Fabiani takes college activists to ‘summer school’

Chargers’ special counsel Q&A highlights active day for new group
By Brandon Stone
San Diego Stadium Watch

About 25 members of the student activist group Bringing Awareness To The Chargers Stadium Search discussed stadium negotiations with Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani Thursday at the Promenade in Mission Valley.

Fabiani talked to the group for an hour, breaking down what the team has attempted to do over the past six years, the positives and negatives with both potential sites in Chula Vista, and what the group could do to further their cause.

Fabiani said that grassroots groups such as BACSS are vital because “they are genuine [and] not something that someone has organized for political purposes.”

“[It’s good] to have that kind of support out there and to be able to tell elected officials that this is the kind of support we have,” Fabiani said. “We have guys that are coming together on their own; spending their own money … they’re renting rooms out of their own pocket. That’s impressive.”

The youth base of the group makes Fabiani even more interested. Unlike other talks he has done in San Diego County, BACSS is made up of younger people gathered through social networks such as Facebook, as well as message boards.

“We feel like this is a lot more different than other grassroots movements,” group leader Tom Channick said. “… I hope that [Fabiani] opens up his arms and embraces our movement.”

Fabiani feels that organizations who tie themselves with the Chargers would be open to more scrutiny for their real intentions. “We’ll be helpful if we can, but we also want these groups to remain independent,” Fabiani said.

The members of BACSS have far-reaching goals for their organization over the next few months. The group is planning mass mailings to Chula Vista residents, billboards, rallies, and various Internet-related projects such as advertising, e-mail lists and podcasts – all of which emphasize the newer trends of publicizing causes. In a world where presidential candidates succeed through web functionality, BACSS pushes the youth movement.

“You have the ability to influence by what you write about a story,” Fabiani said.

The group’s next move is to hold a rally with up to 200 near the South Bay Power Plant, tentatively scheduled for July 5th.

“We’re going to go out to sports places and trade shows, set up tents and publicize that rally,” Channick said.

Fabiani made it clear to the group that while cooperation with local government and quality locations have been a plus, the numbers of the operation loom over the project. Fabiani noted that the overall cost of the project has doubled in cost since the original proposal of a stadium in Mission Valley funded by 60 acres of condos. The original project would have been $450 to $600 million. Current projections land at $1.2 billion.

Questions were also raised about Ed Roski’s plans for a stadium in the City of Industry. Fabiani did not hide the relationship between the Spanos family and Roski, and said that the Chargers informed Roski they were still dedicated to the Chula Vista situation.

“I don’t know how [Roski] gets it done with any team this quickly,” Fabiani said. “There’s a lot to get done, no matter what team it is.”

BACSS began in February 2007 after Channick saw trends of apathy about what the Chargers were doing.

“Some of us were shocked by the lack of urgency around us,” Channick said. “[People] aren’t even aware of the controversies.”

It is that sense of urgency that drives BACSS to do the hard work sitting in front of them. As far as Channick is concerned, BACSS is ready for it.

“We’re not going to let this team go without a fight,” Channick said.

Slideshow of the BACSS Meeting with Mark Fabiani

New activists raise awareness both in group and online

Group to hold meeting with Fabiani on June 5th
By Brandon Stone
San Diego Stadium Watch

Thinking that his city is on the verge of losing its team, Tom Channick has had enough. Instead of waiting for his nightmares to become real, it was time for the concerned citizens to make a difference.

“The only people that are speaking up are negative,” the 21-year old San Diego State student said.

Through talking to others in person and through the Facebook network, concerns are turning into a new chance for Channick to keep the team of his youth in San Diego.

That spirit of change fuels Bringing Awareness of the Chargers Stadium Search, a new grassroots group focused on keeping the Chargers in San Diego County. The group is holding a public meeting at 2 p.m. on the June 5th at the Promenade in Mission Valley. Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani will be taking questions on how the process has gone so far and what the team is attempting to accomplish.

“If we get some good feedback from this event, we can have a rally at the same time as the [release of] the feasibility study,” Channick said.

