• Scam Diego alerts

Industry, California (also known as City of Industry) votes Jan. 20 on a $500 million infrastructure bond to serve the area in which billionaire Ed Roski Jr. has proposed building a $800 million pro football stadium. Roski and his partner want to attract an existing team by 2010. The Chargers have been prominently mentioned, along with other teams begging for public subsidies such as the Minnesota Vikings. Roski is a chum of Chargers owner Alex Spanos. The Chargers team is hot right now, and could well go deep into the playoffs or even to the Super Bowl, igniting civic leaders who would continue ignoring the rotting infrastructure -- and ignoring the threat of a City bankruptcy -- to rustle up a land grant for the team. The Chargers may well use the threat of a City of Industry relocation to shake down the City or County. City of Industry, located in the San Gabriel Valley area of Los Angeles County, has all of 121 households; there are 82 registered voters, according to the Whittier Daily News. The City of Industry has no business taxes -- thus attracting numerous companies -- and supports itself on retail sales taxes from shopping centers located there.

  • Scam Diego alerts

Comments

SanDiegan Dec. 27, 2008 @ 11:47 a.m.

Don:

Today's UT announced the opening of the new San Diego Se Hotel as Follows:

The owners of Sé San Diego are opening a $500-a-night luxury hotel – which claims the West Coast's biggest penthouse at $20,000 per night. The owners of Sé San Diego are opening a $500-a-night luxury hotel – which claims the West Coast's biggest penthouse at $20,000 per night – in an economy more amenable to Motel 6 .... xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In light of the "urgency" of keeping the Chargers from even thinking of leaving San Diego, Council President Ben Hueso demanded the Council meet immediately at the new Se hotel to discuss how to best give the Spanos Cartel a new stadium using taxpayer $$$$ AND provide President Ben with a comfortable space to complete his car mileage report.

PRESIDENT BEN said: " We'll show them - No Motel 6 Environment on this City Council"..... Best

0

Don Bauder Dec. 27, 2008 @ 8:56 p.m.

Response to post #1: Unfortunately, your satirical analysis smacks too much of verisimilitude. Best, Don Bauder

0

Burwell Dec. 27, 2008 @ 10:54 p.m.

Father Joe Carroll might be able to buy the Se Hotel on the cheap in 2010 and turn it into a homeless shelter if the loans go into default. Maybe the lender could lease it to the Navy as short-term housing for sailors.

0

Don Bauder Dec. 27, 2008 @ 11:57 p.m.

Response to post #3: Father Joe's close associates -- Moores, Malcolm, et al -- could buy the hotel. Best, Don Bauder

0

SanDiegan Dec. 28, 2008 @ 11:48 a.m.

Don: VERSIMILITUDE - well I guess I've been called worse..Best

0

hands_of_joy Dec. 28, 2008 @ 2:05 p.m.

Don Bauder, can u please get in touch with me at hands_of_joy@yahoo.com.

i have some very interesting items to share with you.

thanks

0

Don Bauder Dec. 28, 2008 @ 2:39 p.m.

Response to post #5: Since truth is a slippery concept, verisimilitude, or appearance of truth (likeliness), is quite complimentary. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Dec. 28, 2008 @ 2:44 p.m.

Response to post #6: I have written you an email. Would you appreciate your sharing of information. Best, Don Bauder

0

Visduh Dec. 28, 2008 @ 8:03 p.m.

And today, the U-T's front page is given over to the "big story" that Dean Spanos has announced to his family he has "memory problems." AKA Alzheimer's. Who'da thunk it? The old pirate is losing his intellect. But his sons and sycophants are still going to milk whatever they can get out of San Diego. This Industry deal will be another episode in the shakedown saga, along with Oceanside, Chula Vista, and the marine terminal. Yeah, they probably want the current stadium site handed to them free, and with no restrictions on its use. Would they then build a new stadium at their own expense? LOL. What will the next episode be? Stay tuned.

0

Don Bauder Dec. 28, 2008 @ 10:23 p.m.

Response to post #9: It was interesting that the maudlin column about Alex Spanos's possible Alzheimer's was placed in the U-T on the same day that the Chargers were expected to whip the Broncos -- which happened, thrusting the Chargers into the playoffs. The double-move may be a deliberate attempt to whip up public frenzy for a big grant to a football team from a city that is technically insolvent. Best, Don Bauder

0

JohnnyVegas Dec. 29, 2008 @ 11:29 a.m.

Don-there will be no stadium in San Diego-or anywhere else in America-there are no capital markets with that kind of mney to lend.

This new stadium in City of Industry is DOA-no one with half an once of financial brainpower would buy that line of baloney. even Donald Trump can't get a loan today.

