For seven years, the San Diego Chargers have said they would build a new stadium without using taxpayer money. Thursday, a team spokesman said otherwise.
“It’s almost certainly going to involve some sort of taxpayer money,” said Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani, who has led the team’s stadium search since 2002.
“Now the question is: Can you say to the taxpayers you’re putting in this, but here’s what you’re getting back? And you know, it’s possible you can make that case.”
It’s a significant shift for the team, which has always expressed a desire to finance stadium construction privately and acknowledged via Fabiani the difficulty of getting public support for any kind of taxpayer subsidy.
Fabiani’s latest comments came in an interview after he made a pitch for a new stadium and chief operating officer Jim Steeg touted the team’s value to the community at a morning gathering of the San Diego North Chamber of Commerce at Sony headquarters in Rancho Bernardo.
Fabiani was updating the crowd of 40 or 50 people on early efforts by the city and team to evaluate a potential stadium site in downtown San Diego east of Petco Park.
That location is in the city’s downtown redevelopment area, so it’s possible that the city could borrow money against future property taxes to help finance a stadium.
Mayor Jerry Sanders has long said he would oppose using public funds toward construction of a new stadium, but an aide said last month that the Mayor’s Office is looking at all ways cities have helped with stadium construction, including infrastructure financing and borrowing money against future redevelopment revenues downtown.
Thursday, Fabiani told the crowd a stadium could be built downtown for $700 million to $800 million. In the past, it has been said that the Chargers and the National Football League might contribute $200 million apiece to a stadium, and that the gap would be bridged by nearby ancillary development such as hotels, condos and retail.
The team has set aside that idea because of the poor economy and the small size of the downtown site, which is bounded by 14th, 16th and K streets and Imperial Avenue. Plans call for a 62,000-seat stadium to abut the street and expand to 72,000 seats to accommodate Super Bowls, with little room to build much else in the way of ancillary development.
Fabiani told the crowd Thursday about the need for creative financing and twice said a new financing model was something people must “wrap their heads around.”
Afterward, he said the team has “no interest in obscuring” from people its shift on public financing because it wants support from voters to achieve its goals.
“It’s almost certainly going to involve some sort of taxpayer money,” said Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani, who has led the team’s stadium search since 2002.
“Now the question is: Can you say to the taxpayers you’re putting in this, but here’s what you’re getting back? And you know, it’s possible you can make that case.”
It’s a significant shift for the team, which has always expressed a desire to finance stadium construction privately and acknowledged via Fabiani the difficulty of getting public support for any kind of taxpayer subsidy.
Fabiani’s latest comments came in an interview after he made a pitch for a new stadium and chief operating officer Jim Steeg touted the team’s value to the community at a morning gathering of the San Diego North Chamber of Commerce at Sony headquarters in Rancho Bernardo.
Fabiani was updating the crowd of 40 or 50 people on early efforts by the city and team to evaluate a potential stadium site in downtown San Diego east of Petco Park.
That location is in the city’s downtown redevelopment area, so it’s possible that the city could borrow money against future property taxes to help finance a stadium.
Mayor Jerry Sanders has long said he would oppose using public funds toward construction of a new stadium, but an aide said last month that the Mayor’s Office is looking at all ways cities have helped with stadium construction, including infrastructure financing and borrowing money against future redevelopment revenues downtown.
Thursday, Fabiani told the crowd a stadium could be built downtown for $700 million to $800 million. In the past, it has been said that the Chargers and the National Football League might contribute $200 million apiece to a stadium, and that the gap would be bridged by nearby ancillary development such as hotels, condos and retail.
The team has set aside that idea because of the poor economy and the small size of the downtown site, which is bounded by 14th, 16th and K streets and Imperial Avenue. Plans call for a 62,000-seat stadium to abut the street and expand to 72,000 seats to accommodate Super Bowls, with little room to build much else in the way of ancillary development.
Fabiani told the crowd Thursday about the need for creative financing and twice said a new financing model was something people must “wrap their heads around.”
Afterward, he said the team has “no interest in obscuring” from people its shift on public financing because it wants support from voters to achieve its goals.
Fabiani again said Thursday that the team wants to put any stadium measure onto a public ballot.
“We have no interest in spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, even into the millions, on this site, and then finding out that nobody wants to support it,” he said. “We think we should lay it out on the table right now that this is a very different kind of site, that it’s not the same model that we’ve used before, that people need to adjust their thinking about that, and that you’re not going to have ancillary development on the same site.”
A push to use public money would face opposition from Donna Frye, the longest-serving member of the San Diego City Council, whose district includes Qualcomm Stadium.
“My main point will always be that the taxpayers don’t foot the bill,” she said last week. “We cannot afford to pay for a Chargers stadium. The city can’t afford it. That would include any money from the redevelopment agency.”
“We have no interest in spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, even into the millions, on this site, and then finding out that nobody wants to support it,” he said. “We think we should lay it out on the table right now that this is a very different kind of site, that it’s not the same model that we’ve used before, that people need to adjust their thinking about that, and that you’re not going to have ancillary development on the same site.”
A push to use public money would face opposition from Donna Frye, the longest-serving member of the San Diego City Council, whose district includes Qualcomm Stadium.
“My main point will always be that the taxpayers don’t foot the bill,” she said last week. “We cannot afford to pay for a Chargers stadium. The city can’t afford it. That would include any money from the redevelopment agency.”
link
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.