Stadium skyline: Rendering of proposed downtown stadium that would come with Measure C.
  • Stadium skyline: Rendering of proposed downtown stadium that would come with Measure C.
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

The dictionary defines “sportsmanship” as “fair play; respect for opponents; polite behavior by someone who is competing in a sport.”

That definition is woefully out of date. Now the definition of “sportsmanship” is “egregious greed; persistent lying.” These days, professional sports are more corrupt than almost any industry, as, in one city after another, billionaire team owners put guns to taxpayers’ heads and say, “Pay up, or I move the team.”

But that heist — which is afflicting San Diego again — is just one of many sports scams in these defiled days.

Pro soccer is one of the slimiest games in the world. Big bribes determine which nation will host the World Cup and prominent matches. Under-the-table payoffs determine which manufacturer will provide uniforms and footwear in the championships.

FIFA Swiss headquarters: Last year U.S. prosecutors indicted 14 FIFA executives for wire fraud, racketeering, and money laundering.

FIFA Swiss headquarters: Last year U.S. prosecutors indicted 14 FIFA executives for wire fraud, racketeering, and money laundering.

Last year, United States prosecutors indicted 14 executives from FIFA, soccer’s governing body, for wire fraud, racketeering, and money laundering. Seven of them were arrested in Switzerland, which doesn’t require significant financial transparency and thus is headquarters for the organization. (Not surprisingly, Switzerland, the haven for the world’s dirty money, is also headquarters for a number of sports, including cycling, hockey, crossbow shooting, archery, and for the International Olympic Committee, which has generated some scandals. Salt Lake City got the 2002 Olympics as a result of “gifts” that passed under the table.)

The cities that are chosen to host the Olympics often wind up in economic trouble that increases poverty. Brazil’s economy was going gangbusters when Rio de Janeiro, Brazil won the 2016 Olympics. But by the summer of 2016, more than 20 percent of Brazilians were living in poverty and 4 percent in extreme poverty. Rio spent $4.6 billion of public money on the games. It’s not likely to get that back. London earned $3.5 billion in revenue on the 2012 Olympics. It spent $18 billion. Smith College economist Andrew Zimbalist concluded last year that there is no net economic gain for hosts of the Olympics or World Cup. (But there are covert gains for promoters, of course.)

The scandals just keep coming. Consider doping. Mark McGwire hit 583 home runs in his Major League Baseball playing career. He admitted using performance-enhancing drugs but was nonetheless the Padres bench coach last season. He still has a chance to make the Hall of Fame.

Sports gambling is ubiquitous. University of San Diego basketball is an example. A former star guard and a former coach admitted involvement in a game-fixing ring.

Maybe San Diegans are so accustomed to sports corruption that they are blind to the scam the Chargers are trying to pull off.

Bruce Henderson

Bruce Henderson

In 1995, the team got taxpayers to support a remake of the stadium now named Qualcomm. The team promised to stay until 2020 if it got the gift. Within a couple of years of occupying the renovated stadium, the team was angling for a new stadium — in San Diego or (surreptitiously) in Los Angeles. The Chargers got a ticket guarantee from San Diego; if not enough seats were filled, the city anted up. The team’s propaganda indicated that the city would profit from this deal — “utterly and totally misrepresenting the risk,” says former councilmember Bruce Henderson. The city’s losses mounted, and under public pressure, the Chargers agreed to drop the 60,000-seat guarantee — in exchange for a massive slash in their rent.

Back in the 1990s, the Chargers insisted on a clause in their contract stating that if revenue didn’t meet team goals, the team could move elsewhere. Henderson said correctly that this was a “team-shopping clause.” Dishonestly, the Chargers denied that. Actually, it was a roadmap out of town, as we now know.

Dean Spanos

Dean Spanos

Last year, the Chargers said they had a deal to share a stadium in the L.A. area (Carson) with the Oakland Raiders. It was a Potemkin village. There was no meaningful deal in Carson. Dean Spanos actually believed that the National Football League owners would back him in the purported Carson “deal.” Spanos apparently ignored the fact that a competing owner, who also wanted a home in L.A., was worth, with his wife, more than five times what Spanos was then worth. Spanos was stunned to be snubbed by other team owners and returned to San Diego and told the citizenry that he still had a very good deal in Los Angeles but decided that he loved San Diego too much to leave. Apparently, some San Diegans believed this colossal fish tale.

