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.

Chargers getting caught up in mayoral race

The Chargers are letting the public know they favor no candidate in the San Diego mayoral race between incumbent Jerry Sanders and Steve Francis in the wake of a controversial phone banking comment.

According to the Chargers, Sanders' campaign has told voters through the telecommuncations group that Francis has attempted to Republican special interest groups. Chargers owner Alex Spanos is included in that list. Fabiani called these actions "dishonest and hypocritical."

Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani sent a letter to the Sanders campaign, asking them to desist with the calls that are "deliberately designed to leave voters with the false impression that ... the Chargers support your challenger, Steve Francis."

Francis' campaign is mainly self-funded.

According to Fabiani, Sanders approached the Chargers in late April asking for donations, to which the Chargers declined, claiming they were not supporting any candidates in the race.
Spanos has given millions to Republicans over the last few decades. Since 1980, he has given more than $6.7 million to Republican or special interest groups, including $20,000 to the California Republican party in 2007.

Chula Vista cops ready for stadium task

Can law enforcement take on a new stadium?
By Brandon Stone
San Diego Stadium Watch

The gruff voice of public information officer Bernard Gonzales confidently says what over 212,000 Chula Vistans need to know. Can the Chula Vista police department patrol and control if there’s a new stadium in their town?

“I don’t think there any question that we can do that,” Gonzales said.

It is a question that hasn’t been addressed as much as others since Chula Vista began its talks with the San Diego Chargers. Lost in the shuffle of taxes, environment and feasibility is safety. Stadiums attract many things – tourism, events and commercial interests are just the tip of the iceberg – but the core of all of it is people. The problem is that it doesn’t designate which people it attracts. For every Charger fan that would come through a Chula Vista turnstile to cheer for their team, another could come in with a knife or a gun – or some thing even worse.

“We have discussed various options in very general terms with the City of Chula Vista,” Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani said, “but since we don't even have a final site at this point, those discussions have not moved beyond the very preliminary stages. These issues are very important for host cities, of course, and they deserve careful consideration.”

The department has been part of the city council’s talks with the Chargers, but hasn’t been primarily focused on.

“I don’t think we were the first people on the list to be informed,” Gonzales said, “but certainly during meeting with higher-ups at the city the police department was included in the loop. I’m sure early on in the process the question had to have been asked – what do you think about this stadium idea? Could the police department handle it? City leaders have certainly asked that before.”

Despite its recent financial woes, Chula Vista is still a city on the move. Population has rocketed and homes that now contribute to the city’s budget problems were once booming with new renters and owners. The police department had that in mind when building their current station in 2004. That same station will be depended on to strategize in case a stadium comes to the city.

“The new police station was built for expansion into the future,” Gonzales said. “It took a police department that was crammed into a small 50,000 square foot facility and placed that department into a 150,000 square foot facility. … Chula Vista is growing, and the building was meant to serve the community for the next 25 to 30 years, if not longer.”

Protection and safety in stadiums are nothing new. According to crime studies, over half of U.S. football stadiums are located in high-risk crime neighborhoods. More and more stories of violence in parking lots come out. Traffic accidents on highways and streets go up.

The people who run Qualcomm Stadium battle this every season. The stadium features a long list of rules for those that come into the area, and the stadium is policed by a mix of San Diego police on foot, car and horseback along with Elite Security and the Highway Patrol keep the area as safe as they can manage. San Diego Police’s Special Events Unit leads the stadium effort. Lt. Dan Chrisman of Special Events declined to be interviewed for this reporting, noting that the main role of his group is to maintain traffic flow.

Crime inside the Qualcomm Stadium parking lot isn’t a small thing. According to police records on Sundays from September 2007 to November 2007, there is a spike in crime between game days and other days. On September 9, for example, 90 incidents were recorded. They included violations for traffic, public drunkenness, and narcotics. Compare that with September 16, where only four incidents were reported. Of the 466 total incidents recorded, all but 19 were during Chargers games.

In Chula Vista, protection on this scale has not been done on a regular basis. Chula Vista police serve one of the 100 biggest cities in the nation as well as indirectly police visitors and aliens from the Mexican border, but the department has never covered a professional stadium the way one on the bay front or east side would ask them to do. Cities in comparable size to Chula Vista that host major venues are New Orleans, Lubbock and Orlando, and only Lubbock has favorable trends as of late. A bonus for the department is that Chula Vista police chief Rick Emerson hails from Pasadena, where he dealt with UCLA games and the Rose Bowl each year.

