Yes exactly. They can’t just “declare victory” as was suggested if they solely defeat SoccerCity. If SDSU West also fails to pass, SDSU football is up shit creek. There won’t be another vote until at least 2020 by which time their lease at the Murph will have expired leaving them homeless. And there’s no guarantee they can put together s new plan and get it on the ballot in 2 short years after an SDSU West defeat (or that an SDSU West Part 2 would then pass).
The city has said that SDSU can extend for a number of years beyond 2020 but not indefinitely. This was announced after SDSU renegotiated the rent. Also Petco Park has said that the Aztecs can play there for a maximum for 2 years so the situation is not as dire as you say.
Exactly. The city extended the lease by 2 years like barely a month ago. if neither plan wins in November, they'll likely just extend it again (hopefully with better terms for the city this time) until whatever redevelopment project get's approved in like *84 years.* To suggest that the university needs SDSU West to pass this November for the sake of the football team is somewhere between disingenuous and **disintelligent.** *slight exaggeration **joking but you catch my drift
The November 2020 election takes place before the newly approved existing lease expires on December 31st 2020. They'll never be homeless. Worst case scenario they stopgap somewhere while some permanent option is constructed. The real winners if SoccerCity loses are the developers who get a second chance to build out whatever project does eventually get approved. They'd lose out entirely if FS Investors get the entire parcel.
This is my biggest concern if neither of them pass, it gives more time for other developers with no plans to build a stadium to get involved. I also have a question, couldn't the city council come up with a solution on their own plan if both these are voted down? I mean I know this is San Diego and we have one of the most dysfunctional local governments in the country but that could happen? I understand their would have to be a vote if they sold the entire parcel to one developer, but my understanding from the Chargers situation was that there are ways around that.
They technically could but the feeling I get from them and the Mayor is they don't want to touch this. I think they don't want to make a decision as it would "expose" them politically.
https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/top...it-will-pay-for-everything-in-sdsu-west-plan/ Interesting article about Measure G the SDSU west proposal. Raises a lot of the fears I have around what SDSU specifically wants to do and how they will pay for it. SDSU's response continues to be "trust us". One question I have is does SDSU HAVE to build a stadium? What if Hypothetically, SDSU commissioned a big report about the future of college football and their role in it and the report comes back that they will be in basically the same spot in 20 years. The report recommends that they drop football completely and instead use the land for different purposes. Is there anything in measure G to stop them from doing this?
Not that I've seen. The entire SDSU West argument is "trust us, we're the university" as you said. I heard Fred Pierce basically argue that the university has an "extraordinary incentive" to build a stadium on the quick because they are planning on using borrowed funds, but that's not what's in the initiative. This is from the City Attorney report on the initiative: In the report, the city attorney asked and answered specific questions: Q: Will adoption of the initiative require that the development outlined in the initiative be built? A: No. Qoes the initiative require a stadium to be built? A: No. Q: What happens if a stadium is not built? A: There is no remedy for the city if a stadium is not built within seven years of the sale, or at all. Q: Does the Initiative require the purchaser to build a River Park? A: No. There is no remedy in the initiative if the River Park is not constructed within seven years or at all. Q: Will the Development include affordable housing? A: That is unclear. The city could not enforce those (affordable housing) requirements against the state. Q: Would the initiative require city taxpayer funds? A: That is unclear. The initiative doesn’t state who will pay for River Park improvements on city land. Q: Can the purchaser transfer its interest in the site? A: Yes. The State Board of Trustees will make the ultimate use and development determination for the Existing Stadium Site including whether the site will be sold to a third party.
I think the council could, but I have no faith that they will. Might depend a bit on how this November goes and if any of the incumbents are replaced, but its hard to say what the immediate next course of action would be if they both failed.
SDSU isn't going to drop football. As we all know football is king in the US and keeping the program DIV1A is goal #1. As for trusting SDSU, I can't speak to that but I can speak to SoccerCity and there is no provision in there that they have to give back the land if MLS doesn't choose San Diego as an expansion city.