Scott Sherman

Scott Sherman

Says Councilmember Scott Sherman, “The Chargers’ word doesn’t mean very much. The Chargers have proven over and over that they cannot be trusted.”

Measure C, which San Diegans will vote on in November, proves that. “The biggest lie of all is that Measure C commits the Chargers to anything at all,” says Henderson. The team would get an option to play in a city-owned stadium. If Measure C passes, says Henderson, “the Chargers have no obligation to do anything.”

There is another whopper. The hotel tax would be raised from 10.5 percent to 16.5 percent — more than a 50 percent hike. The Chargers claim that tourists will be the ones paying the higher tax. Nonsense. Tourism is San Diego’s second-largest industry. Receipts from the hotel tax have been a critical part of government revenue for years. If the hotel tax is raised by more than 50 percent and the resulting revenue goes to a football stadium, the city will have to find other sources of money. Funds will come out of San Diegans’ pockets — or, alternatively, streets, roads, sewers, water delivery, and the like will continue to be embarrassingly inadequate.

As years go on, more than $100 million a year will be diverted to a football team that has not done well on the field since the Spanos family bought 60 percent of it in 1984, and in the next decade bought most of the rest. As hotel room rates grow, that annual $100 million–plus will grow sharply. But if Measure C passes and construction plans solidify, San Diego will be committed to a family whose honesty is as shaky as its team’s performance.

  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Comments

Visduh Oct. 19, 2016 @ 7:53 a.m.

Sportsmanship isn't dead, and it isn't anything different than it ever was. It's just that little of it is practiced today in professional "sports" and in things that depend on big money, such as college sports. The death knell for sportsmanship was professionalizing popular sports. For most of the 20th century, generations of young folks were told that professional baseball players were wonderful sportsmen. We now know better, and honest biographies of pro baseball's first super star, Ty Cobb, recount how he was a bitter, nasty man who was never anything like a sportsman.

It is still possible to see sportsmanship among amateurs who play for the love of the game. But as soon as avarice and greed show up, sportsmanship goes out the window.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 19, 2016 @ 8:41 a.m.

Visduh: Good points. Of course, as you know, college football -- touted as "clean" -- is also a racket, with players given money under the table, and certain universities raking in huge sums.

Even honest-to-goodness amateur sports are sometimes corrupted. Often, regional "amateur" teams get fleeced by a promoter who takes a cut of uniform and dry cleaning expenses.

In the 1950s at the University of Wisconsin a long-time close friend of mine, who was my roommate there, was a starter on the football team. A local car dealer agreed to pay him a monthly, healthy stipend for "working" at the dealership. He never went once to the dealership. The university athletic department encouraged him to go to the dealership and at least shake hands with his benefactor. He never did.

I hear stories of high school athletes paid to relocate from some school to another. The parents, of course, get the loot. Best, Don Bauder

0

ImJustABill Oct. 19, 2016 @ 9:27 a.m.

"If you ain't cheatin you ain't trying" is a maxim often heard in sports. I tried looking up the origin of the phrase but it seems hard to find out. I think that's because it really is the prevailing attitude - many, many people in sports could have said it.

0

Ponzi Oct. 19, 2016 @ 10:03 a.m.

"If you ain't cheatin you ain't trying" That also is the motto of big banks, Wall Street, politicians....

0

Don Bauder Oct. 19, 2016 @ 10:12 a.m.

Ponzi: True. You could also add this advice to topside managers: "If you ain't cheatin' you ain't gonna get that promotion you have been countin' on."

0

ImJustABill Oct. 19, 2016 @ 10:23 a.m.

Absolutely. That is the general philosophy prevalent in a lot of major institutions. Winning is more important than having integrity - and it's OK to do whatever it takes to win as long as you don't get caught.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 19, 2016 @ 11:36 a.m.

ImJustABill: In corporations, cooking the books (cheating) is a route to top management getting enormous compensation. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 19, 2016 @ 10:10 a.m.

ImJustABill: I can't remember ever having heard that excellent maxim. It perfectly describes today's athletic situation -- both professional and "amateur." Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 19, 2016 @ 12:44 p.m.

FibrkMke: Mark Grace is the brother of Amazing Grace, isn't he? How did Mark Grace get in this discussion? Best, Don Bauder

0

Cassander Oct. 19, 2016 @ 10:05 a.m.