BTW-I jumped back on the Chargers bandwagon last night-they have the most potent offense in the NFL, and the defense is not far behind. They have a legimiate shot at winning the supebowl this year.

0

Visduh Dec. 29, 2008 @ 1:18 p.m.

Heaven help us if the Chargers get into the Super Bowl, or win it. The howling from the fans to give a senile Spanos anything/everything he wants would be so loud that no local pol could resist. Insolvency be damned, full speed ahead!

0

Don Bauder Dec. 29, 2008 @ 4:08 p.m.

Response to post #11: Roski claims he has financing for the City of Industry stadium. He has a reputation for stretching the truth occasionally. As to San Diego's football team: remember, I predicted on this blog entry BEFORE the Broncos game that the Chargers could reach the Super Bowl, but I don't know anything about football. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Dec. 29, 2008 @ 4:13 p.m.

Response to post #12: I agree. The only pol with the intelligence and integrity to say no would be Donna Frye. This is why I believe the Chargers planted that maudlin U-T sports column about Alex Spanos's possible onset of Alzheimer's on the day they knew the team would whip the Broncos. It was a naked attempt to whip up subsidy fever in a bankrupt city. Best, Don Bauder

0

JohnnyVegas Dec. 29, 2008 @ 4:46 p.m.

Response to post #11: Roski claims he has financing for the City of Industry stadium.

Pleaseeeee.......even if he HAD a commitment from a pro footall team with a signed 25 year lease he could not get financing.

NO ONE is lending right now-no one. That might change...but not anytime soon. The TARP money has gone into a black hole-B of A spent $6 billion buying a chiese bank for crying out loud.

0

californiascreaming Dec. 29, 2008 @ 8:02 p.m.

Let the shakedown begin. Shake baby shake baby shake til you cant shake no more. I guess this giveaway will be considered a bailout or stimulus package for san diego. Remember this will create jobs. I can see the scam being unfolded. A stimulus to bring back jobs and the super bowl. The Chargers must be doing cartwheels now that Aguirre is gone.

0

Don Bauder Dec. 29, 2008 @ 9:46 p.m.

Response to post #15: This is what Roski claims. He may have been talking about a commitment from a secrecy-shrouded, offshore tax haven. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Dec. 29, 2008 @ 9:49 p.m.

Response to post #16: Yes, the shakedown appears to be coming. As you know, these subsidized stadiums only create jobs during construction. After that, they are not a net plus to local employment. Best, Don Bauder

0

Portofinoan Dec. 30, 2008 @ 5:34 a.m.

It looks as though the San Diego Union Tribune will have to use its reporter pages to drum up support for any "new" stadium. Beginning December 29, 2008, they've limiting their Editorial/Letters to just one page.

The page reductions of SDUT are reminiscent of the across-the-board decline in financial assets of most Americans: ~40%-50%.

On the other hand, maybe David Copley et al. are finally on to something. With just another 40-50% reduction in the editorial pages, they'll finally have an OP/ED section worthy of San Diego: about the size of the "For the Record" section on Page A2, indicating their errors and/or retractions.

0

Burwell Dec. 30, 2008 @ 9:47 a.m.

There's a rumor circulating among local contractors that the City is going to receive federal funding to build (1) a new football stadium, (2) a new City Hall, and (3) a new library. Funding for these projects is rumored to be included in the tentative draft of the public works component of President Obama's proposed fiscal stimulus package.

0

Don Bauder Dec. 30, 2008 @ 8:15 p.m.

Response to post #19: The U-T may be cutting back on letters to the editor, but it can always print the ones favoring its positions (such as subsidization of billionaire sports team owners) and not print the other side. If there is a debate on a billion dollar land subsidy for the Chargers during a period in which the city is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy (technically it's already over the brink), I doubt that this time there will be anyone on the staff to present the other side. No one would dare do so now. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Dec. 30, 2008 @ 8:18 p.m.

Response to post #20: If any city got federal money to build a football stadium for a team owned by a billionaire, the public would scream. However, admittedly, banks are getting far more money without any strings (like getting rid of corrupt management) and the citizenry doesn't seem to care. Best, Don Bauder

0

JohnnyVegas Dec. 31, 2008 @ 8:46 p.m.

There's a rumor circulating among local contractors that the City is going to receive federal funding to build (1) a new football stadium, (2) a new City Hall, and (3) a new library. Funding for these projects is rumored to be included in the tentative draft of the public works component of President Obama's proposed fiscal stimulus package.

If a private non profit business like the NFL gets ANY taxpayer money for a pro football stadium, anywhere in this coutry, through that public works program ... then that's it-I am moving to a real free market, or at least something more free than the USA at the moment-like Cuba.

0

Don Bauder Jan. 1, 2009 @ 12:05 a.m.

