http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/mar/29/chargers-release-stadium-initiative-financing/
This seems a bit excessive, but anything to keep the team.
Just send the Raiders back to LA already. This is so fucking stupid
>>66480770
>we
But you wouldn't be. It'd be everyone else but San Diegans who would via tourism tax increases which have been done in many other cities to subsidize stadium construction. If I read correctly, the city would still chip in the $350 million it offered the entire time last year (if I read incorrectly, it isn't chipping in anything so either way the city is either not on the hook, or on the hook for what was already offering), but everything else would be paid by tourists, the League, and the team.
In fact, this would even be better for SD because the cost of repair and maintenance which amounts to multiple millions of dollars annually, currently being paid by the city for Qualcomm Stadium, would be taken up by the Chargers alleviating the general fund of that burden. I completely shit on the Chargers for the shit they tried pulling last year, but what they are proposing, really isn't that bad.
I'd rather get a hockey team tbqh.
Chargers have always cucked us and they'll try cucking us again in 15 years for another billion plus.
Fuck that
>>66482230
What's a tourism tax exactly? Like how does that work?
Wouldn't it just be increasing tax for goods when I go shopping? It's cucking me a little less than property tax but I'm still being cucked.
It's not like they can just increase tax for tourist shops and t shirts that say San Diego on them
>>66480770
>inb4 its only like 900 dollars per citizen
>>66480770
This seems like a good deal for us desu
also, aren't they combining it with a new convention center? Kills two birds with one stone
>>66482306
Hotel tax increase
>>66482272
Actually if this is passed, there is a built in lease agreement to stay in this new stadium for 30 years, and not attempt to relocate for 30 years.
On top of that, any funding for remodeling or additions would come out of this same TOT tax increase, Leaving San Diegans off the hook.
>>66482306
>What's a tourism tax exactly? Like how does that work?
It is an added tax to businesses primarily used by tourists. The poster children are hotels and car rentals. They are businesses and industries that when made more expensive because of an increased TOT tax will on the whole only impact people visiting San Diego. Not San Diegos, so no. Unless you do business with such industries, you really wouldn't be getting cucked. As for not being able to do that, why do you think this is being put on the ballot? A popular vote can make anything happen if it passes, no matter how unfair someone might say it is. When something like this is done privately is when it gets thrown out of court like the TOT tax increase agreed upon by hoteliers to pay for a stadium expansion that never went to a popular vote.
>>66482317
>aren't they combining it with a new convention center?
That seems to be the plan. They're going to be building a "Convadium" as it is being called.
>>66482410
>like the TOT tax increase agreed upon by hoteliers to pay for a Convention Center expansion that never went to a popular vote.
Small correction.
LA Raider fan here: I hope you guys pass it. No one wants your shit team in LA, and if the Chargers end up bankrupting San Diego, even better.
>>66482443
>and if the Chargers end up bankrupting San Diego, even better.
But it wouldn't. Didn't you read...
>LA Raider fan here
Nevermind.
>>66482443
>LA Raider fan here:
Ah, the cuck speaks
>>66482508
I'll even put some of my own paycheck down and spend a shitload of money in San Diego to get this stadium built.
Most voters seem to be behind the initiative, so the Raiders are coming home next year
>>66482424
> super bowl in February and comic con in July
Stadium would be paid for in 5 years
>>66482524
Plus, even if/when the Chargers play like shit, and SD doesn't show up, and we get completely overwhelmed by fans of visiting teams taking over games, that just means more money that SD isn't needing to chip in.
But wouldn't this all mean that they're giving up possible tax revenue elsewhere? And they could theoretically expand the convention center WITHOUT building the stadium.
It seems kind of dumb to throw them in together
>>66482583
>But wouldn't this all mean that they're giving up possible tax revenue elsewhere?
How so?
>And they could theoretically expand the convention center WITHOUT building the stadium.
They've been trying to about as long as they have been trying to build the stadium, but can't decide on doing it contiguous or noncontiguous, and the lawyer who took down the closest shot to getting the Convention Center by itself for environmental reasons, who is also the one who started the first Citizens Initiative that began collecting signatures late last year has argued that doing them together will be cheaper than doing both of them separately.
>>66482667
>How so?
They could theoretically raise the hotel tax and spend the money somewhere else, like revitalizing even more of downtown instead of spending it just on one building.
>They've been trying to about as long as they have been trying to build the stadium, but can't decide on doing it contiguous or noncontiguous, and the lawyer who took down the closest shot to getting the Convention Center by itself for environmental reasons, who is also the one who started the first Citizens Initiative that began collecting signatures late last year has argued that doing them together will be cheaper than doing both of them separately.