I don't think this is a conspiracy or anything I completely believe that at the moment SDSU wants to use the land to build a football stadium and totally expect them to do that if they win. Just aware that there are a lot of fluid things going on with football. You have two different factors which will make it a much more expensive endeavor in the future. The first is the push to pay the players. Can see a world where the top programs break away from the NCAA and create their own competition where they don't have to worry about losing millions of dollars because their star RB got a free haircut. The second part is the head trauma aspect. Insurance is going to have to go up and exposure to law suits is also going to rise as we learn more and more. I'm not saying Football is dead and soccer will replace it or any of that stuff, just that the costs are going to rise and their may come a time, sooner than we think possible, that the math no longer works for mid majors like SDSU, and the process of building the stadium is going to force that calculation sooner rather than later. As for trusting SDSU, I can't speak to that but I can speak to SoccerCity and there is no provision in there that they have to give back the land if MLS doesn't choose San Diego as an expansion city.[/QUOTE] Fair point, which is why I was hoping MLS would take a bigger active role in the campaign. Their silence has been noticed and makes me a little nervous.
Community Event Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 7:00 PM what What’s the Story? SDSU West & Soccer City location Kensington Community Church details Soccer City, Measure E, and SDSU West, Measure G, are competing on the November 6th ballot. Vying to develop the former Qualcomm site, the proponents’ plans have similarities but differ in many respects. Representatives from each side will present their plans and answer your questions. Know the story before casting your vote. Sponsored by Kensington-Talmadge Community Association and Normal Heights Community Association. To reserve your spot call (619) 563-1249. Just wanted to let people know about this event I saw. Looks like a chance to get a lot of the questions answered.
Fair point and it may happen eventually but won't for at least the next 10-20 years as TV contracts are still what drives most of the value right now. Also, players have been getting payments for the last 2-3 years via stipends. Obviously the bigger schools offer more money than the smaller schools. Another fair point but like I said, football is king and this isn't going to effect big time college football. If we do see less players then you'll see the smaller schools stop playing football. As for insurance, I am sure the lawyers will find a way to cover the schools but its a fair point.
I guess the question is does State count as "big time" college football? With their recent on field performances and a new stadium I answer yes. But I don't think it's a clear answer. I'm just frustrated that we couldn't get everyone together and build something that helps the whole city and be smart about it. Guess it's not the San Diego way.
SDSU West vs SoccerCity Debate from Politifest: https://www.sdchronicle.org/home/2018/10/6/politifest-bonus-pod-soccercity-vs-sdsu-west-vs-neither
Nick Stone Recaps Politifest Debate https://www.sdchronicle.org/home/20...o-podcast-nick-stone-recaps-politifest-debate
Measure E has lost a ton of momentum. The Stadium coalition just endorsed G in the latest blow. This after Labor, police, fire and the Democratic Party all got behind G. I hate to say it, but the MLS via E dream appears DOA. Hopefully Stone can make it work in the confines of what G proposes, assuming it passes.
Hopefully it makes him and FSI see the writing on the wall and brings them back to the table. I doubt it happens though and we will see an new investor group next year.
I don't think we'll see another investor group for anything higher than USL if Measure E loses. FS has been at the table. Pretty sure its SDSU that flipped it over and stormed off... None of that really matters unfortunately at this point. The election is set and now we just have to wait for the outcome.
It wasn't FS who walked away from the table, but rather SDSU. Whether they did that for the right or wrong reasons is up to each individuals opinion. IMO with the St. Louis bid coming back from the dead, I don't think San Diego get's another chance for an MLS expansion team if E doesn't come to fruition. Best they can hope for will be a relocation.
We can see another investor group for MLS, just depends on when/if their option for a franchise expires.
Not here in San Diego. I'm perplexed as to why you think that's an option. Never say never obviously but we're talking about decades from now if ever.
I am perplexed as to why you think it won't happen. My understanding of FSI and their MLS option is that it is finite.