Channick started BACSS in February 2008, after sensing apathy and disbelief from San Diego residents. The group is currently building a resource website that will have daily articles, e-mail lists and printable signs and stickers. The group also wants to start direct-mail advertising to Chula Vista residents, as well as advertising via billboards.

“People don’t think this is real,” 21-year-old site designer Peter Nudo said. “By doing this, we’re trying to keep people aware.”

BACSS hopes that they can give the Chargers local evidence that all types of San Diegans want the Chargers to remain in the county.

“The team feels like they can wait longer because there are people behind them,” Channick said.

Channick’s group is mainly for college students and middle-aged adults. It is primarily web-based - its Facebook group has more than 200 people.

“Fabiani’s been looking for something like this,” Channick said of the group’s youth movement. He cited how this group’s makeup shows a lifetime commitment to the stadium that other older grassroots groups cannot provide. Group members don’t just include Charger fans. People from other communities in California are taking part, even those who want to see football in locales such as Los Angeles – but not at San Diego’s expense.

The group also wants to convince city leaders that the Chargers’ plans are good for the community.

“You can’t change any city official’s mind without the movement of people,” Channick said.

The group has thrown its support behind Brian Manscheim and John McCann already, stating that they are looking out for the best interests of the Chargers.

“If [the politicians] know they’re the last remaining hope, they’ll bend to the pressure,” Channick said.

While Channick and his crew believe that Qualcomm Stadium has been good to San Diego and holds many memories, it is time for the team to move on to a new home. And with time running out, this group believes in the urgency of now.

“Now it is the 11th hour,” Channick said.

BACSS can be found on Facebook by searching for “Students 4 A New Stadium” or going to newstadium4sd.com.

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.

'Bolts by the Bay' to campaign for coastal change

Grassroots group’s first meeting discusses rallies and strategies
By Brandon Stone
San Diego Stadium Watch

In the Captain’s Room of the South Bay Fish and Grill, parked under the invisible shadow of the South Bay Power Plant, concerned pro-stadium residents in San Diego County started their work towards bringing change to the Chula Vista bay front.

More than 20 people, including two Chula Vista council members, met in the restaurant located near Bayfront Park Wednesday night to analyze the current situation at Chula Vista’s bay front, where the San Diego Chargers want to place a new $1.2 billion stadium at the location of the South Bay Power Plant. Members of ‘Bolts by the Bay’ used the meeting to figure out how this collection of citizens could establish connections with Chula Vista residents and construct concrete plans for a public rally to be held on the first weekend of June.

“We've got to get the word out and build public support,” one group member said. “It has to start with community people. This is our chance to be heard.”

Councilmember John McCann expressed his support during a phone call, and Rudy Ramirez dropped in for a few moments as well.

“This project can put the city of Chula Vista on the map and save our hometown team,” McCann said. “You guys are going to be a very important part to see if we can keep the Chargers in San Diego County.”

Ramirez’ comments reflected those of McCann’s.

“We recognize that we need your input and support on this so that we can make it a reality,” Ramirez said. “It’s a good deal for Chula Vista and something we can do.”

The group was formed in February through message boards on the Internet and has labeled itself as a “civic mobilization effort” created to serve the people while keeping the Chargers in San Diego. As the Chargers push on towards a spot on the ballot in 2009, this coalition of fans and social servants will stand behind them.

“It's about the community spirit,” group head Caryl Foster said. “The Bolts have always allowed us to come together, regardless of issues with each other. On Sunday afternoons, we can all come together and root for our home team.”

Foster is a veteran of local and national political activism, and has lead various stadium groups and virtual negotiations since the Chargers announced plans to move from their home in Mission Valley in 2002.

“The last thing I want to see them do is leave the town I grew up in,” Foster said.

The group makes no secret of their affinity with the Chargers – a large bolt draped across a sign on the back wall of the room and many members sported Charger gear. The group’s mission statement proudly declares them as ‘die-hard Bolt fans.’

Group spokesman Charles Phillips talked to group about his initial thoughts on the site and what a new stadium could do for the city and county.

