Murphyjunk: Also keep in mind that the football stadium subsidy will probably be about $700 million. Any opera subsidy would be a tiny fraction of that.

I believe governments -- particularly a San Diego government in deep fiscal trouble -- should stick to the traditional mission of governments: water, sewer, other infrastructure, police, fire, etc. Best, Don Bauder

aardvark: What a splendid idea! A tiny fraction of the population goes to opera. Ergo, somebody on the city council will no doubt throw that idea into the hopper. Brilliant! Best, don Bauder

Anon92607: I think there is a chance the city will waive the $750,000 for the Civic Center, but that's only a small percentage of what the opera needs. As I said, I really don't believe in government subsidy of the arts, other than the small amount they get now from the transient occupancy tax. Opera, and all classical music, are in tailspins because of the dumbing down of our culture. Government money should be spent on infrastructure, maintenance, and the like.

With its huge pension deficit and rundown infrastructure and neighborhoods, San Diego can't afford a subsidy to the Chargers (owned by a billionaire family) or the Olympics. But the city will cook the books and try to convince the people that the city can afford both. It cooked the books for the ballpark vote.Best, Don Bauder

I couldn't disagree more about government subsidy of the arts. If you look at the recent Social Progress Index study that was just issued by Harvard (and led by a very conservative academic), the U.S. is now ranking pathetically low globally in just about every category--health, education, housing, opportunity, basic human need. And the report points out that this decline began in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan and his "greed is good, taxes are bad" mentality that began shifting money from the middle class to the very rich. The "trickle down" theory was a complete hoax. And we now pay the price, with income inequality not seen since the Gilded Age or right before the crash of '29.

Arts and culture in Europe and many other places across the developed world receive generous subsidies from government, and they thrive. By thriving, they make better societies for their citizens and more desirable tourist destinations. Just look at some of the statistics in the Harvard study and you can see that life is better in Norway, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Italy, etc.

San Diego is experiencing the same decline as other cities, but we have an especially uninspired Mayor and leadership now, to go along with the historic anti-tax-of-any-kind mentality. So we have crumbling infrastructure and yet can entertain subsidizing the Spanos family--the worst kind of corporate welfare--while the opera, theater, museums, and the other highest aspirations of our culture struggle to survive. If we had a reasonable tax base, even at the rates we had during the Clinton years, we could do a lot more for infrastructure, maintenance, etc., as well as education and arts and culture. But the powerful still hold sway: greed is good, and people still think capitalism works. Even in the face of all evidence that it is NOT working very well...

Anon92067: I agree completely with most of what you say. I doubt if anybody has inveighed against corporate welfare -- especially pro sports welfare -- more persistently and loudly than I have. I picked up the beat in 1996 and fought a helluva lot of internal battles at the U-T until 2003 when I retired and joined the Reader. The Reader has encouraged me to fight against corporate welfare.

I appreciate what you say about European countries. Although most are in worse shape financially than the U.S., they continue to subsidize the arts. However, there is a movement in Europe to cut back on such subsidies.

But I would like to turn your argument around. Yes, the income and wealth disparity in the U.S. is horrible. Again, few have complained about that more loudly than I have through the years. But the concentration of wealth at the top 1% to 5% should mean that the superrich can use that money to support the arts. They are not doing so, as the column points out. That is deplorable and, unfortunately, suggests that the superrich today have more pedestrian tastes than did the Robber Barons of 100 to 150 years ago. Still, they are the ones who should be footing the bill for entertainment that is enjoyed by a small fraction of the population. Best, Don Bauder

Don, you raise an interesting question, and that is just what the super-rich actually do with all that lucre. In the Gilded Age they spent lavishly (too weak a word) on homes on Park and Fifth Avenues in NYC, summer "cottages" at Newport (gigantic mansions in their own right), and on very costly and drawn-out world tours. They were showing it off. Does Buffett show off? How about Gates? Ellison? Oprah? I suppose they do, but not in the way it was done a century ago.

One thing they could do is support the arts and education in a really big way. Most of them don't do that. So, what's the purpose of amassing all that wealth? If we could figure that out, WE could get rich.

Visduh: On the other hand, look what Carnegie did for libraries. Many Robber Barons bought art that eventually was donated to art museums. The Frick, former home of Henry Clay Frick, is now a museum in New York City containing some of the world's greatest paintings.