At this point, I'm convinced the Venn diagram for "stadium supporters" and "fans of cuckold porn" is just one circle.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 19, 2016 @ 10:33 a.m.

Cassander: Except that some female and male seniors may be too old to watch cuckold porn. However, my guess is that the oldest among us probably vote in favor of stadium scams pulled by billionaires. And that makes no sense, because the elderly won't be around for many more Chargers seasons.

Look at it this way: one of the worst aspects of the Chargers billionaire stadium scam is that San Diego will be stuck with Spanos family ownership for 30 years. This family doesn't pay high salaries to coaches and administrators, and Dean Spanos has named his two sons to top positions. (One is president of business operations and another is president of football operations.) This may lead to lousy football for 30 years.

Do you want to subsidize lousy football for three decades? Best, Don Bauder

0

Cassander Oct. 19, 2016 @ 10:49 a.m.

I'm not sure that the main stadium vote demographic is seniors, but I'm definitely sure that I've never been a fan of the Spanos' version of sportsmanship, politics, or business. Don't know what I ever said to imply otherwise, but perish that thought right now!

In fact, if I had my way, the Chargers should have to pick up the remaining tab for the 1995 Q renovation in order to be allowed to continue to play here; and no new sandbox for them unless they want to pay for that, too.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 19, 2016 @ 11:40 a.m.

Cassander: Definitely. There is still a pile of money owed on those stadium rehab bonds. The Chargers have to pay off those bonds if they leave within a certain time period. However, I don't remember the time period. Best, Don Bauder

0

aardvark Oct. 19, 2016 @ 11:15 p.m.

Don: There is an exit fee for the Chargers should they leave SD, but it comes nowhere near paying off the bonds. If the leave after this season, they owe;

in 2017--$12.575 million, in 2018--$9.76 mil, in 2019--$6.74 mil, in 2020--$3.49 mil, in 2021, the amount drops to $0, but the city will still owe many millions on that last addition.

Yet another reason why I don't think Spanos is leaving--no matter how bad he loses with Measure C. He pays no rent now. He's not leaving.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 20, 2016 @ 7:19 a.m.

aardvark: Thanks for providing those numbers. You are right: Spanos pays no rent now, thanks to a horrible deal made by ex-Mayor Murphy before he resigned in opprobrium.

The team clearly has a more profitable deal in San Diego than it would get from Kroenke in L.A. Spanos is being offered a non-remunerative deal in L.A. That's why he came back to L.A. and issued the colossal whopper that one night he realized he loved San Diego so much he couldn't bear to move the team to L.A.

What's pathetic is that some San Diegans believe Spanos. Best, Don Bauder

0

belous Oct. 19, 2016 @ 1:05 p.m.

Question from an out of towner - What would the effect be on San Diego's economy and national reputation if their professional football team of 55 years leaves town and leaves the city with only one major sport attraction left? What if Comic-Con leaves as well because it has outgrown the convention center? Doesn't this stadium proposal address those issues pretty directly? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I would assume that tourism would suffer if Comic-Con leaves SD and I'm pretty sure there are plenty of intangibles that would suffer negative effects if the Chargers left town as well. As a tourist, I am naive to the day to day issues for the most part, but when I think of a new stadium/convention center extension, I see benefit for tourism with Comic-Con sticking around, I see a breath of fresh air for the city's sports culture which would almost certainly attract a Super Bowl or two like it has for Detroit, Phoenix, Dallas, Indianapolis, New York, and San Francisco. Straighten me out a bit Don! What are the problems I'm missing versus the alternative? I'd like to understand more about why this is bad for the city and less about why it's a corrupt scam to make more money for the rich and crooked. I'm not trying to be abrasive, just trying to understand all the angles. Thanks for the article!

0

Don Bauder Oct. 19, 2016 @ 3:26 p.m.

belous: Let's take these one at a time. Comic-Con will almost certainly leave if the convadium proposal passes in November and the structure is built. Comic-Con, like virtually all users of convention centers, wants a contiguous expansion of the current center. A combined football stadium/convention center 5 or 6 blocks from the current center would be of no use to Comic-Con, and might be a hindrance. Comic-Con strongly opposes the convadium. If it passes, good-bye Comic-Con. Yes, tourism would take a minor hit if Comic-Con were to leave.