That makes a bit more sense. But what happens if the project runs overbudget? Where will the shortfall come from? The team? NFL? the taxpayers?
It seems like such a huge project that there will be a lot of hidden costs associated with it. Not to mention the amount of land being given up for nearly practically nothing (which in SD, land is at a premium)
Are you people fucking stupid? No, you shouldn't agree to this. Don't let these crooked as fuck owners hold your city hostage. What are you giving up exactly? 50 years of zero championships? Don't be a cuck, tell the NFL to go pound sand.
>>66482808
t. someone who desperately wants an nfl team in their city
fuck off fag
>>66482712
>They could theoretically raise the hotel tax and spend the money somewhere else, like revitalizing even more of downtown instead of spending it just on one building.
Anyone could theoretically raises taxes, but you rarely see people do it without an intended allocation or purpose in mind. In this case, this is two projects people have been trying to get done for more than a decade that they might finally be able to push together to get both done for less.
>But what happens if the project runs overbudget? Where will the shortfall come from? The team? NFL? the taxpayers?
I recall seeing it somewhere within the past 48 hours that the Chargers would cover any over budget costs.
>>66482808
>Don't let these crooked as fuck owners hold your city hostage.
How exactly are they holding us hostage with this?
I don't expect you to know, because I think you read OP which was incorrect, and don't have a clue about the details of what they proposed in this financing plan.
>>66482272
unfortunately you do not have the option to trade.
Please San Diego, keep your shit fucking team so we can get our team back.
>>66480770
>Being fucking stupid enough to be extorted by a sports team
Good job San Diego!
>>66482974
t. LA Raider cuck
>>66482976
>extorted
>>66482977
How are we cucks? Oakland fans are cucks for cheering for our team while they have the Whiners to cheer for
Wait the general public pays the majority of coast for the stadium and then has to pay to go to that stadium ... why? You dont give money to other businesses for devoloping a product that you have to buy again?
>>66483070
Its called actually supporting the team. europeans wouldn't understand.
>>66483070
>Wait the general public pays the majority of coast for the stadium and then has to pay to go to that stadium ... why?
No. Read Norway. I know you're smart enough to.
Tourists visiting San Diego would pay an increased tax placed on products and services that are considered part of the tourism industry that cater to them primarily (hotel rooms/services, car rental, etc.) and the accumulated value of that tax would cover the difference out of the $1.6 Billion dollar cost of the entire project minus the $350 Million put up by San Diego City and county (which would admittedly be derived from existing tax revenue gathered from San Diego residents, but is the same contribution value proposed by the city and county last year in their proposal), $350 Million put up by the Chargers, and $300 Million put up by the NFL. Realistically the tourism tax would be expected to cover $600 Million.
Posting since clearly no one wants to give the UT clicks
>A hotel-tax hike the Chargers want to pitch to voters in November would finance a $1.8 billion stadium and convention center downtown, with money left over for operations, tourism marketing and San Diego’s general fund, said advisers to the team in a briefing for reporters late Tuesday.
>As reported last week, the team’s plan would raise the city’s tax on hotel stays to 16.5 percent from 12.5 percent. Some hotel owners worry that the higher rate could deter visitors, while others note comparable taxes in competing cities such as Anaheim and San Francisco.
>In San Diego, the proposed tax hike would support $1.15 billion in publicly issued bonds, with $350 million for the city’s contribution to building a football stadium near Petco Park, $600 million for an adjoining convention center, and $200 million to buy land. No money is planned to upgrade nearby roads.
>The remaining funding — $650 million — would come from the Chargers and National Football League. The team would contribute $350 million, presumably raising some of that money by selling “seat licenses” to fans and stadium naming rights. The NFL would kick in $300 million, made up of a $200 million loan and $100 million grant.
>The Chargers released the full text of their proposed ballot initiative Wednesday morning, which will be followed by publication in Thursday’s print editions of The San Diego Union-Tribune as a legal notice. The publication triggers a 21-day waiting period, after which the team can begin gathering signatures to qualify the initiative for the November ballot.
>The remaining funding — $650 million — would come from the Chargers and National Football League. The team would contribute $350 million, presumably raising some of that money by selling “seat licenses” to fans and stadium naming rights. The NFL would kick in $300 million, made up of a $200 million loan and $100 million grant.
>The Chargers released the full text of their proposed ballot initiative Wednesday morning, which will be followed by publication in Thursday’s print editions of The San Diego Union-Tribune as a legal notice. The publication triggers a 21-day waiting period, after which the team can begin gathering signatures to qualify the initiative for the November ballot.