Buffett and Gates are giving money away, but seem to be most interested in world health. I hate to say it, but the Koch brothers do support the arts. I don't know why classical music gets the short end of the stick. Best, Don Bauder

I believe deeply that one of the biggest problems we have is our deteriorating educational system, and even the very rich are generally not that well educated--as you say, they have very pedestrian tastes. And publicly-funded education as it was originally envisioned in the 19th and early 20th centuries, is what is needed--not "elite" education that only the rich can afford.

But it is the overall "social progress" that has sunk so low--Look at this analysis from the Social Progress Index: http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/data/spi/components/com5#performance/countries/com4/spi,com1,com2,com3,com4,com6,com7,com8,com9,com10,com11,com12

While boosters like to think of the USA as #1 in all things, the truth is very different. And while Europe may have financial challenges, these statistics reveal that the quality of life for their citizens is generally far superior to ours. High taxes that support a high quality of life is something that the U.S. understood in the past--but in the wake of Reaganomics, and then the disaster of Bush and his endless wars paid for on credit, we are now in terrible shape.

No wonder something like the Opera can sink--the top 1 percenters, though they have raked in huge sums in recent years, are not increasing their giving--not to the arts or to anything else. Middle class and poor Americans give a far higher percentage of their income to charity than the very rich.

Anon92067: I agree that the deterioration of our educational system is at the heart of the decline in culture. That is certainly true of opera and other forms of classical music. San Diego, in particular, suffers from the decline of education.

As has been discussed quite often on this blog, the culture of greed is eating away at the U.S. So many people spend full-time dreaming of ways to accumulate wealth, and then to dodge taxes. The government does not crack down on obvious violations -- such as stashing money in offshore banks -- of our laws. Cynicism grows and grows. People pursue wealth for wealth's sake. Who cares about culture? Best, Don Bauder

Don, there is a major effort underway to crack down on offshore banks, and it has reached a point where the Swiss, renowned for their bank secrecy, have caved on the matter. The DOJ is going after all the other banking havens, and even those depositors who closed their accounts in such banks years ago are being reported. Many, many people residing in the US are making deals with the IRS to avoid total confiscation of their deposits and jail. The program is called Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program. As long as you contact the IRS before they contact you, it is possible to avoid total disaster. Anyone in such a situation needs a good tax attorney with some experience with OVDP. They don't come cheaply, but the cost is better than a jail sentence. All the while, the IRS is raking in millions and millions from those who thought the banks would never reveal their secret accounts.

Visduh: Yes, the U.S. is finally cracking down on the stashing of wealth offshore. We are one of the last major countries to do so. When Phil Gramm was in the Senate, he fought every effort to stop the flow of the affluent's bucks to offshore accounts.

Trouble is, though, we fight it by giving the stashers amnesty if they report themselves. We should have a program that throws the stashers in prison.

We lowered income taxes on the rich to ridiculous levels. And they still attempted to conceal income offshore. Best, Don Bauder

Many of the stashers are now elderly, and while they probably knew of the tax burden they were avoiding, didn't see it as particularly morally wrong. These deals usually cost about half of the account value, often more. That seems fairly severe, and it is bringing in massive revenue to the treasury. The more egregious cases are getting hit harder.

100% agreed, Don! Ah, if only the powers that be would listen to you! But at least you are out there blogging and investigating and searching for the truth. It is such a travesty to see the way the U-T has devolved to such a worthless rag. I do hope that young journalists out there are looking to you as a role model instead of to Manchester and his henchmen... thanks very much for all that you do, Don.

expdx: Yours is an intelligent analysis. For decades, San Diego has been run by the corporate welfare crowd, which, ironically enough, denounces welfare -- but only welfare for the needy. Not welfare for the rich.

I'm not sure there were more registered Democrats than Republicans when Jim Copley was alive. Remember, he died in 1973. I thought the Democrats began to outnumber Republicans in the city only a few years ago. The county is about split, with the Republicans in a very slight lead.

You are right. Filner won the election on a platform of revitalizing the infrastructure and neighborhoods, and stemming the flood of subsidy money going to the wealthy. But the corporate welfare folks drove out Filner (who was beginning to cave in when he first got in trouble.) Faulconer is just a puppet on the corporate welfare group's string. Best, Don Bauder

Visduh: Right you are. There is no surprise here. Faulconer is a tool of the corporate welfare crowd. It runs the city even though it lost in the election of Filner. I think Fletcher and Alvarez would have caved in, too. Filner, who clearly does not believe in corporate welfare, especially when the city has so many needs, was beginning to cave late in his incumbency. Best, Don Bauder

get him to grope a few grannies so we can get rid of him, ( and keep him from groping the tax payers)

Murphyjunk: Frankly, I am not sure how many females Filner ever groped -- some, perhaps, and that was deplorable. But the whole episode was blown far out of proportion because the corporate welfare crowd was manipulating local media. Best, Don Bauder

Filner's verbal capitulation was during his "end days" as I recall, and may have been done, if not under duress, at least under high stress.