“When the Chargers started saying they needed a new stadium, the first place that came to my mind was bay front Chula Vista,” Phillips said. “From that point, I was debating with people around town that the best place was not Mission Valley.

“The marina is just beautiful, and I thought, 'Man, that's the place to have a stadium. Not just for the Chargers, but for the whole county, what it means to it.' The infrastructure's already here. We have a trolley that takes 15 minutes to get down. We have a convention center where all the wonderful A-listers can go ... while all [the] regular folks can go down to Gaylord. ...We'll have a place to really facilitate Super Bowls. This is the spot they're going to want to come to every year.”

Phillips emphasized the international appeal, calling the potential stadium an “international destination sports venue” for soccer friendlies.

“It gives you more to sell,” Phillips said.

In order for Phillips and the group to sell that dream, it will take major work reaching Chula Vista residents voting in 2009.

“The people that are here - we're the groundswell,” Phillips said. “We're all here to help organize and find out what everybody's skills are. We need to use our community to sell our community.”

That groundswell will attempt to make itself known in June, when they plan to hold a rally at Bayfront Park. The group wants to bring in local media to the event, and wants to invite notable locals as well as business owners and political minds to back the Chargers’ plans.

“The thing that we're planning,” Foster said, “is to let the people know and the region know and the media know and all the people that are players in this game know that there is a grassroots organization that is dedicated to keeping the Chargers here. Moreover, we're dedicated to putting a world-class stadium here.”

“This is very important, not only for the Chargers, but our whole community and even more important for Chula Vista,” Phillips said.

Chatter in the room focused on the budget problems in Chula Vista, and how a new stadium can change the economics of the region. Most of the people felt that knocking down the plant and solidifying the Gaylord hotel to the north of the site would be the catalyst for renovating traffic and availability problems with the bay front.

“[Gaylord] brings the infrastructure and the roads,” member and long-time San Diego resident Mike Sandburg said. “That freeway can’t hold this beautiful plan.”

Sandburg is appreciative of the steps that have happened as of late.

“We've had a very interesting year,” Sandburg said. “We're finally seeing some serious movement. When you have a multi-billion dollar like Gaylord, it really precipitates things. Potentially, Chula Vista's got to go through an adept revitalization. We're seeing [San Diego Gas & Electric] suddenly come to the table and start negotiations.

“The city has already voted to try and get the state to close down the power plant. It's an old, inefficient plant. It's a great contrast - a beautiful new stadium versus a power plant.”

“Everything funnels into [the area],” member Michael Cain of Chula Vista said. “We've got the trolley. I-5 is in place. We've got [Interstate] 15 that funnels right into that. We've got [Interstate] 805 and [state Route] 94. It's an ideal location.”

Cain worked with the Super Bowl Task Force in 1984 that put together Super Bowl XXII; the first of San Diego’s three times hosting the event. For Cain, a stadium on the bay stands as a way to posthumously fulfill the dreams of a pioneer for Qualcomm Stadium.

“I go back to Jack Murphy,” Cain said, “who suggested originally that instead of putting the stadium in Mission Valley, you put the stadium in Mission Bay. It wouldn't be a bad idea to put it in San Diego Bay using the shoreline for parking. You can access the stadium on the water. You build something the size of two cruise ships, you have a football stadium. You could access it by water using the water ferries ... It's an ideal place.”

Phillips pointed out what the area could do for the next generation.

“I have grandkids, and I would like to leave a legacy,” Phillips said. “They have something that they could come down here to.”

The members were very aware of the difficult road ahead. Many acknowledged environmental and infrastructural problems, but all were ready to plow ahead despite the wishes of others for the stadium to go away. No one at the meeting specifically had an answer to the environmental issues brought up by organizations such as the Environmental Health Coalition.

“The negatives are the bureaucrats who will drag their feet and the committee and the environmentalists that will really drag their feet and make it more expensive,” Cain said.

“The barbeques won’t kill the birds,” Sandburg joked.

“I think eventually we'll have everyone on board,” Foster said, “from San Diego State to the Port District to the city of San Diego itself to Chula Vista, National City and the county of San Diego in support of developing a world-class venue. It will serve as a catalyst for the development of this whole stretch.”

