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.

Following The Money - Part 2: Chula Vista cutting and Chargers not running

Over the next week, Stadium Watch is taking a special look at budgets and financing. The first part detailed how legislators and citizens in Arizona came together to finance their stadium. The second part talks about Chula Vista’s budget crisis and how it affects the proposal.

Timing is everything. So far, time hasn’t been on the Chargers’ side.

When the team approached the city about a new place to play, San Diego was already in the midst of its long battle with downtown development. When the Chargers brought the issue back to life in 2002, the pension controversy two years later moved the team’s needs were moved out of the way so that the city could repair itself. And in the latest phase, Oceanside was deemed not ready to handle the growth required at this time and National City concluded its availability couldn’t match what the Chargers desired.

And now, with the Chargers’ plan as close as it has ever been to reaching a vote, Chula Vista’s budget could knock the Chargers off the clock.

Last year, the city faced a $15 million deficit that put department funding and government jobs on the line. A fire station was almost decommissioned. Spending was suspended across the board. Departments were forced to cut their budgets by 10 percent. Hiring has been frozen. City Manager David Garcia, who had only been in his position for a short time, called the city’s budget problems a crisis.

It didn’t get better in the new year, either. The city wants to cut $3 million more before the start of the 2008-2009 fiscal year to break even, and still faces an $8 million shortfall. Jobs that were saved in the last cut may not be safe this time. The sparkling City Hall campus can’t compare to the dirty mess Chula Vista’s finances are in. It isn’t the best news for someone trying to sell a stadium to voters.

“We are not seeking any tax dollars from Chula Vista for our proposed project,” Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani said, ”so from a purely financial point of view the City's budget problems should not have a direct impact on the project.”

Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox didn’t shy away from the reality of the budget.

“Property and sales taxes are in a slump, and development fees are not existent,” Cox said in her State Of The City Address. “Budget reductions in the last few months have been painful, and we’re not done yet.”

Property taxes in Chula Vista will only rise by 10 percent this year instead of the expected 14 percent. This is the latest result of the domino-like depreciation of city funds.

It starts with the city’s passion to build in the east. A housing boom meant that the sound of hammers cracking and saws splitting echoed down Chula Vista streets. The fees for this construction are paid for by the city.

When the boom stopped and the mortgage rates shot up, Chula Vista was left with no one buying homes while construction fees still had to be paid. Since people couldn’t afford to live in the homes they had bought, they stayed away from new shopping centers build to withstand Chula Vista’s growth. Permits for construction dropped from more than 3,000 to 600. A city once moving forward was at a standstill.

Is this the place for the Chargers to play the hero and save the day? The Chargers’ financing study is due in the summer, and it will detail how the Chargers plan to pay for a new bay front stadium. Could this new stadium help turn the tide of tax loss that’s choking the city, or would it be another hole in Chula Vista’s levy?

“We hope that our pending financing study will demonstrate that a new stadium and related commercial development will generate new tax revenue for the City of Chula Vista,” Fabiani said.

One of the biggest problems the Chargers face is proving one of their funding ideas can work in the economic climate. The team wants to build homes in stretches of Otay Mesa to help foot the bill.

“By the time the commercial or residential project reaches the marketplace, we hope that the economy will have improved,” Fabiani said. “But it is absolutely true that our ability to finance this project in the next several years will be [dependent] on overall credit market conditions -- conditions that are certainly not very promising right now.”

At the end of the day, the future of the Chargers is in the hands of Chula Vistans hoping their city can find the best-fitting bandage to stop the bleeding. And if the Chargers look like salt instead of antibiotic, their hopes will apart.

“The Chargers will be asking the voters of Chula Vista to support our project,” Fabiani said, “and those voters may be reluctant to vote for an ambitious project if they believe the City is in financial crisis. So the political impact remains to be seen.”

Following The Money - Part 1: How Glendale Made It Happen

Over the next week, Stadium Watch will take a special look at budgets and financing. The first part details how legislators and citizens in Arizona came together to finance their stadium.

It was a moment for Glendale to be proud of.

Confetti rained on the field. Players hugged each other. The winners smiled while the losers fell to the ground in shock. Millions watching across the globe traded looks of glee and disbelief. And as one Giant after another held the Lombardi trophy high, the residents of Glendale must have felt pride. As all eyes looked at the celebration, they looked at University Of Phoenix Stadium.

The game wasn’t just a game. It was the shining moment for their monument.