Visduh: You are right. When he was threatened, he came out in favor of the expansion of the convention center. That was a mistake, and I am sure he knew it. He is smart enough to know that convention centers are vastly overbuilt, and centers, including San Diego's, are cutting prices 50% because of the glut. But, as you point, he was grasping for anything because he knew he could get ousted.

Fabiani said that Filner was willing to talk about a stadium for the Chargers. Consider the source. Filner may have been playing the Chargers along. Or maybe it never happened. Best, Don Bauder

ImJustABill: Yes, but most pro sports owners think that when a stadium or arena hits 20 or 30 years of age, taxpayers have to ante up for another one. The football stadiums that the University of Michigan and University of Wisconsin play in are about a century old, too, and are perfectly serviceable. Best, Don Bauder

But don't forget that about 5 years ago, Michigan spent about $250 million on a renovation to their stadium, which I believe is somewhere around 80-85yrs old. The stadium that Wisconsin plays in has been renovated probably at least a dozen times since it opened. I think there was one about 10 yrs ago that cost over $100 million and sometime in the last couple of yrs, there another $75 million or so spent on upgrading the scoreboard and audio system. So It's not as if either of these stadiums has remained "perfectly serviceable" without alot of money being spent on them. As for Wrigley, the Ricketts clan has been pretty vocal about the fact they want a renovation at Wrigley, to the tune of $500 million.

danfogel: Oh yes, both stadiums have been renovated. No question. In a number of college stadiums, the renovations have been in the adding of luxury seats and boxes, including luxury facilities for the press. My guess is that students and most in the grandstands sit in hard seats the way they did a century ago.

And if they are sitting there for only three hours, is that much of an imposition? Best, Don Bauder

The Rose Bowl is really old too. It must be around a century old. I go there at least once a year for a UCLA game.

When a new professional stadium gets built now-adays they basically sock it to the working class twice - once to get taxes to pay for a new stadium, then a 2nd time when the new stadium has more expensive seats (but plenty of luxury seat and suites for big corporations and wealthy patrons).

ImJustABill: I only went to the Rose Bowl for a game once. Vision is terrible, particularly if people start standing up. The place is dangerous. The entrances and exits are extremely narrow. If there were a rumbling of an earthquake, hundreds of people would be trampled in those narrow exits, or simply heading for them. Best, Don Bauder

Don Bauder, The Rose Bowl is an absolutely wonderful venue. We went to 4 of the 5 Super Bowls played there, soccer for the Olympics, Women's World Cup, and Galaxy games, many concerts, many college games, including a couple of Rose Bowls, and probably a bunch of other events if I took the tome to think about it. And that was before the $170 million or so recently completed renovations, including new restrooms, new concession areas, widening of existing tunnels used to access the stadium bowl, new seating, new LED boards, new entrance gates, subterranean field lounges, new concourse lounges, improved signage and landscaping, to list just a few. I'm sure that the fact that Sports Illustrated listed the Rose Bowl as the number one venue in college sports would be totally lost on you. As I said, it's a wonderful venue. I would much rather watch an event there than at the Murph. Coincidentally, the firm overseeing the reno was the same one that did the reno at Michigan Stadium

danfogel: You love it and I hate it. That's what makes markets. But what I consider important is that it was built in 1923 -- one more example of a stadium not having to be retired after 20 years. Best, Don Bauder

I wouldn't think that one instance would be ab adequate sampling, especially if it was a decade or more ago, but to each their own. What's different about the Rose Bowl though, is that it was built specifically for 1 game, the Rose Bowl. It wasn't built with any other purpose in mind and though it has held 5 Super Bowls and UCLA has called it their home field since the early 80's, I doubt back when it was being designed, anyone could have imagined the many events that have occurred there. But 6 or 7 renovations later, and at least one more scheduled to be done by 2018, it is a great place to watch an event. Consider this though. What are the chances that in this day and age, anyone could get funding, either public or private, to build a stadium that was meant to be used for one single event per year???

You may be correct in your belief that the Rose Bowl was intended to be used only once a year. But that seems very hard to accept. For many years the local residents in the area were making sure they didn't have the disruption and noise of games very often. There is too little parking there, and too much of it is on the golf course. They still don't have games there all that often, but the area around the bowl has swap meets now. Just how this has evolved over the past 90 years isn't clear, but it is not in an accessible area, and has parking problems that are legendary.

