• Scam Diego alerts

The City and the County are discussing ways to pump taxpayer money into a downtown Chargers stadium, according to a report in Voice of San Diego. It's all preliminary. After all, the City faces a $200 million deficit and talk of bankruptcy is increasing. Centre City Development Corp. would have to find ways to increase its redevelopment spending capacity. After years of claiming that any new stadium would be publicly financed, the Chargers now admit they have been discussing the possibility of a big public subsidy for several months. (The Reader never did believe the claims of Chargers spokesman Mark Fabiani that any financing would be private.)

Former Councilman Bruce Henderson believes the discussion is all a charade. "The mayor and council know the money isn't there," he says. "Fabiani has dropped the pretense of private financing." To Henderson, this means that the Chargers move to City of Industry "is a done deal," and the politicians just want to show the public that they are trying to find a local solution.

The fact that this colloquy is taking place while bankruptcy looms, the infrastructure rots, the state is broke, education deteriorates alarmingly, and public services are being slashed is a sad reflection on San Diego. Alex Spanos, Chargers owner, is a billionaire who is in much better financial shape than either the City or County."This is a town whose civic priorities have been out of whack since time immemorial; it is cutting down on the number of fire engines, but lo and behold, is trying to find money for a Chargers stadium that will be used eight times a year [in the regular season]," says Steve Erie, political scientist at the University of California at San Diego. "It's the height of idiocy."

  • Scam Diego alerts

Comments

Ponzi Dec. 8, 2009 @ 12:27 p.m.

"..After years of claiming that any new stadium would be publicly financed, the Chargers now admit they have been discussing the possibility of a big public subsidy for several months..."

Don, did you mean "privately" financed?

0

Ponzi Dec. 8, 2009 @ 12:34 p.m.

It seems the SDUT is running a story every week to try to stir up dialogue in the community. It’s been reported Mayor Sanders has been having private meeting with the Chargers to discuss a downtown stadium. The city has a large wish list; New City Hall, Convention Center Expansion, Central Library, Cruise Ship Terminal, and more. People should demand that Sanders stop wasting public time on this charade.

0

SurfPuppy619 Dec. 8, 2009 @ 12:37 p.m.

The City and the County are discussing ways to pump taxpayer money into a downtown Chargers stadium, according to a report in Voice of San Diego

There are no words that can describe the anger I feel over this, at THIS time in our history.

San Diego will have to file BK sooner or later and KFC Sanders is looking for more ways to get fleeced-it boogles the mind.

0

SurfPuppy619 Dec. 8, 2009 @ 12:42 p.m.

Alex Spanos, Chargers owner, is a billionaire who is in much better financial shape than either the City or County

Spanos probably has a net worth at least 10 times that of the city or county. . . . . . "This is a town whose civic priorities have been out of whack since time immemorial; it is cutting down on the number of fire engines, but lo and behold, is trying to find money for a Chargers stadium that will be used eight times a year [in the regular season]," says Steve Erie, political scientist at the University of California at San Diego. "It's the height of idiocy." ==================

The "height of idiocy"... this man gets it, why doesn't Sanders?

0

Don Bauder Dec. 8, 2009 @ 1:23 p.m.

Response to post #1: Sorry. Yes, I meant "privately." Blame age. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Dec. 8, 2009 @ 1:25 p.m.

Response to post #2: Exactly. Sanders should address the City's desperate financial situation, rather than diverting attention by talking about future castles. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Dec. 8, 2009 @ 1:28 p.m.

Response to post #3: The fact that this is even being discussed is a pathetic reflection on San Diego's priorities. CCDC should be spending its money on infrastructure projects. There are no reasons why it should be expanding its spending limit, particularly for a stadium. People should swamp the mayor's office with protests. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Dec. 8, 2009 @ 1:33 p.m.

Response to post #4: Like most politicians, Sanders is only thinking about how he can ride through the current crisis without doing anything, then go on to another job. He won't take on the tough challenges such as excessive pay and pensions of city employees, the fact that San Diego has a structural (not cyclical) deficit, the need to raise more revenue, etc. Best, Don Bauder

0

Anon92107 Dec. 8, 2009 @ 1:35 p.m.

‘--- the infrastructure rots, the state is broke, education deteriorates alarmingly, and public services are being slashed --- cutting down on the number of fire engines ---- trying to find money for a Chargers stadium --- says Steve Erie --- "It's the height of idiocy."’

It’s much, much worse than “idiocy” Professor, go back to your history books and relearn that it’s the return to the past for San Diego that is resurrecting the Athens of over two millennia ago when Spanos type aristocrats with absolutely no morality, but with unrestrained greed and arrogance usurped the power of the citizens by corrupting politicians and overthrowing the Rule of Law administered by corrupt judges.

