Not that I'm aware of. At least not beyond what the university might contribute and they of course are a public institution.
Yeah the general feeling I'm getting is that SDSU is the favored plan overall. The only real objection is that it's seen by some as the handout to the university. BUT, even then many see it as a worthy handout given the same type was given to UCSD and has been very beneficial to the city. SoccerCity is of course popular among those that like soccer, but their failure to get SDSU on board will likely be their downfall. As is the fact they've now got a competing plan from SDSU that will likely split the vote. The odds of both failing has gone up because of that.
My sense is that outside the most passionate fans of each plan, the larger majority of the population doesn't know too much or care too much about this bid battle. Over the course of the next year though the campaign spinners will be earning their living. Biggest knock on SoccerCity is that they seek to privatize (largely abandoned) public land and profit from their development over the course of the buildout. Biggest knock on SDSU is that they don't have a clearcut plan for exactly what they want to do with the land nor have they declared how they will pay for it.
I don't believe that SDSU has said outright that they need X amount of dollars from the city's general fund but by their nature as a public entity, and the peceived funding gap between what they say they want to build and how much it costs, a lot of people are assuming that tax-payer dollars will be spent on their plan.
If you take a look at your knocks....SDSU's knock isn't really a knock. Its a lack of information, which should be corrected on Dec 20.
Why is it that nearly a year after FSI went public with their plan for Mission Valley that they worked on with SDSU, the university still doesn't have any concrete plan of attack for a property that they've allegedly been eyeing for decades? "Information" isn't all that its cracked up to be...
That's a good question. I have a feeling that they know what they want to do but the details were never really baked in. Now that they have hired an architectural firm and JMI is on board as well we will see more info. I think they never really actioned their plans until the deal with FSI broke apart.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...alcomm-redevelopment-2016apr05-htmlstory.html The university's desires have long been held and are well-documented. I think they mapped out their needs and wants to FSI but have never had the financial capacity to make their plans actionable on their own. When they realized that FSI was going to move forward with or without them, they pulled out and embarked upon the path they are on now. For many of us without ties to SDSU, that counts as a knock.
I would say that you are assuming they are well-documented. I have never seen anything solid from them at any time. As for when they pulled out of their deal with FSI, it was when FSI wouldn't budge on the size of the stadium and amount of land they would get from FSI.
I know that the stadium capacity was fixed well before SDSU pulled out. Once they started collected signatures for the initiative they couldn't turn back on stadium capacity, even if everyone wanted them to. FS offered the land SDSU wanted, just not at the price that they wanted it at. Subtle difference, I know. I could go back and forth on when who did what, but at this point I think it's more constructive to look forward to what is going to happen as opposed to trying to parse through what various different people think happened based on whatever source they choose to tune into. I think its a real shame that these two parties couldn't/wouldn't come to terms. Ultimately, I just hope that the best plan for San Diego wins out.
Unfortunately it's quite possible that ship has sailed. The best plan was one where FSI was driving, but where SDSU got most of, if not everything they wanted on stadium capacity, etc... FSI without SDSU is going to be fighting an uphill battle given the alumni base for SDSU in the region (nevermind the active smear campaign against the project being supported by the likes of Councilman Alvarez. And SDSU is similarly going to be facing an uphill battle doing battle with FSI and those that do not want city land simply given away to SDSU, and by extension the state, because they're a university. My biggest fear is that both projects may have doomed themselves by being separate and on the same ballot as many will vote for the one they like best, cannibalizing what was already going to be a tight voting pool for SOME form of stadium project on that site. Remember we've still got a sizable population of NIMBY types who'd sooner vote for a homeless shelter or nothing at all on the site and would never vote for a stadium. And the only way to stave that off is for one of them to pull their initiative and come to an arrangement with the other. But with JMI now running point on the development side for SDSU's plan, it would seem doubtful.
I agree that a joint FSI/SDSU plan would have been best and that we have way too many short sighted NIMBY's in San Diego. However, SDSU West will happen. There is too much money to be generated by the expanded campus to let it not happen (see UCSD and their NIMBY problem and how it disappeared when the money started rolling in). FSI's plan pales in comparison to what an expanded SDSU would provide to the city. I just hope a professional soccer team is able to use the stadium as well.
We shall see. I agree that its a massive waste of both parties' resources to combat each other in the face of opposition from around the rest of the city. I have a bad taste in my mouth from the kneejerk smear campaign from SDSU towards FSI, but I'm constantly surprised to see people defending the university's actions. I really think they played FSI for suckers; agreeing to work with them up until the last possible minute and then torpedoing the joint plan and striking out alone with a "plan" of their own that has all the same bullet point features. It's always all about the $$$ though so I suppose I shouldnt' be surprised.
SDSU has been very clear they welcome a soccer team to the stadium in their plan. The issue is, FSI has made it clear without a land deal and full control they're not in. The two positions would seem to be mutually exclusive. That and MLS seems pretty keen on team control of venues, and with other options that have that... On the plus side we'll at least have an NASL team in Oceanside... oh wait
It's always about money. You think FSI's primary interest is owning a soccer team? I mean I support their plan, and really would like to see an MLS team here, but I've no illusions their primary goal was to get control of and develop the SDCCU Stadium site.
Yea I agree but I am just worried that the timing will be off. To be clear MLS wants teams to have positive control of revenue from venues (see Atlanta) so SDSU "owning" the stadium isn't a non-starter, they just need to have favorable terms. I am still holding out hope that FSI either comes on board (there is still a crap load of land that can be available to develop if they are interested, just not the whole space) or MLS delays their expansion plans and we are somehow awarded one with another ownership group.
What does your Atlanta citation refer to? The same person owns both the MLS and NFL teams. And how can FSI "come on board" as you say? With SDSU? The FSI proposal is already locked onto the ballot for next year. SDSU still has some work to do to be considered. Even if they agreed to, FSI can't retract their initiative. For this circuit of expansion its FSI or bust unless someone moves a team here. So we's have to wait for teams 29/30 to be announced. Probably not kicking off until after 2026 at the earliest...
Actually the FSI initiative can be retracted from the ballot up to 131 days before the election. So it's not "locked in" as yet.
Exactly Atlanta United doesn't own the stadium. A holding company does but they control the revenue they get from the stadium Covered by athletics68 You are assuming that 27 & 28 are actually awarded in the near future. If MLS really wanted the current crop of candidates they would have made the selections already. The goal is to be at 26 by 2020 We are currently @ 23. That leaves 3 spots. I think Cincy gets in @ 24 (since Miami isn't ready and they made it an easier decision with the Columbus move) soon. That means they can wait on 25 and 26 for Miami to get their sh*t together. They can wait a whole year to make the decision (basically they can wait until around this time next year). IMO the last 3 slots will go to: Detroit Nashville And Sacramento....but only if St. Louis or San Diego isn't ready.
The only conclusion I can come to in this thread is that San Diego is an awful sports town. Literally the worst in the country. Just look at the reality of the teams there and what the city puts them through. I will love San Diego until the day I die. But it is a horrible sports town. What possible reason would any potential franchise owner in any sport have for going there. It would have to be a land grab. SDSU will win out and settle for slow mediocrity in every way. It’s a sports town with one team, the least ambitious, worst team in baseball, and a college basketball team that hit its ceiling and is staring back into the abyss. Super pathetic and nobody to do anything about it.