>Less clear is what percentage of the electorate would be required for passage.
>On March 18, a state appellate court ruled that a citizens initiative to tax marijuana dispensaries in Upland needed approval by a simple majority (50 percent plus one vote), potentially lowering the two-thirds requirement that has doomed many similar initiatives over the years in California.
>However, the team is proceeding on the assumption that the old rules will apply. “We’re operating as if it’s two-thirds,” Fred Maas, a development consultant to the Chargers, said Tuesday.
>Winning approval at either threshold will be difficult without political support from a variety of San Diego’s key opinion makers, Chargers advisers have freely acknowledged. Major potential opponents and supporters, including Mayor Kevin Faulconer, have declined to comment until the team released the final initiative.
>After a vote last week, the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce Board said it was open to the Chargers’ concept of a combined downtown stadium and convention center, but it wanted a closer look at the details. City Councilman David Alvarez expressed skepticism, saying the plan as outlined “will not put the public first.”
>Chargers advisers described the financing plan as conservative, with “shock absorbers” designed to assure bond investors of repayment during economic downturns, as well as provide $25 million a year (in 2017 dollars) to operate and maintain the complex, plus $4 million for a capital fund for future upgrades or major repairs. The team would contribute $15 million for stadium operations and maintenance.
>The initiative also proposes to generate revenue for tourism marketing, replacing a 2 percent surcharge on room rates that is being challenged in court as an illegal tax hike because it was approved by hoteliers and not the general public.
>A city-controlled tourism marketing fund would get the first 1 percent of the tax on room rates. The second 1 percent would be available only after a reserve for “debt coverage” was established.
>Team advisers said the risk of shortfall is low for the hotel industry’s tourism fund, because the tax money would start to flow on Jan. 1, 2017, and build up quickly in the years before construction started.
>Indeed, the Chargers forecast calls for the city’s general fund to receive $5.3 million in 2017, rising to $8.9 million by 2019, before falling to zero in the first year of construction as operating and maintenance reserves are funded. Then it would rise again until the bonds were repaid, a period estimated at 33 years or more from 2017, at which point the tax would fall from 16.5 percent to 13.5 percent.
>The Chargers would agree to lease the stadium for 30 years, starting when construction was finished, in addition to not relocating for 30 years. The complex would be owned and operated by the city, probably through a joint-powers authority, with the team keeping only game-day and NFL-associated revenue.
>The project would be situated on a 15-acre site that encompasses the city-owned Tailgate Park, as well as three private parcels, and a block used as a bus yard by the Metropolitan Transit System. The transit agency already has reached out to the Chargers about initiating negotiations to sell the property and find a replacement site for the maintenance yard.
>As for the design of the project, the stadium portion would include about 65,000 seats — expandable to 75,000 during Super Bowls — as well as luxury suites and other amenities.
>The new convention center would total about 385,000 square feet, including the 225,000 square feet of exhibit space envisioned in the city’s plan to expand its convention center toward San Diego Bay, a project that’s been stalled because the plan to finance it with a hotelier-approved room tax increase was ruled unconstitutional.
>Still undecided, though, is whether the convention center would sit below the playing field or alongside the stadium.
>Maas, the Chargers development adviser, said preliminary studies showed that stacking the stadium above the convention floor would be “very expensive.” He said the team hopes to reach key architectural and engineering decisions in about a month.
>In January, the NFL’s owners voted to allow the Chargers to share a $2.6 billion stadium in Inglewood being built by the St. Louis Rams. That same decision gave the Chargers until January 2017 time to instead pursue a stadium deal in San Diego, with a one-year extension if a November ballot initiative was approved by voters.
>support team whole life
>team moves
Can't wait to see the Bangkok City Foxes in the Premierl Eagle in 2020 lads.
>>66483253
>No money is planned to upgrade nearby roads.
This seems like an issue.
>>66483361
It will be. I was listening to Darren Smith during lunch, and he said within the actual proposal, that the parking plan is to take advantage of multipurpose parking lots used for downtown employees during the week, and/or public transit. The stadium really seems to be all they've planned out. The infrastructural need around it seems to have escaped them for the moment.
I'm just glad they aren't gung-ho on moving the team to fucking Los Angeles anymore.
NFL owners aren't stupid and know that the best thing for the league is to not have the L.A. market be oversaturated. The smartest thing from day one was to have the Chargers stay in San Diego.
>>66483322
That sounded dumb as fuck and was a poor attempt at humor.