If the Chargers left, there would be little effect on the San Diego economy. Economists almost unanimously oppose the use of taxpayer money to subsidize a pro stadium, because the presence of pro sports teams does not boost incomes or employment. Billionaire team owners always claim that a subsidized stadium will bolster the local economy. There is not an ounce of truth to that, according to economists. Thus, the departure of a team would not harm the economy.

The Chargers may be important to the morale of San Diego. If that is true, and a few economists say it is, then the team should build its own stadium. The team is now worth more than $2 billion, according to Forbes. The Spanos family has a large real estate development company, which no doubt got hit in 2008-2009. But that company has to be worth at least half a billion dollars or more. So the Spanos family has both the money and access to credit to build a stadium. It could sell 49 percent of the team to a rich billionaire whose funds would make up the difference. Or it could sell all the team to a billionaire with money burning a hole in his or her pockets. Or, the team and the city could together spend money to rehabilitate Qualcomm Stadium.

Pro teams insist that taxpayers subsidize a new stadium after about 25 years. But large universities have stadiums that are 80 to 110 years old although, of course, they have been expanded and maintained through the years.

The Chargers are doing what other teams do: threatening to leave if the taxpayers won't shell out for a huge subsidy. But San Diego has a very large pension deficit, an infrastructure deficit that could be more than $5 billion, inadequate police and fire protection, and other problems. San Diego can't afford to subsidize a billionaire family's stadium.

Frankly, I have never believed that the Chargers, as they claim, have a good deal in Los Angeles waiting for them. If they had one, they would have snapped it up long ago.The deal they have in L.A. is probably much less profitable than what they have in San Diego. They worked for years to go to Los Angeles, but the NFL chose Stan Kroenke's plan. Kroenke is not interested now in having the Chargers join his Rams there. It's time for San Diego to call the Chargers' bluff. The best option is probably to rehabilitate Qualcomm. Best, Don Bauder

0

ImJustABill Oct. 19, 2016 @ 4:52 p.m.

belous you ask some good and fair questions. Personally I've found Don's analysis of this issue more logical and based on data from objective sources (academic papers and books by economists at leading universities) than the analysis from the stadium proponents (usually based on data from consulting groups financed by pro-stadium entities). The San Diego Union Tribune and Bolts from the Blue websites are good places to see the argument from the stadium proponents.

I haven't heard that SD Comic Con will definitely leave if the convadium measure C passes but SDCC has made their opposition to the measure clear. You seem to have heard some of the proponents of the measure saying that the convadium will help to keep SDCC. But who would you believe about what's best for SDCC? The Chargers or SDCC?

As to economic or reputation losses, that may be hard to judge. I'm not sure I heard much about LA suffering great economic or reputation losses when the Rams and Raiders left 20+ years ago, nor much about Seattle or St. Louis suffering economic or reputation losses when the Supersonics and Rams, respectively, left in recent years.

There may be some intangible losses - the reputation and morale of SD will take some hit if the Chargers leave. Those intangible losses may hard to quantify. Are they worth more than 1.15B?

0

Don Bauder Oct. 20, 2016 @ 7:26 a.m.

ImJustABill: Yes, Los Angeles, Seattle, St. Louis, Milwaukee, and other cities did no suffer lack of morale when their teams left. They definitely did not suffer an economic slump because a team left. Stadiums add very little to an economy and the departure of a team does not detract from the economy. Best, Don Bauder

0

AlexClarke Oct. 19, 2016 @ 5 p.m.

Never underestimate the stupidity of San Diego voters especially a Charger fan. Even the idiot County Supervisors want in on the scam. This is one oldster that would vote no if I could but I am too smart to live within the city limits of San Diego.

1

Don Bauder Oct. 20, 2016 @ 7:28 a.m.

AlexClarke: And all this time I thought of you as either a young adult or a middle-aged one. Your analysis is sound. Best, Don Bauder

0

Flapper Oct. 19, 2016 @ 5:19 p.m.

Sportsmanship is not shooting over your partner's dog, or, as a Vice President once did, swing on a "released" quail that flew into your hunting companion's quarter, especially when you shoot your companion in the face as this unprosecuted VP did. "Terribly bad form, old boy," as they say in England.