The stadium, which cost over $450 million, has become the centerpiece of Arizona. It has hosted Fiesta Bowls, college football’s National Championship, major concerts and Super Bowl XLII since its inception. Other events such as Wrestlemania are being talked about.

University of Phoenix Stadium didn’t appear as a mirage in the desert. It took over five years of negotiation and preparation as well as a dip in the value of its financial source.

Stadium development had been in the minds of Arizona lawmakers since the Cardinals moved there in 1988. In 1999, Gov. Jane Hull decided it was time to make the stadium a reality.

“A … task force was formed … to develop a plan that would make good on the promise that was made to the Arizona Cardinals when they first moved from Missouri,” Chuck Foley, chief financial officer for the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority, said.

Foley has been with AZSTA since March 2001. He was the third employee hired.

“In addition, the task force identified other areas that would bolster Arizona’s future economic picture,” Foley said, “by providing funding to the Office of Tourism, support the strengthening of the Cactus League and promote and build on youth and amateur sports.”

After months of work, politicians, business owners and residents came together to create Proposition 302. This enacted a new ‘tourism tax’ where hotel tax would rise 1% and a 3.25% surcharge on car rentals was added as well. Tourism officials told the task force that the package would help jumpstart Arizona’s largest industry.

This proposition established the AZSTA, which funnels the funds into building and maintaining new recreational facilities. The AZSTA spent over $300 million to build the stadium. The City Of Glendale spent $9 million in tax dollars on the project after they were chosen in the summer of 2002. The Cardinals contributed $145 million for the stadium and pay $150 million each year.

The AZSTA receives funds from two different sources – the tourism-focused taxes and fixed income from renters. The funds are used to pay off bonds and take care of general operation. Within the last fiscal year, the taxes are on course to bring in more than the 5% growth that was expected.

Arizona made it a priority to keep the stadium taxes from hurting the general public.

“I cannot speak for all Arizonans but believe that most people are opposed to additional taxation,” Foley said. “…98% [of the tourism tax] is borne by non-Arizonan visitors to the Valley of the Sun.”

The task at hand was daunting for Maricopa County. Industrial rates and economic growth was changing. Speculation ran high. But after major growth in a town that has swelled in population and popularity, Glendale has come from living in Phoenix’s shadow to making waves of its own.

“Glendale is a suburban community that has experience exponential growth,” Foley said. “Especially with the building of signature projects such as the Jobing.com Arena for the Phoenix Coyotes, Westgate Center and, of course, University of Phoenix Stadium.”

Glendale’s success is a far cry from its neighbor to the west. Arizona voters were willing to let a tourism tax through, but San Diego voters do not seem willing to let any tax slip through, no matter whom the tax is directed towards.

“The taxpayers of Arizona devoted far more than $9 million to the project in Glendale,” Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani said. He maintains that the Chargers “have never proposed any contribution of tax dollars” for any stadium project.

“The Chargers have no expectation of such taxpayer contributions for the San Diego effort,” Fabiani said.

The Chargers are connected to the Glendale project. In a 2007 panel discussion held at San Diego State, Glendale Mayor Elaine Scruggs admitted she wasn’t in favor of the plan at the time, but has since changed her tune. Fabiani was also a speaker at that meeting, and kept communication with Arizona in the years previous.

“Back in 2001 and 2002 we were all working off the same cost estimates: $400 to 450 million for a stadium,” Fabiani said. “And, as it turns out, that's about exactly what Glendale spent.”

Compare that cost for a stadium in 2002 with the billion-dollar stadiums set to launch in East Rutherford and Arlington. Lucas Oil Stadium, which will be the home of the Indianapolis Colts this upcoming season, cost $675 million.

The bay front project is expected to cost at least $1.2 billion.

“Had we embarked on our Qualcomm proposal back in 2002 to 2003, when the Chargers first proposed it,” Fabiani said, “we could have built a stadium and completed infrastructure improvements for about one half the cost of what the stadium and infrastructure would cost today.”

The money the Chargers are prepared to spend is much more than the Cardinals spend on University Of Phoenix. According to Foley, the team is actually paying more then they were asked.

“The Cardinals were required to provide $85 million in stadium construction funding and they ended up contributing approximately $145 million,” Foley said. He preferred not to comment on the Chargers’ negotiations.

At this point, Chula Vistans can only wonder if a stadium at this time in that location can be the spark to revitalizing their economy as University Of Phoenix Stadium has been to Glendale.

Fabiani said that a new stadium would be “the host of Super Bowls as well as home to college bowl games.”