Visduh, it's not my "belief" that the Rose Bowl was originally intended to be used once a year. It's just the way it was. The Tournament of Roses started back in the late 1800's. It was being held at Tournament Park, hence the name. Sometime after the turn of the century, someone had the idea to include a football game as part of the festivities to draw more interest and spectators. The stadium came about because the city declared Tournament Park unsafe for the crowds that were estimated at 40,000. It was financed by selling 10 year box seats for $100. Regular games started when UCLA moved in in the early 80's. The Rose Bowl Flea Market & Swap Meet has been around for almost 50 yrs and is held on the 2nd Sunday of the month.

danfogel: Yes, it was more than a decade ago when I went to a game at the Rose Bowl. I think it was 2000. So I have missed any changes since then.

I would certainly hope that taxpayers these days would not build a stadium meant for only one game, but nothing would surprise me. Today, a stadium has to have huge screens on which each play is shown, and scoreboards that are electronic wonders, and luxury boxes and seats, and upscale restaurants....oh, forget it. I am getting sick. Best, Don Bauder

And the Rose Bowl is definitely unparallelled (in So. Cal at least) for tailgating.

ImJustABill: I don't know. The time I went we must have walked two miles to get to the stadium. Parking was that bad. I know the Pasadena residents who live near the Rose Bowl do not want it used for a professional team for that very reason: parking. Best, Don Bauder

It's doubtful that an NFL team will ever play it's home games, even on a temp basis, at the Rose Bowl, though I have had a couple of people tell me that certain members of the city have talked about bidding for a Super Bowl, now that most of the renovations are complete. If you walked 2 miles after parking your car, where the hell did you park?? When my wife and I used to go to see Arizona-UCLA games, we would stay in Old Pasadena and it was literally a 2 mile cab ride from there. But you are right that parking is terrible if you live around the Rose Bowl. But that being said, anyone who owns a house in the area of the stadium knew it was there when they bought. Pasadena has an interesting model for scheduling at the Rose Bowl. By city ordinance, there is a limit of 12 large events allowed at the Stadium. Prior to a change in the ordinance a couple of years ago it was 6. The city council has to approve any additional events and a summer concert with Jay-Z and Beyonce that was just approved brings it up to 18 so far.

Yes I'm sure I would be strongly opposed to it's use by a professional team if I lived there. It ties up all the surface streets and freeways near the area for a couple of hours before and after a big game. And I don't know how anyone manages to play golf there after a football game. But as a place to grill some food, have a couple beers, maybe throw a football around before a game - it's really been a fun experience for me as a fan.

shirleyberan: Corporate welfare and CEO salaries are definitely nauseating. Best, Don Bauder

Psycholizard: I hope you are right, but look how much Ryan Leaf was paid before it was clear he was a bust. Best, Don Bauder

What I really do not understand about this proposal for the Chargers' stadium close to Petco is the parking problem. It is already a challenge to find parking, If I understand the proposal, the stadium would be built where there are now parking lots. So where will all the baseball fans and football fans park? I do not think it is feasible for people to take public transit from all the suburban areas to these stadiums. Am I missing something?

From that very basic question, then there is the debt. Would the city of San Diego be on the hook for the whole thing? The county? Who would get to OK it? If one entity (such as the city) OK's it, would the other (such as the county) be forced to pay for it?

$700 million and counting, right? Bond issue for the next 75 years? What would the most practical plan for this--or the least offensive plan? And how would the real needs of the city be addressed?

eastlaker: The real needs of the city have not been addressed for decades, while corporate welfare has steered all the money downtown, enriching those who are already rich. The infrastructure deficit is more than a billion dollars. This forces Faulconer to say he will do something about the infrastructure. But if he approves a massive subsidy for the Chargers, the infrastructure spending will be inadequate. Best, Don Bauder

I think the parking and traffic problems really haven't been that bad. To me the issue is really what's an appropriate use of public money. I don't think public funds should heavily subsidize an industry which provides few middle class jobs.

ImJustABill: I have heard a lot of complaints about parking and traffic, but you may be right. Qualcomm is ideally located. The ballpark isn't.