As a matter of coincidental fact, another example of the overthrow of the Rule of Law was reported in the U-T this morning in “Judge backs rate hike for power misers.” A PUC administrative law Judge Thomas Pulsifer decided to screw ratepayers who are trying to prevent another 2000 energy crisis and rewarded conspicuous consumers by passing along “power miser” rate increases to reduce the bills of the profligate who can afford to pay anything.

This is in an era when energy conservation must be made mandatory for survival because of declining energy resources and out of control CO2 production exploited by power producers and enabled by a corrupt CPUC who are causing out of control drought, life threatening clean water shortages, firestorm tragedies (while “cutting down on the number of fire engines”), etc. when judges continue to overthrow the Rule of Law in favor of an aristocracy represented by the likes of Spanos who still continues to buy politicians and judges by the dozen.

0

Don Bauder Dec. 8, 2009 @ 1:42 p.m.

Response to post #9: Good points. Worldwide, economists agree that U.S. consumers must save more and spend less, while Chinese consumers save less and spend more. This means there should be CONSERVATION in the U.S. We must shed the mentality that going to the mall and dropping money is doing your part for the economy. It's not. The decision by the PUC administrative law judge punishes savers and rewards the profligate -- the opposite of good economic policy. Best, Don Bauder

0

Anon92107 Dec. 8, 2009 @ 2:04 p.m.

Response to post #10:

It's worse, even the FBI is warning America, in addition to the grave warning that former Supreme Court Justice O'Connor had already published about out of control judicial corruption.

Check out:

'Corruption threatens "soul and fabric" of U.S.: FBI'

Reuters, by Pascal Fletcher Pascal Fletcher – Tue Dec 8, 1:45 pm ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091208/ts_nm/us_usa_corruption_fbi

0

Don Bauder Dec. 8, 2009 @ 2:18 p.m.

Response to post #11: Judicial corruption is definitely a problem in the U.S. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Dec. 8, 2009 @ 5:14 p.m.

Judicial corruption is definitely a problem in the U.S.

I think the judicial system is being corrupted by ideology more than anything else.

I think Roberts is an awful Chief Justice. Thomas has absolutely no business at all on the SCOTUS. Alito is not much better than Thomas.

0

Burwell Dec. 8, 2009 @ 7:38 p.m.

Mayors Sanders should take the Penicillin shots before he winds up like Al Capone and Howard Hughes.

0

Don Bauder Dec. 8, 2009 @ 11:24 p.m.

Response to post #13: Agreed on all points. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Dec. 8, 2009 @ 11:25 p.m.

Response to poste #14: Maybe Sanders needs smart pills more than he needs penicillin shots. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Dec. 9, 2009 @ 8:03 a.m.

Maybe Sanders needs smart pills

Don = +1

Sanders = 0

Yes, Sanders needs a few cases of "smart pills".

0

Don Bauder Dec. 9, 2009 @ 10:16 a.m.

Response to post #17: But he also needs someone to make sure he takes the pills. Best, Don Bauder

0

Anon92107 Dec. 9, 2009 @ 12:04 p.m.

Response to post #12: “Judicial corruption is definitely a problem in the U.S.”

Right again Don, and by coincidence your statement was proven most correct again just this morning in the L.A. Times story “High court criticizes anti-corruption law.”

Radical right wing, anti-Rule of Law justices like Scalia and Roberts want to kill an anti-corruption law used to successfully prosecute many corrupt republican politicians, judges, lobbyists, corporate executives, etc.

Republican corruption still reigns Supreme on the Roberts-Scalia court which is last bastion for anti-Rule of Law radicals since Bush-Cheney left office.

0

a2zresource Dec. 9, 2009 @ 12:15 p.m.

Maybe San Diego should put in a bid for the retired carrier JFK (http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/11/city_councilor_1.html). After hauling it here as another floating museum, we will suddenly discover we have enough room onboard for a new library and perpetual homeless shelter below, and a brand new stadium atop the unused flight deck...

0

Don Bauder Dec. 9, 2009 @ 2:39 p.m.

Response to post #19: Yes, there is a possibility that conservatives on the court could knock down the honest-services law, on the books since 1988, which gives prosecutors discretion to go after crooks. Possibly, the likes of Jeff Skilling of Enron and newspaper baron Conrad Black could get off, or get new trials, if the conservatives prevail. I think it is deplorable. It's a good statute. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Dec. 9, 2009 @ 2:41 p.m.

Response to post #20: And when the Chargers lose, the fans could just jump overboard in a mass suicide. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Dec. 9, 2009 @ 4:33 p.m.

Yes, there is a possibility that conservatives on the court could knock down the honest-services law, on the books since 1988, which gives prosecutors discretion to go after crooks. Possibly, the likes of Jeff Skilling of Enron and newspaper baron Conrad Black could get off.

