats in San Diego County. “An infinite number of animals and fish use it,” Peugh says. “It’s all life, it’s not inert. And the area is essential for migratory birds; they are dependent on it as a stepping stone during their long migratory flights.”

Peugh has spoken before about the current stability of the J Street Marsh. According to Peugh, the lights from a stadium could cause major damage to the quality of life, including chemical balance in the water.

Many people think the Chargers are using Chula Vista as a bargaining chip, a public flirtation in which Chula Vista would be the big loser. ... A few days later, in his February 27 column, Canepa interviewed Padres owner John Moores on his “pet topic, the 96-acre Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal,” located in the city of San Diego. Canepa wrote that Mark Fabiani “has said the terminal would be an ideal spot [for a new stadium] because all roads, parking and infrastructure are in place.” Then Canepa quoted Moores on the subject: “ ‘Building a stadium on that site would be great for everybody.’ ”

Mark Fabiani and the Chargers have deal with others offers, both worthwhile and fantasy, about places to play. But until this election season is settled, specifically with the City Attorney, people will wonder if Chula Vista is a barganing chip.

A couple of weeks ago, I linked to an article explaining how each City Attorney candidate feels about the Chargers. As 2008 continues and if 2009 comes with a more "Charger-friendly" attorney, it will be interesting to see how the Chargers modify their strategy concerning the city of San Diego.

Today's Batch: City Attorneys, Two Tracks, Multiple Opinions

Lots of news to reel in this week, let's get to it.

An article that came out today details how nominees for the City Attorney job would approach the stadium situation. For easier reading: everyone wants to come to a consensus, but Mike Aguirre and Amy Lepine play the watchdog role and the other nominees are more hands-off.

An earlier story in the Union-Tribune mentions the Chargers as part of city issues for candidates for office. The article can summarize for itself:

Sanders supports the relocation effort. His leading opponent, Steve
Francis, says he would work to identify new county, state and federal incentives
to keep the team.

Most City Council candidates say taxpayers shouldn't subsidize the
development of a new stadium in San Diego. Some don't see the Chargers as a
priority at all.

Finally, Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani released an article discussing the "two tracks" the Chula Vista project is on. It's a summary of what has happened in Chula Vista so far, and shows the two tracks as financing and eliminating the power plant.

The third budget story should be up on Sunday, and there are some other things in the works.

You can't resist the RSS

Don't feel like checking for updates every day? San Diego Stadium Watch is accessible by RSS feed. Instant updates of what's going on at SDSW.

Keep your eyes out - a special three-part focus on budget and finance is coming at the end of the week.

Once again, a huge round of applause to all of you dedicated readers. Don't be afraid to e-mail or write a comment if you have a thought, idea or complaint.

A new offer to keep the Sonics in Seattle

I thought it would be nice to follow up on a previous story comparing the Seattle Sonics' stadium woes with San Diego.

Interesting news today - a local group lead by the CEO's of Microsoft and Costco is willing to team with the city of Seattle to renovate KeyArena and purchase the Sonics from Clay Bennett. The group will put up $150 million to upgrade KeyArena, but it is contingent on the group acquiring the team.

Power lines on bay front to be removed

Big South Bay Power Plant news this morning. San Diego Gas and Electric said they would take down power lines along the bay front by the end of 2009. These power lines run from J Street to the Sweetwater River.

Removing these lines is a big step for those who want the area redeveloped for both the Gaylord hotel and a new stadium.

More on this story to come as it develops.

Today's Links

Chargers General Manager A.J. Smith is having his annual press conference on the Chargers' offseason strategy. While this site isn't primarily concerned with the Chargers' moves on the field, most would say that a team's success in the record books can lead to success for a new place. San Diego is an example of that - Proposition C was voted in a month after the Padres went to the World Series - their second trip in the team's history.

Speaking of the Padres, this Nick Canepa column covers Padres owner John Moores' feelings about the Chargers' stadium search. A couple pieces of what he had to say:

“I don't know,” Moores said. “I don't understand how San Diego works. We
went through the fires of hell to get something built. But this is so obvious.
Oh, my Lord.”

Once again, Moores is speaking of his pet topic, the 96-acre Tenth
Avenue Marine Terminal, which he correctly has called a “ghost town,” and real
estate that would be an ideal spot for the new football stadium.

Finally, for those who have always wondered what those strange white things next to the stadium are, or wonder what environmental concerns are at Qualcomm, this Voice Of San Diego article talks about the storage units in Mission Valley, how they've damaged the water supply, and about the search for new sources of water.

In other news, I have added the PDF of the proposal to the Information section where it should have been this whole time. It is 49 pages with many figures and tables, but it is worth a five-minute look.

Chargers won't wait on the election cycle

Nick Canepa, one of the most notable columnists for the San Diego Union-Tribune, said in his last column that the Chargers aren't interested in waiting for government to change before getting a new stadium.

This column talks about all the variables - why they won't wait, and questions where would they play in the time of construction.

This is a great article to pass along to people who think that the Chargers will remain at Qualcomm without an answer from Chula Vista or anywhere else in the county.

Architects look to renovate Qualcomm

Interesting news from the Union-Tribune today. A group of architects wants to renovate Qualcomm Stadium, regardless of whether the Chargers play there in the future or not.

According to one of the group's members, Jack Carpenter - a fitting name, I must add - the stadium isn't as bad as it has been made out to be, and with some fixing up the stadium will be great for San Diego State football and soccer matches.

Their wish is put a presentation in front of Qualcomm Stadium Advisory Board. A member of that group said that they would listen to what the architects had to say.

Today's Links

Here are some links on current news issues:

• The last headline directly concerning the Chargers is the Chula Vista City Council’s unanimous vote to allow a six-month study on how the Chargers can privately finance a new stadium rather than ask for taxpayer money. The study will analyze both the bayfront and eastern Chula Vista to see if there is enough demand and money available to make the deal happen.

• Some video from NBC 7 about the City Council meeting, mostly discussing finance issues.

• Chula Vista is having a war of words with the California Public Utilities Commission, which has drawn up plans to destroy the South Bay Power Plant in favor of a new stadium further south but still on the bayfront. Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox wants any new power plants to be built inland, saying that a plant near the water is “simply not aligned with [the] region's goals.” Representatives for the Chargers as well as Gaylord Hotels didn’t have much to say about the report – both won’t build on the bayfront if the South Bay Power Plant remains.

• KPBS reports on the Chargers’ search for a stadium partner here, and reports on the South Bay Power Plant as well.

• This Fox 6 report done in the middle of January talks about whether fans will be taxed if a new stadium comes. Chargers spokesman Mark Fabiani talks about how the stadium will be financed privately, while die-hard fans claim that they are willing to pay to get a stadium done.