“The University of Phoenix Stadium and the other Glendale facilities have gotten excellent reviews,” Fabiani said, “and people who attended the Super Bowl there in February gave the stadium high marks.”

“Glendale was experiencing growth,” Foley said, “and the stadium solidified their position in the Valley and the U.S. as being a sports and entertainment destination.”

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.

Local group looks to promote stadium plans

Grassroots group sees stadium as call to activism
By Brandon Stone
San Diego Stadium Watch

While politicians and executive deliberate over development details, ordinary citizens come together to present a case of their own.

A new grassroots organization named the Chula Vista Bay Front Stadium Action Group has formed to promote plans to build a new stadium. Through public rallies and online activism, the group wants to do everything it can to keep the Chargers in San Diego. The group is currently working on a rally to be held at the power plant later this month.

“We're full supporters of the bay front as the [place for a] stadium,” group leader Caryl Foster said. “We feel that it is in the best interests for it to be located [there].”

Foster has been interested in the Chargers’ search for many years, leading various groups and participating in virtual negotiations to help residents understand the issues.

“We feel the opportunity to keep our Chargers as the San Diego Chargers is coming down to the final episode,” Foster said. “We think that the Chargers have been consistent in making the effort to stay in San Diego.”

Grassroots groups are commonplace when stadium issues arise. In places like Seattle, fan involvement has been crucial to the process. Words from a friend or co-worker can catch fire in a community faster than the words of a politician or a business owner. This group is hoping that their strategy of spreading the news will work quick enough to retain the team they cheer on every Sunday.

“Our voice isn't being heard in the public, and we wanted to ensure that our voice is heard,” Foster said.

The goal of the new group is to keep Chula Vistans informed about what’s going on with the bay front while supporting the current and future plans for a new stadium. To do this, the group is forming various teams to take on each issue, including financing, environment, negativity, community project teams and an Internet team.

“We're hoping to put together a strategic management team where everybody brings to the table what they do best,” Foster said. “That includes having an understanding of the potential economic and fiscal impact, having an understanding of the environmental impact and being able to bring pressure [with] the public entities that want to keep the Chargers in San Diego.”

Foster is especially concerned with the response of environmental lobbyists.

“The environmentalists ... came out negative about having a stadium on the bay front without any real factual information about it,” Foster said. “They say [things] without having any environmental impact reports done.”

Politicians and groups will be a major part of the group’s focus. The group appreciates Chula Vista’s willingness to listen to the Chargers, but is still looking for other important organization to weigh in as well.

“I think the city of San Diego should be involved,” Foster said. “I think the Port District needs to let the public know what their feelings are. San Diego State and their alumni who support the Aztec football team should be engaged.”

The Internet has been a large part of the group’s formation. Most of the group came together via online message boards, and the group holds their meetings online as well. Due to this trend, the group has been able to attract members outside of San Diego County as well as far away from the West Coast.

“Technology allows us to be effective,” Foster said. “It allows us to organize quickly and maximize our efforts.”

For the immediate future, the group plans to expand their membership and get information flowing across the county. In Foster’s eyes, each step forward will lead to the goal his group works hard to obtain. When those are achieved, Foster sees a San Diego for the better.

“The sooner we come to positive happenings on the bay front, the sooner that those resources might be used for the benefit of San Diego,” Foster said.

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.

1000 Reasons To Care

Then what is this blog? Simply put, it is an oasis in the desert of information surrounding a major project that will change the lives of all those in San Diego County. The people reading this blog will be able to understand the stadium project on a new level that will make them educated and ready when someone turns and asks: “What’s the deal with that stadium? Is it happening or not?”

1000 hits later, I think the dream is forming into reality.


I thought I'd be here someday - not five weeks into it, but someday. To see people come here and be interested in the future makes me beam with pleasure. I'm psyched about this. This time in San Diego history is so important, and to see people thirsting for knowledge about it - that's the goal. That universal goal of caring ... that's got more power than any man-made item. I now have 1000 extra reasons to care, and a group of readers to care about.

A man asked me the other day if my website was a place to "rally up the troops" to keep the Chargers here. I told him as politely as I could that it wasn't. I hope it isn't, or else I'd be turning my back on the journalistic integrity I'm supposed to be standing for. Keeping my eye on the public affairs surrounding this is the task at hand, not propping up an agenda. And that is what you will get more of.

Consider this post a big "thank you" to those who have come here. Some have stopped by once, others make it here every day. You are all appreciated.