No matter what information is out there, the department is still dealing with the unknown.

“Until you see a plan,” Gonzales said, “until you see a stadium, until you get an agreement, it’s hard to react and respond to these things and it’s hard to have an opinion about it because all you have is an idea. You don’t have anything that says ‘Here’s where it’s going to go, here’s what its going to look like, here’s what we’re going to do with it, and here’s how your services are going to be needed.’ Until then, it’s all speculation.”

Even with speculation, organizations still need to be prepared. Officers still need to be trained on how to handle the situation, enforcement has to work on communication skills, and equipment has to be ordered. Everything must fit with the needs of a building that attracts as many as 100,000 people on a given Sunday.

Some of the forces that could be used for Charger games include a special task force sent out by the police department for traffic control while the others work the surface streets like normal.

“If you put a stadium next to a trolley station, it’s going to reduce the traffic … that would be entering the stadium,” Gonzales said. “If you put it out in the middle of a field somewhere and you’ve got to build roads to it that would have a different type of impact.”

The Chargers would still have to plan on hiring their own paid private security. According to Gonzales, it would be up to the Chargers to control the stadium internally.

“The stadium would be under the private ownership of whoever decides to build it,” Gonzales said. “It’s not owned by the police department, so we would not handle it.”

If the stadium ends up on the bay front, then agencies such as the Harbor Patrol, Coast Guard and even U.S. Customs could come into play. The Port of San Diego controls protection there, and currently has vessel patrol for wildlife, a vehicle team, a bike team and mobile command vehicles.

A media relations employee for the Port of San Diego withdrew comment, only saying that they would work within the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan to protect the area.

“If the stadium is in our jurisdiction, we become the primary law enforcement agency,” Gonzales said. “Everybody in the county communicates over the same radio system, so communication is not a major issue. We have good relationships with every law enforcement agency in the county. Building those bridges in terms of communicating on a major event isn’t something that is difficult.”

Even if Chula Vista has the time, resources and power to keep a stadium in line, there is still the money issue. With jobs on the line all over Chula Vista, the police department may not be able to afford putting in the funds to upgrade or create service.

The Chargers promised Chula Vista a privately funded stadium. They did not promise funds for protecting it.

“Obviously, teams that have needs that require the local police department,” Gonzales said. “They pay for those needs to mitigate the impact of the city. So we would expect that the same type of things would happen here.”

Fabiani did not commit to funding law enforcement, but did endorse the importance of “evaluate carefully the public safety cost implications” when building a stadium.

“Generally speaking, in the NFL teams and cities split costs in some form or fashion,” Fabiani said. “In some places, for example, teams pay for all services inside the stadium premises and cities provide services outside the stadium.”

Gonzales thinks the police department is ready to take up that task.“The police department doesn’t create its needs,” Gonzales said, “it responds to what the city requires … we respond to what the city needs. …We respond and we adjust. And that’s what we would do with the stadium.”

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 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.

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.

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.

Release from FTB Alliance cheers Chula Vista, jeers San Diego city

The Fans, Taxpayers and Business Alliance, a community coalition put together to place a stadium in San Diego County, put out this message earlier. In it, they praise the Chula Vista City Council for their service and denounce the city of San Diego's handling of stadium issues.

---

HATS OFF TO MAYOR COX AND THE ENTIRE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL

The nationwide Neilson ratings released on Monday shows this year’s Super Bowl as the second most watched program ever in the history of United States television. But, a little known fact is that the Chargers AFC Championship game against the Patriots garnered a larger local rating than the Super Bowl did.

























The conversation has never been about keeping the Chargers here at all costs, it has always been about working through the issues to see if it is possible to do so in a financially responsible way. Absent any meaningful conversation with the City of San Diego, Chula Vista has stood tall in saying they would at least study the issue.

Yet the City of San Diego, who stands to gain the most by finding a reasonable solution, is defiantly silent in how they might assist Chula Vista in retaining the team in the region. No time, no money, obviously no interest, not even in how to stint the ongoing cash drain as the City continues to pay about $19 million per year to maintain Qualcomm Stadium. (San Diego Union-Tribune, October 9, 2005)

Not one elected official in the City of San Diego has taken a public position on how to assist in solving the issue.

In music, that is called tone-deaf.

No matter what side of the issue you are on, it is important to let the local political leadership know what you think. Be sure to log onto www.ftballiance.org to contact your elected officials or send a letter to the Union-Tribune, Voice of San Diego or Chula Vista Star-News.