Chestercopp
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Build a stadium and Chargers will stay? Nope.
I'd trust the Forbes data (showing a >$450 million gain) over some unknown random economist. Forbes is an extremely credible source. PS: Any economist that claims a Super Bowl loses money for the hosting city is a moron and should be rightfully mocked.— May 3, 2012 11:46 a.m.
Build a stadium and Chargers will stay? Nope.
Are you seriously bringing real estate development into this debate? In case you've been living under a rock, the real estate market collapsed everywhere in the country over the past few years. The fact there has been any development in that area is a smashing success in bucking the trend everywhere else in the state.— May 2, 2012 5 p.m.
Build a stadium and Chargers will stay? Nope.
Absolutely, go down there some weekend. Most of the top restaurants and clubs in all of San Diego are located within a few blocks of Petco.— May 2, 2012 4:41 p.m.
Build a stadium and Chargers will stay? Nope.
Petco has worked out phenomenally. It reinvented the once blighted warehouse district. The area is thriving when once it was dead. I don't think a football stadium (with 8 home games) would have the same impact as baseball stadium. But, is silly to say Petco has been anything but a phenomenal success. I tried looking on-line, but couldn't find anything the mayor said about the stadium costing the city $15 million a year, but if it is just in the budget then it is likely that it is costing that much to run per year. But, it is making the city far far more than that. (PS: The Padres are probably the worst team in baseball, yet their attendance is fine. They were actually decent when they were at Qualcomm and went to a World Series - now a AAA team could beat them. Also, in case you've been under a rock, the entire real estate system is crushed - not just downtown San Diego, but everywhere). Does San Diego need a new football stadium? Personally, I say no. There are not many Chargers fans in this town (as evidenced by the blackouts) and the team should move to a better locale where they can develop a stronger fan base. Second, the college bowl games may be fading away in the near future and at present San Diego does not host any marquee bowl games . There are only a few limited events that would use the stadium, so it probably doesn't make sense to build one and instead let the Chargers go. (Obviously, you can't both keep the Chargers and keep Qualcomm stadium).— May 2, 2012 4:28 p.m.