Change and opportunity were the words of the night, with many people expressing their hope to cultivate both of those elements on the bay front.

“I can't believe that we have an opportunity like this to have this,” member Catherine Aguinaido, a Chula Vista native, said. “I don't care whether it's in the east or the west, I just want it built.”

“Change is inevitable,” member Margaret Smith added.

“I'd never been to this restaurant and I'd never been here,” member Eddie Zavala said, “but looking at that power plant really ticks me off. What the hell is it doing here? The Chargers’ stadium is the perfect place, right there. We need to keep the Chargers and we need to make sure that our region doesn't suffer the loss of such a great team and such community spirit.”

Slideshow of 'Bolts by the Bay' Meeting

Grassroots bay front group to hold strategy meeting

Members of the Chula Vista Bay Front Stadium Action Group will meet at 7 p.m. at the South Bay Fish and Grill to discuss policy with potential new members and develop strategy for future events.

Current members of the action group will meet with concerned residents of Chula Vista, Chula Vista business owners, current Chargers season ticket holders and interested parties met through the Internet. Group leaders plan to ratify initial statements, work on plans for a public meeting later in the spring, discuss building support through other citizens and media outlets, and assign boards for committed members.

“We're hoping to put together a strategic management team where everybody brings to the table what they do best,” group leader Caryl Foster said in an earlier interview with Stadium Watch. “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.”

The group is planning to formally introduce itself to the public within the next month, and will begin activity soon after.

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.

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.

Fabiani open to discuss Terminal site

Brandon Stone
San Diego StadiumWatch


Chargers spokesman Mark Fabiani is open to stadium ideas about the proposed deck on the 10th Avenue Terminal.

"We are always open to any new and promising idea," Fabiani said, "and we meet with people all the time who call us with thoughts and plans."

Last week, San Diego Community Solutions announced their desire to build a deck at the terminal, saying it would help maritime service in San Diego Bay and allow for more parking downtown. SDCS is working with engineering company CH2M Hill to develop the terminal space.

"We will be happy to meet with anyone and everyone who wants to help," Fabiani said. "In the end, we aren’t going to do anything that is against the interests of our friends in organized labor. Nor do we want to become bogged down in a dispute with the Port Commission or other government agencies."

Fabiani's main concern is the cost of building on top of the deck.

"The kind of deck being talked about is enormously expensive to build," Fabiani said. "The New York Jets proposed a similar deck over the rail yards on Manhattan’s west side, and cost estimates for the deck were in the many hundreds of millions of dollars."

Scott Maloni, public affairs consultant for San Diego Community Solutions, has the same concerns.

“The odds of the stadium there are slim,” he said. “The finances aren’t put together … there’s not enough events. I’m not sure a football stadium makes sense.”

According to Maloni, the goal of the measure isn’t to instantly build on the terminal, but to amend the master plan to allow construction on the terminal. The group has started collecting signatures in the five cities that represent the Port Commission, which runs the area. If the group collects enough votes, the deck proposal could be on the November ballot.

“The initiative doesn’t have a project, it has a process,” Maloni said. “Some of the building could be for a convention center or for hotels or a sports arena. It could be a stadium.”

“It is premature to get caught up in any project,” he said.

Stadium not in 10th Avenue plans, group says

SDCS says terminal vote is "process, not project"
Brandon Stone, San Diego StadiumWatch


Building a stadium as part of a double deck on the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal is not in the big picture of the proposal, according to a group spokesperson.

“The odds of the stadium there are slim,” Scott Maloni, public affairs consultant for the private group San Diego Community Solutions, said. “The finances aren’t put together … there’s not enough events. I’m not sure a football stadium makes sense.”

SDCS announced their desire to build a deck at the site last week, citing that it would upgrade maritime services in San Diego Bay and allow for more parking downtown. The Port Commission would decide what structures could go on top of the deck, including hotels, parks or a convention center. SDCS has been working with engineering company CH2M Hill to develop innovative designs for the terminal space.

“The concept is that you maintain the terminal on the lower level,” Maloni said. “You would take advantage of the vertical space. There’s a vision of a monstrosity on the bay, but it is not like that.”