Response to post #23: I think intelligent people, anyway, would REALLY be indignant if the city getting the federal subsidy to build a stadium were a bankrupt municipality like San Diego with incredibly rundown infrastructure and unsolved water needs. But the NFL is a powerful lobby, and so are construction companies and construction unions. Best, Don Bauder

0

SanDiegan Jan. 1, 2009 @ 1:10 p.m.

Response to JohnnyV on Post#23

There ain't enough boats/planes to fit all of us on a one-way but I guess the Spanos Cartel would gladly find a way to get rid of us Best...

0

Sportsbook Jan. 1, 2009 @ 3:17 p.m.

There is nothing more NEEDED in San Diego then a new stadium and new sports arena. I would fully support the city giving the land to the Spanos. How many Bowl games did we host this year? SDSU football? Superbowls of years past? That is A LOT of revenue. I love how when the ballot has the option of a new hotel tax to spread to visitors fo the city we vote no. WHY? When I am going on vacation, last thing I factor into it is the % of taxes that go onto my Hyatt bill.

I have been to many stadiums the past few years, and even old "Joe Robbie" stadium in Miami is in a much nicer state then our poor ol 'Murph. I love the large parking lot and central location of our Stadium, and I will continue to be raped each year by the Spanos and the NFL to watch my favorite game. A library? Please...do the Public schools even teach kids the dewey decimal system anylonger? Bah humbug, like newspapers the library is a dying breed. I'd pay taxes for a new stadum ANY DAY.

0

Don Bauder Jan. 1, 2009 @ 5 p.m.

Response to post #25: The Spanos Cartel might pay out way out of town. The establishment would kick in some, too. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Jan. 1, 2009 @ 5:08 p.m.

Response to post #26: I didn't check the bowl game attendance, but it sure looked like there were a lot of empty seats at both. And you sure put it correctly: "SDSU football?" Will it last? Should it? Super Bowls create very little revenue for host cities. The NFL estimates it as $350 million but it is more like $35 million, and some economists believe the host city loses money on the game. And Qualcomm? What's wrong with it? Some university stadiums are a century old, and still going strong. Why do we have to build a new stadium or arena for every team that blackmails a city? If the libraries were open, you could go to one and read economists' studies showing that pro sports contribute almost nothing to a city. Best, Don Bauder

0

Sportsbook Jan. 2, 2009 @ 10:26 a.m.

Why go to the Library and be assailed by the stench of the homeless laying there when I can sign on here at home?

All I know is I am going to the superbowl this year in Tampa Bay, and my hotel is upwards of 400 a night. Not to mention the money I will drop on a taxi, and meals out. If the revenue is "only" 35 million I still think that is a great return...

I felt like I had written this post before, and realized I kinda did in the comment section of one of the other articles. I am sorry. I don't mean to repeat myself. I just feel strongly that a pro sports team DOES add to a city, and that San Diego is too large, and to great to be without a major athletic team.

0

JohnnyVegas Jan. 2, 2009 @ 11:57 a.m.

I just feel strongly that a pro sports team DOES add to a city, and that San Diego is too large, and to great to be without a major athletic team.

There is a big difference between having a pro sports team and getting taken to the cleaners for billions in subsidies.

You should have qualified your statement by saying pro sports teams add to a city and YOU feel paying them billions to be here is OK.

I love pro teams too-as do most people. And refusing to get blackmailed does not change that love-although people like you seem to think it shows we hate the teams because we refuse to submit to blackail.

0

Russ Lewis Jan. 2, 2009 @ 12:32 p.m.

"Why go to the Library and be assailed by the stench of the homeless laying there when I can sign on here at home?" Well, maybe you've got the money for it. Just a thought.

0

Don Bauder Jan. 2, 2009 @ 4:04 p.m.

Response to post #29: You forget the substitution effect. You are paying $400 a night in Tampa. But economists have shown that in past Super Bowls, visitors planning a trip for another reason avoid the host city because of the crowds. So there is no guarantee that the hotel room wouldn't have been taken anyway. Incidentally, your handle is "Sportsbook." Sounds like you do a lot of gambling on pro sports. Actually, gambling is the primary economic force behind pro sports, particularly pro football. This is one of the reasons that through the years, owners of pro teams have tended to have organized crime/gambling connections. But economists don't take gambling into account when toting up the effect of pro sports. My own take is that gambling is a net negative for the economy. Winners and losers are a wash. However, the real winners are bookmakers and others who facilitate the gambling. Their money often goes offshore. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Jan. 2, 2009 @ 4:07 p.m.

Response to post #30: Good thought, Russl. In these computer days, many library users are people who can't afford computers. Similarly, those who come to get books are often ones who can't afford to buy them. Somebody like Mayor Sanders revels in serving the rich (particularly developers) while stomping on the poor. Best, Don Bauder

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close