I'll end with this - one of my favorite columnists, Bill Simmons, devoted his latest column to reader reaction about the Seattle situation I wrote about. Reading the passion of the letters that came from Sonics fans stirred me. They have these deep convictions about their situation that resonate so powerfully. The take-home point for someone in San Diego, however, is that they could see this coming. They have a rocky past with things like this, the same past as ours. They struggled through two stadium projects, both taking major amounts of time, dedication and negotiation. And even now, in the time of dark, they still stand at attention. They are the example of keeping a watchful eye, understanding and leaving no stone unturned. They will not watch the scene, they will become actors in it.

And that's what we all need to be - a player in the action.


We all have a reason to care.

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 can learn from Seattle’s situation

As San Diego waits for the Chargers' answer, Seattle waits for a miracle
By Brandon Stone
San Diego Stadium Watch


Imagine this scene two years from now: at a hotel lobby in downtown Miami, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell steps out from behind a curtain. As a backdrop of Super Bowl XLIV hangs behind, he steps to the podium. A San Diego beat writer raises an arm, pointing a pen at the commissioner. He nods at the reporter.

“Do you have any hope left?” the reporter asks.

The commissioner breathes deep, looks out into the sea of press, and answers.

"It's apparent to all who are watching that the Chargers are heading out of San Diego," Goodell would say. "I accept that inevitability at this point. There is no miracle here."

A potential nightmare scenario in San Diego is still a nightmare – a middle of the night fright that would awaken anyone sleeping in their favorite Tomlinson jersey.

But for the citizens of Seattle, those words are not fun. Those words are reality.

The imaginary comments of Goodell mirror what David Stern told the media during the NBA’s All-Star Weekend a couple of weeks ago. In the midst of buyouts, stadium woes and new ownership, Stern publicly admitted his loss of faith that basketball could remain in the state of Washington.

Seattle’s struggle has been in the news ever since the team changed ownership in 2006. The new group, Professional Basketball Club, LLC, is headed by Clay Bennett. The group wants to move the team to Oklahoma City, where Bennett’s business is. Bennett has attempted to buy out the team’s lease, but Seattle would not accept the terms, leading to the current standoff. Bennett may break the terms of the lease and move, which would incur a lawsuit from the city of Seattle, or he can wait until the lease runs out in 2010 to move to Oklahoma City.

According to Bennett, the team’s current arena, KeyArena, isn’t good enough to generate profit and the organization would be more successful in a better arena. He said that the Sonics lost more than $15 million the previous season, and the arena played a part in that number.

KeyArena, formerly known as the Seattle Center Coliseum, was built in 1962 and then underwent a $100 million redesign in 1995. The Sonics have been there for all but nine years, and in most of those nine seasons split time with the Kingdome.

A new stadium in King County has been proposed in the nearby city of Renton. The $500 million project would create a center viable for multiple sports and conventions, unlike the basketball-locked KeyArena. The land the proposed stadium would be on is owned by Boeing, and the aerospace corporation supports the facility. While the stadium would bring jobs and exposure to the region, there are concerns over traffic and public safety, as well as the stadium not being located in the city it is named for.

Financing would come from private sources, as well as tax increases that are directed to those outside of the county, similar to plans that brought stadiums to the region for football and baseball. The different tax plans center on hotels, restaurants, rental cars and other ‘visitor’ taxes. The plan promises to enact no new taxes that hurt King County like there were in previous stadiums, but certain post-stadium taxes may have a longer shelf life than previously thought.

San Diegans most likely find this very similar to the situation they face now. A new stadium in Chula Vista would increase exposure, but traffic, safety and other issues are also major concerns. But unlike Seattle, the threat of moving doesn’t hang over the city’s head … for now.

In this situation where hope is bleak for Seattle’s Sonics, Steven Pyeatt fights on. The Kirkland, Wash. businessman is the co-founder of Save Our Sonics and Storm, a group dedicated to keeping the Sonics in the Seattle area. His group helped push a citywide initiative that led to Seattle keeping its lease, and the group is currently is working with the proposal for the stadium in King County.

“People have been turning the direction of this thing,” Pyeatt said. “We stopped the mayor’s office from taking the buyout last summer. Right now we’d be in a lame-duck season if we hadn’t been able to do that. It’s up to us to go out there and try and put up … redevelopment plans because the leaders around here have no leadership skills whatsoever.”

Steven Pyeatt and Brian Robinson put together the group when Clay Bennett bought the team in 2006, and have been pushing policy ever since. His group has gained national recognition for their efforts.