Shooting sitting ducks is likewise unsportsmanlike.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 20, 2016 @ 7:31 a.m.

Flapper: Also, ducking shooting hunters is wise, especially if the shooter is Cheney. Best, Don Bauder

1

ImJustABill Oct. 20, 2016 @ 6:49 a.m.

HBO sports host Bill Simmons just did an AWESOME show blasting measure C

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS7KL84H1DM&feature=youtu.be

"There are very, very few things that you can get essentially all economists to agree with, and one of those very few things is that stadiums are not major drivers of economic activity"

Victor Matheson, Holy Cross

0

Don Bauder Oct. 20, 2016 @ 7:36 a.m.

ImJustABill: Yes, that Simmons presentation is getting around. You're the third who has sent it to me this morning.

I see absolutely no reason why billionaire sports team owners should rely on corporate welfare from cities and states.

There is a classic case going on in Vegas, where the Raiders want to move. Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson is worth $31 billion. He will put some of his money in a stadium if -- and only if -- taxpayers put in $750 million. Adelson wouldn't even miss $750 million if somebody embezzled it from his bank account,

The major Vegas paper is propagandizing for the subsidy. Adelson's family owns the paper. Best, Don Bauder

0

Flapper Oct. 20, 2016 @ 7:43 a.m.

The powerful don't commit fraud when they lie and deceive. At least they don't go to jail.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 20, 2016 @ 1:52 p.m.

Flapper: Amen. Look at San Diego's history: C. Arnholt Smith, John Moores, ad nauseam. Best, Don Bauder

0

CaptainObvious Oct. 20, 2016 @ 8:37 a.m.

I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again. There should be a separation of sport and State. Professional sports should be just that and pay their own way. If they don't like it, show them the door.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 20, 2016 @ 1:54 p.m.

CaptainObvious: In the distant future, I believe it is at least remotely possible that there will be legislation barring pro sports team owners from tapping government funds. Best, Don Bauder

0

belous Oct. 20, 2016 @ 9:18 a.m.

Don and ImJustABill, I appreciate the additional insight and respectable response to my comments and questions. My inclusion of SDCC on the issue was only an assumption as I've heard for years that SDCC has swelled beyond what the convention center has to offer. My assumption was that the convadium would allow SDCC to spread out enough and be an answer to that issue as well.

With that said, what are the options right now for SDCC and the city of San Diego in meeting the needs of the growing popularity of that event? Has SDCC swelled beyond the reasonable accommodations of the convention center? If so, what can be done to keep the event in San Diego? Does San Diego want to keep the event there or would they let it go if deemed to costly to keep in town?

Thanks again!

0

Don Bauder Oct. 20, 2016 @ 1:59 p.m.

belous: Anybody who knows convention centers knows that a so-called "annex" five or six blocks from the main center will only be used for smaller conventions, completely separate from the main center. So the convadium will not expand the capacity of the current center. Best, Don Bauder

0

ImJustABill Oct. 20, 2016 @ 10:36 a.m.

I think what SDCC wants is to stay in San Diego and to for San Diego to build a CONTIGUOUS expansion of the convention center without raising San Diego hotel (TOT) taxes. But I don't think they're going to get all those things. Will they leave if they don't get EVERYTHING they want? I suspect there is room for negotiation.

Has SDCC swelled beyond the convention center? Well I suppose if space were available for free they could probably use twice the space they have right now if it were available. But some might argue SDCC has swelled too much for it's own good already - it's gone way, way, WAY beyond comic books now. How much bigger should it get?

If non-contiguous expansion is to be done, the Marriott, Hyatt, and Hilton could be adding more convention space (IMO) - and the Marriott did do some expansion last year. The anime fest, check-in, SDCC merch sales and a few other things are already in the Marriot. The 3 hotels are filling up and charging about 700/nite during SDCC - probably twice their standard rate. I think they're probably reaping the lion's share of the economic benefit of CC - so to me it seems like the responsibility for more convention center space falls on those hotels along Harbor.

Of course the trend has been for CC to gradually spill more into the gaslamp but it's difficult and time-consuming to walk from the convention ctr across Harbor Drive (which is why I don't think the "convadium" helps CC).

Comic-Con has options - they can move to Anaheim, Vegas, or LA which have bigger convention centers. But in my opinion any of those moves would be a big risk for CC as the event will clearly be different if it moves out of SD.