You are right: public funds should not be provided for an industry that provides few jobs for the middle class -- in fact, provides a net gain of zero, because hamburger flippers just move over from another facility. But these stadia subsidize billionaire owners and millionaire players. Best, Don Bauder

Psycholizard: You are correct. So many of those Chargers stadium proposals have been hastily drawn up, and laughable. The team wants a vote in two years. Presumably it will have time to come up with something that is not embarrassing. But don't count on it. Best, Don Bauder

shirleyberan: There is absolutely nothing capitalistic about pro sports. It is the most socialistic activity in the U.S. The team owners -- mostly billionaires in the NFL-- don't put up much of their own capital, and really don't take risks. The public takes the risk. These subsidized stadia are a case of privatization of the gain and socialization of the risk.

If Buffalo or Green Bay gets a new outdoor stadium it would be interesting to see if the Super Bowl goes there.

ImJustABill: Buffalo or Green Bay in February? Puh-leeeeeze. Best, Don Bauder

eastlaker: I agree with everything you say, with some exceptions. First, it's not just the hoteliers who benefit from corporate welfare. For example, the hotels get very little business from a subsidized stadium or ballpark. The construction industry benefits from the corporate welfare -- and so do the construction unions and several other unions. The combination of the construction industry and the unions is almost a politically unstoppable juggernaut.

The business community thinks it benefits from subsidized stadiums, because the city is put on the map, so to speak. But Los Angeles has not had a pro football team for almost two decades and it is still on the map. Best, Don Bauder

eastlaker: Yes, hurray for Carol Lazier and her husband, but the board better get a three-year or five-year plan online, so that members will have something to go on when they vote Monday.

In re the shutting down of the centennial committee: they were paid a similar amount even though they did nothing; now they are getting the same big bucks to close down what they did not accomplish. It only makes sense if you are in San Diego. Best, Don Bauder

Psycholizard: Agreed. Subsidization of a football stadium for the billionaire Spanos family is absurd. John Moores got away with murder. The city sold him ballpark district land at early 1990s prices. He sold it to developers and raked in $700 million to $1 billion and rode off to Texas, laughing all the way.

One thing to keep in mind. The Chargers will claim that they are putting $X millions into the stadium. But a huge percentage of those $X millions will be naming rights, advertising rights, and the like. Why shouldn't those rights go to the city? They should, but won't. So the Spanos family will be plunking in little. That gimmick was used in the ballpark deal, too: the team claimed the naming and ad rights that should have gone to the city. Best, Don Bauder

Worse than naming rights, I expect them to propose selling the current stadium site to Spanos at a lowball figure.

Why didn't Carol Lazier fire the Campbells immediately? Their key backers on the board are gone, they have absolutely no support among the staff, public or donors. Therefore they are now totally ineffective; a pair of crippled ducks. A key aspect of a successful turnaround is immediate and decisive actions that get rid of all impediments to success and causes of the original problem. This sends a message to all there is no going back and there is a new sheriff in town. No time for normal friendly discussions, which is part of the problem here where close friendships have interfered with fiduciary duties. The board must act very differently to assure the public that it will not be a 55-member rubber stamp anymore. Especially in this case when there is an emergency with the deadlines coming up. Knowing what we know, there are plenty grounds to fire Campbell for cause. Is there more intrigue afoot or Lazier doesn't have the experience and toughness to clean house quickly?

Vissidarte: See the entry below. I have it on excellent authority that the Campbells are on administrative leave. An alternative would have been to fire them. I think a case could be made to fire them for cause, although I am no expert in personnel law. But if they do not want the opera to continue, and if potential donors won't give if the Campbells remain in place, something like this has to happen. They are of no use to the company if they don't want to run it.

The board is already about half the size of what it was because of the resignations. One problem is that a lot of people who resigned were big donors. So the new board will have to broaden its appeal quickly.

The board must bring in a new general director who will probably have to serve as artistic director as well. My guess is that there are plenty of people out there who are qualified for the job, and would love to take a turnaround situation.

I think Carol Lazier and her husband James Merritt have the toughness. So do others on that board. Best, Don Bauder

"Nixon in China" would be an edgy name for a rock band. As a name and theme for an opera, it is beyond bizarre.

Visduh: It's a pretty bad opera, too. We saw it once. Best, Don Bauder

eastlaker: Ian Campbell admitted in my presence that he went too heavy on modern opera when he launched the program in the early 1990s, responding to a grant to companies putting on modern operas. Modern opera simply did NOT draw audiences in San Diego. It baffles me that he selected Nixon in China for 2014 when he supposedly knew how bad the financial situation was.

To me, a lot of evidence suggests that the Campbells were planning this abrupt killing of the opera for months -- and maybe longer than that. I suspect that the abruptness strategy was chosen to attempt to make sure that people who disagreed would not have time to try to save the company. Best, Don Bauder