San Diego taxpayers to be Chargers laughingstock?

I'm not an expert in the issuance of bonds. I had a $50 savings bond once when I was twelve, that's about the extent of my experience with them. But as much as I appreciate your response, I'm afraid it doesn't really answer the question. The language of the initiative on pg. 88 pretty clearly states "In no event shall the issuance of Bonds or Financing Agreements involve the pledge of the faith and credit of the City, but shall be limited obligations payable solely from specified revenues, moneys and assets." The inference is that the bond issuers putting up the money will agree to be paid back only from the revenue from the increase in hotel tax, and won't require the city to be liable if those revenues fall short. True, the text only mentions the general fund as being off limits, but the fact that the city will not be required to pledge its "faith and credit" seems to override any possibility of the city being forced to pay any shortfalls out of any other funds. Am I missing something?
— August 19, 2016 3:05 p.m.

San Diego taxpayers to be Chargers laughingstock?

I'm opposed to handing out corporate welfare to crass, self-serving billionaires, and I'll be voting against the Chargers initiative. But I want honest debate about this or any other political controversy, and that means I want honesty from my own side, too. Which is why I'm troubled. Help me understand something Don. I keep hearing the claim that if the hotel tax increase isn't enough to cover the bond payments then the city will be on the hook. E.g., from nodowntownstadium.com: "Additionally, if the proposed hotel tax increase does not meet expectations, because of lost conventions or an economic downturn, the City would have to cut neighborhood services or raise taxes and fees to pay for the stadium bonds, or default on the debt the City would incur under the Spanos plan." Yet if you read the initiative itself, it seems to expressly state the opposite: "In no event shall the General Fund of the City be responsible for the payment of debt service on Bonds or payments pursuant to any Financing Agreements executed and delivered or issued by the City or the Governmental Entity for the purposes and uses set forth in this section. In no event shall the issuance of Bonds or Financing Agreements involve the pledge of the faith and credit of the City, but shall be limited obligations payable solely from specified revenues, moneys and assets." (p. 88) So which is it? Would the city of San Diego be co-signing the loan or not?
— August 19, 2016 12:52 p.m.