There is absolutely NO question the SCOTUS is going narrow, if not completely strike down, the "honest services" statute. That is what Duke Cunningham's CIA buddy Dusty Foggo pled to. I wonder how they are going to deal with prior cases, like Foggo's, if changes come???????

What kills me is that these types of laws, where you mainly get white collar criminals, always receive a heightened level of scrutiny at the Supreme Court, b/c the people affected are the richest of the rich. If this were Joe SixPack the court would have never even heard the issue-much less narrow it or strike it down.

0

Don Bauder Dec. 9, 2009 @ 9:15 p.m.

Response to post #23: Yes, the rich and well-connected get a break from this court. This is why I don't believe this is simply driven by ideology. The court is part of an affluence protective society that includes the SEC, other regulatory agencies, Congress, and, tragically, even the current White House, despite its rhetoric to the contrary. Best, Don Bauder

0

a2zresource Dec. 10, 2009 @ 8:07 a.m.

Re #22 and taking a flying leap:

Mention of that sort of civic benefit was not found in ballot pamphlet arguments for or against Proposition B ("One Reason Prop. B Died" http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/election/article_aeae5492-0290-5a55-b543-5c3dc9784cee.html).

0

Don Bauder Dec. 10, 2009 @ 8:31 a.m.

Response to post #25: Since when have honest arguments been used in San Diego ballot pamphlets? Best, Don Bauder

0

Visduh Dec. 11, 2009 @ 9:36 p.m.

Sanders keeps up this talk that somehow the Chargers can get their new and unneeded stadium at no cost to anyone because it diverts attention from the real mess that exists in the city. I won't go into that, because it has been well-described for years. Those "Nuts and Bolts" featured in last week's Reader cover story don't care about all the crumbling of the city, they care about the Chargers first, last, and always. Whatever it takes the city to keep that undeserving ball "club" is perfectly OK with them, even if they have to drive un-policed, potholed streets lined with burned out buildings to get to the stadium. This is all purely a survival technique for Sanders and most of the city council, along with certain county elected officials. If the Chargers stay, they are heroes. If the Chargers leave, well, they tried. Either way, they cannot be blamed by anyone. Can they?

0

David Dodd Dec. 11, 2009 @ 9:59 p.m.

Just let me know, at whatever point after the Chargers move to Los Angeles, that it is acceptable and appropriate for me to say I TOLD YOU SO!

0

Don Bauder Dec. 11, 2009 @ 10:21 p.m.

Response to post #27: The Chargers are driving down three tracks, all remunerative. First, they would like the chance to move to City of Industry, even if that requires giving up a chunk of equity in the team. The roadblock there could be other owners, who would face Congress's wrath with such a move. Second, the team would like to get its highly subsidized downtown stadium. The trouble with that is San Diego will never fill the luxury boxes and club seats to the extent the team desires. If by chance voters get intelligent -- don't count on it -- and turn down the subsidy, then the team would have an excuse to present the owners to justify a move to L.A. Third, the Chargers could continue to play at Qualcomm, and continue raking in a bundle of money with that ridiculous contract the team wangled from dunderheaded and possibly corrupt City lawyers. However it turns out, the Chargers will make out like bandits. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Dec. 11, 2009 @ 10:22 p.m.

Response to post #28: You can't rub it in our faces just yet. Be patient. Best, Don Bauder

0

PistolPete Dec. 11, 2009 @ 10:47 p.m.

LMAO@refried. :-D

Tell ya what guys...the Chargers decision, just like the decision the Illuminati makes for us every 4 years, is already done. It's now a waiting game. All this talk about Oceanside, Escondido, Chula Vista & downtown is just pure bulls lipservice. Since when have the Chargeless owners EVER given two ss about the fans? When? In 1963 when they allowed Sid Gillman to toss Dynabol down the players throats? In 1994 when they bent over for the 49ers? The past 5 years when the team has literally been handed a ticket to the Super Bowl on a silver platter in the form of a pathetic at best AFC West? When?

Like I said, it's ALL lipservice to keep what fans this choke artist of a team has left. Funny story-My GF is a "die-hard" Chargeless fan. It's ok. I think her retardedness is kind of cute. This past summer at the fair she bought a Chargeless belt buckle. On the back it had a number. Whatever number was on hers out of 10,000. I saw this and without missing a beat, deadpanned, "Wow. One for every fan out there." LMAO! I crack me up sometimes...

0

Don Bauder Dec. 12, 2009 @ 3:59 p.m.

Response to post #31: I don't think downtown is b.s. if for one reason or another the Chargers can't get L.A. Downtown requires little investment for the team and the NFL. 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