“I have a little background in politics and Brian was part of the media … so it was meant to be,” Pyeatt said.

San Diego residents have been critical of the government’s Chargers policies, including the ticket guarantee and the renegotiation of the team’s lease. Seattle residents would share their concern.

Pyeatt’s main criticism of how the Sonics have been handled falls on the local government. He points at the inactivity of the leaders, the structure of the government as a whole and their reluctance to work with private citizens who want to build.

“It started out with Barry Ackerly, [who] wanted to build with his own money a state-of-the-art convention center to bring the NHL and other stuff here,” Pyeatt said. “The city was afraid of the Seattle Center dying, so they stopped private money from building a stadium.”

The city would use 74 million dollars to upgrade the Seattle Center instead. It lead to a better basketball ambiance, but no other comfortable avenues for KeyArena to take.

“They made a conscious decision to build a more intimate facility which was geared for basketball and would give the fans the best viewing situation,” Pyeatt said. “You had to work within the existing footprint of the building, and that botched it into this situation where now you have a place that is good for very little except for basketball. The NBA doesn’t like it, the team doesn’t like it, the lease is horrible, and the city and the team are being done a disservice.”

For Pyeatt, it is this political unrest that opens the door for Bennett.

“The challenge right now is the lack of leadership and the political structure,” Pyeatt said. “We kind of have a perfect storm in this region of all the factors that give him the capability of even considering relocating this team.”

Pyeatt’s understanding of the Sonics situation comes from working with the Seahawks. Pyeatt oversaw a group of more than 900 people over a 14 month campaign that eventually led to the creation of Qwest Field in 2002.

“I like telling people [who get scared] that in the Mariners situation they were selling tickets in Tampa Bay,” Pyeatt said. “For the Seahawks, they were practicing in the L.A. Rams’ practice facility and preparing to play in the Rose Bowl that next season. We stopped both of those situations. And here, the moving vans haven’t even been put on order yet.

“We’re probably in the third quarter right now, and it’s a while before we’re in the two-minute drill.”

Seattle and San Diego are both port cities that heavily rely on technology and manufacturing for their economy. From a sports perspective, San Diego and Seattle are not far off as well.

The Sonics started in 1967, only seven years after the Chargers moved to San Diego. Seattle and San Diego both have only one championship between them – the Sonics’ championship came in 1979 and the Chargers’ AFL Championship in 1963. Both cities feature Hall Of Fame players – San Diego has Dan Fouts and Tony Gywnn, Seattle has Lenny Wilkens and Steve Largent.

The other quality they used to share that is fading away is older stadiums. San Diego Sports Arena was built in 1967, only a few years after KeyArena. Qualcomm Stadium opened in 1967 as well, and the Kingdome, which is now demolished, opened a few years later. But as Seattle turned away from their older stadiums in favor of Safeco Field and Qwest Field, San Diego remained in what they had created.

Pyeatt has seen what new facilities have done for Seattle, both in the economy and on the field.

“It’s because we built them a state-of-the-art facility," Pyeatt said, “it gave them the tools they needed to have the most wins in a season ever in baseball and it gave the Seahawks the tools they needed to be competitive and get to the Super Bowl for the first time in the city’s history. And you’ve got the Sonics, who have been here 40 years, who are our first team … it’s like having your oldest son -- sure he lost his job, went through a divorce, had some hard times, but it doesn’t mean you throw the guy into the mud.”

And now, as Seattle moves forward for their teams, San Diego stands still with the Chargers. The Petco Park project almost fell after six years of struggle and many years of negotiation before that before baseball moved downtown, and now the Chargers must fight as well.

“I remember growing up when we got the Sonics and you guys had the Rockets,” Pyeatt said, “and then eventually the Chargers and we got the Seahawks. At those times, the cities had the same size and a bunch of similarities.”

The days of the Rockets and the other San Diego basketball teams are gone now, as San Diego lost all their teams by 1984.

“We have people who say ‘Go ahead and let the Sonics go, we’ll get a better team,’” Pyeatt said. “I tell them they should go talk to the people of San Diego, who had ... teams and lost them both. Go talk to the people in Kansas City that have been waiting even longer. That is a dangerous game of Russian Roulette you are playing.”

Pyeatt doesn’t want basketball in Seattle to end up the way it has in San Diego. Many people in San Diego don’t want to see football end up the way basketball may end in Seattle.

And if the Chargers and the county can’t come together, David Stern’s words can become Roger Goodell’s sooner rather than later.