San Diegan here, I will be voting NO on this shit if it goes up for voting in November. Fuck the Chargers. No stadium in downtown. Keep Comic Con by expanding the Convention Center and fuck off the Chargers.
The only reason, the stupid fucks in this city want to build a stadium is so it can host another Super Bowl which the majority here don't give a fuck.
San Diego is not a sports city, Chargers and Padres are better off moving to Utah.
Who /LARaiders/ here?
>>66485271
I will be voting no on this also. San Diego has serious infrastructure that needs to be addressed over an unnecessary stadium.
>>66485271
>>66485318
Are you idiots even sports fans?
VISITORS and the HOTEL TAX will be paying for this, not you broke assholes
>tfw new stadium one day
>>66485436
>concerns about roads and parking being a nightmare
>hurr durr but the taxes pay for the stadium
>>66485318
>>66485271
God you guys are the fucking worst.
>>66485318
>>66485271
> chargers in San Diego for 50+ years
> transplants move here for the weather
> refuse to let us have our sports teams
Fuck off, we want our city to stay nationally relevant
>>66485271
fuck off and leave san diego then cunt. im sure you can find a cheaper place to live with your moms money
>>66485271
I think the people in the bars I go to would prefer 16 games of football to a weekend where virgins make it impossible to do anything south of the 8
>>66485271
>The only reason, the stupid fucks in this city want to build a stadium is so it can host another Super Bowl which the majority here don't give a fuck.
Or maybe because they've been here for over 50 years and are a serious threat to relocate if they don't get a new stadium. The Super Bowl is just an incentive because it would obviously happen soon after.
my dad has been a chargers fan since the 80s and I know literal generations of chargers fans, fuck you
>fans pay $1.3 billion out of their pockets for a new stadium
>fans still pay $100 per ticket, $30 parking, $10 beer etc.
>Jew owners pay for nothing, all profits go directly to Jews and nobody else
Why is this allowed? Don't tell me that the stadium would make the city more profitable as that has been debunked in every city nationwide in the past 20 years.
>>66480770
>Just send the Raiders back to LA already
>actually wanting this
The NFL's team placement right now is virtually perfect. All that's need to happen is for the Titans to sell the name and history of the Oilers back to Houston.
>>66486567
>fans pay $1.3 billion out of their pockets for a new stadium
congratulations on not reading a single post ITT or even reading the article
>>66485271
>>66485318
you're why the wall will go up
>>66487128
fukc you
>>66486145
Comic Con with Convention Center > San Diego Super Chokers using tax money to build an unnecessary stadium
WTF is wrong in building it in Mission Valley? Downtown SD will be a fucking pain to move around on September Sundays when Baseball and Football going on.
If the Chargers pulled a Baltimore Colts, no one would fucking care the next morning and it would just be a regular day in San Diego. The only ones mourning are retarded sports fans.
I love sports, but there are more important issues in this city such as a aging and crumbling infrastructure that the money would be better used for.
>>66482524
>>>66482424
>> super bowl in February and comic con in July
>Stadium would be paid for in 5 years
>people think this actually every happens.
Protip, research shows 95% of the time publically financed stadiums are shit value.
>>66486567
No it won't, there is already a strong opposition should it go to the voters in November. Why can't the Chargers just fund the entire fucking project to build their stadium? Greedy fucks, I wish the NFL owners would just let them bolt to LA and make it their problem instead.
>>66486105
>Fuck off, we want our city to stay nationally relevant
>Never snows
>People want to move and/or retire here
>Home to the largest naval base on the West Coast
>Sea World
>Zoo
>Tijuana
>8th largest city in USA
Holy fuck, what more do you want?
>>66487165
>f the Chargers pulled a Baltimore Colts, no one would fucking care the next morning and it would just be a regular day in San Diego.
Know how I know you're not from San Diego?
Everything is so expensive here in San Diego and they want to raise taxes to fund a stupid stadium? FUCK THE CHARGERS!!
>>66487292
read the article you dumbfuck
>>66480770
So what happens if this doesn't pass since it will be on the ballot for vote?
>>66487165
Comic con is once a year during the offseason of football what the fuck are you complaining about
>>66487246
> Holy fuck, what more do you want?
To keep my god damn football team
Also putting Tijuana on that list is laughable m8. Nobody goes there anymore unless they want to be beheaded
San Diego is a based city, it should have a based football stadium to compliment it. They could make an incredible outdoor stadium/convention center hybrid.
>>66488184
The Spanos family can rightly fuck off. The city of San Diego is based with or without the Chargers
You don't need to publicly fund billionaires who go to the cities for their money first, before going to banks