“It’s one of the most fantasized areas on the bay,” Maloni said. “One side says that it should always be a maritime terminal and the other says that it’s a waste. We’re mutual. We think you can do both.”

Maloni said that the group’s goal is to redevelop the area for both maritime and public use, respecting both those who want the land for industry and those who want to create something new. According to Maloni, the goal of the measure isn’t to instantly build on the terminal, but to amend the master plan to allow construction on the terminal.

“The initiative doesn’t have a project, it has a process,” Maloni said. “Some of the building could be for a convention center or for hotels or a sports arena. It could be a stadium.”

“It is premature to get caught up in any project,” he said.

The group has started collecting signatures in the five cities that represent the Port Commission, which runs the area. If the group collects enough votes, the deck proposal could be on the November ballot.

“The measure creates a process with specific criteria and timeframe to find a developer,” Maloni said.

Contact with both port and Chargers officials have not been made as of this time, but their response will be covered if there is comment.

Excitement, concern from locals over stadium bid

Locals ready for change but weary over enviroment and traffic
Brandon Stone
San Diego Stadium Watch

Joe Romero doesn’t hesitate when asked about placing a stadium on the bayfront.

“I’d love it,” he says.

Romero’s feelings are similar to those who spent Friday morning at the Chula Vista Marina. Concerns over traffic and the environment mixed with excitement over a new stadium nearby.

“There’s no place like this,” Romero, the 56-year-old resident of Chula Vista, said. “It’s near the bay, with a nice setting, right next to the interstate, and the trolley. It’s perfect.”

Currently, the Chargers are starting a six month survey on how to privately finance a new stadium in both the bayfront and in Eastlake. The Chargers’ broad plan for the Chula Vista bayfront includes destroying the South Bay Power Plant, cleaning up the area and constructing a billion dollar stadium. And while the team and the city work towards a proposal for the November election, the residents of Chula Vista wait and watch.

“I just want them to stay here,” 35-year-old Chula Vista resident Eric T. said. “I’d prefer it here because it is good for me. But this site – I don’t know what they’ll do.”

Some fans felt that they hadn’t received enough information on the proposals yet, and that they were being left in the dark.

“I really don’t know,” Salvador Martinez said. “It’s whatever I hear on the radio. First it’s National City, now it’s Chula Vista. I don’t know what’s going on.”

The big concern for this group is the environment. Removing a power plant and placing a stadium means a massive cleanup effort, and the area could be covered with hazardous material. The marina is also home to marshes where various birds and sea creatures live. People like Romero wouldn’t want the new construction to lead to the end of wildlife at the marina.

“I hope the stadium affects the city for the positive, but the wetlands are a problem. I enjoy them,” Romero said.

“The view here is cool, but I’m not sure if they can clean it up,” Eric T. said.

For Chula Vista policeman Tony Nichols, the concern is over who will help out keeping the new stadium safe.

“The job stays the same,” Nichols said. “We have a small department, so there has to be some aid. But I just do what they tell me to do. It’s all up to the city and the bureaucrats.”

Change on the bayfront doesn’t just affect the residents of the city, but also local businesses along the coastline. Along with traffic and crime, some owners may be forced to relocate.

“I like it right here,” Patrick Fuller, an employee of HAR Construction on Frontage Road, said. “It will increase traffic, but otherwise I like it. It’s a good spot. I’d like to see them stay closer to home.”

Fuller said that HAR would combat traffic by putting chains on the driveways.

“On game days there will be parking problems with increased traffic, but we’ll deal with it,” Fuller said.

“It would be a great Renaissance for Chula Vista,” Xavier Casillas of Hardex Custom Hardware and Fixtures on Bay Blvd. said. “Everything south of 805 is old. It would generate more business.”

At the end of the day, the important thing for most people on the marina was seeing the Chargers remain in San Diego – no matter the location.

“I’m a diehard fan,” Romero said. “We’re a football town. If they leave, I’ll blame the politicians.”

“I’d like them to stay some place,” Martinez said. “It’s important to all the cities.”