BTW from a Comic-Con attendee perspective my wish list would be that they figure out better ways to process ticket sales and waiting lines. I suppose the extreme difficulty with those things is oddly part of the charm of SDCC but they are frustrating. As an attendee these things seem like much bigger issues to me than not having enough space.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 20, 2016 @ 2:04 p.m.

ImJustABill: Comic-Con would not want to expand into a hotel or into the convadium. It wants EVERYTHING under one roof. Las Vegas may have the room. Ditto Anaheim. There must be other places. Los Angeles is expanding and Comic-Con possibly belongs near Hollywood. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 20, 2016 @ 2:07 p.m.

Jeff Madruga: One thing is absolutely certain: the craven NFL will not change -- willingly, anyway. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 27, 2016 @ 1:25 p.m.

Jeff Madruga: You are right; the craven NFL will not change -- willingly, anyway.

However, there is one positive development. NFL attendance continues to drop. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 20, 2016 @ 2:10 p.m.

Mike Murphy: You are absolutely right. Among NFL team owners, any fleecing of a city is a cause to rejoice. Best, Don Bauder

0

Ponzi Oct. 20, 2016 @ 7:59 p.m.

I was one of the first computer retailers in San Diego in the late 1970's and into the 1980's. I attended COMDEX and CES every year. Vegas was much different then and I didn't like it then and I never go now.

But what I can say is that most of the major players in the industry were in the main convention center. Others exhibited in the Rivera, and other outposts. Visitors simply were exhausted by the lines for taxi's, food lines, bathrooms and other needs that visiting the "OUTPOSTS" (and that is what the Convadium is) were just not a high priority.

We rarely visited the outposts because they didn't have the best exhibits. They were a hassle to get to and we had enough to keep us busy on the main convention floor. The outposts also do not collect the premium exhibit rates that the main convention center does. They are almost an afterthought often nicknamed the "freak shows."

The Chargers might get a lot of support from people who like football, but I bet they would not get much of a thumbs up from people like me who were regular visitors to major conventions or the exhibitors as well. That is why Comic Con wants a CONTIGUOUS Convention Center because they KNOW THE CONVENTION BUSINESS and the CHARGERS DON'T.

The Charges are just lying.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 21, 2016 @ 10:03 a.m.

Flapper: Maybe your Compaq is a valuable antique now. Best, Don Bauder

0

Flapper Oct. 21, 2016 @ 10:53 a.m.

I'll entertain offers. It's a "portable."

0

Don Bauder Oct. 23, 2016 @ 12:06 p.m.

Ponzi: I collect antique typewriters. One portable goes back to the late 19th century. Another is a World War I reporter's typewriter. Best, Don Bauder

0

Flapper Oct. 23, 2016 @ 3:28 p.m.

I have a mid-20th century Hermes portable. Have your lawyers (and bankers) contact me.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 24, 2016 @ 8:20 a.m.

Flapper: We started collecting antique typewriters shortly after we got married in 1962. We have 16 of them. We haven't bought one for many years now and never paid more than $50 for one. Best, Don Bauder

0

Ponzi Oct. 23, 2016 @ 11:30 p.m.

Well we do have something personal in common. I collect typewriters too. I have since I was an Apple Computer dealer and the dealer group agreed to keep our typewriters, but use Applewriter (a word processing program).

I now own ten typewriters, the oldest was manufactured in 1890. I have a modern Smith Corona cartridge that I used in sixth grade. An IBM Selectric with 10 fonts.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 24, 2016 @ 8:23 a.m.

Ponzi: We have a couple dating back to the 1870s. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 23, 2016 @ 12:04 p.m.

Flapper: I will have my lawyers send you an offer today. I will also make arrangements to have my check to you bounce. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 20, 2016 @ 9:53 p.m.

Ponzi: Of course the Chargers are lying. That's what they do best. They know full well that a convention center "annex" five or six blocks away from the main convention center will not work, except for small conferences not connected to whatever is going on at the main center.

If this convadium monstrosity is constructed, one thing is certain: the books will be cooked and the public will be led to believe that convadium is being used for conventions that have to expand in to a distant structure. Best, Don Bauder

0

Sign in to comment

Let’s Be Friends

Subscribe for local event alerts, concerts tickets, promotions and more from the San Diego Reader

Close