Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
San Diego taxpayers to be Chargers laughingstock?
And show your support for Councilman Cate, who does get it, and is now being targeted for attacks by the Chargers. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/aug…— August 20, 2016 9:24 p.m.
San Diego taxpayers to be Chargers laughingstock?
So if there isn't extensive precedent for these types of terms the true meaning of the terms won't really be decided until it's gone through the court system. It kind of sounds to me like the Chargers put some wording in the measure which sounds good but doesn't really mean much.— August 19, 2016 4:13 p.m.
San Diego taxpayers to be Chargers laughingstock?
Plus, wouldn't it make it harder / more expensive to get bonds issued with more restrictive terms? It still seems to me that if the Chargers were serious about making sure no tax money is used other than the 4% TOT increase that the Chargers would specifically promise to cover any shortfalls for that case. I don't think they do (please correct me if I'm wrong).— August 19, 2016 4:09 p.m.
San Diego taxpayers to be Chargers laughingstock?
BTW DionV you may be right - I honestly don't know much about the details of municipal funding or financial laws and I'm just going on my non-expert reading of your points and the text of the initiative. But the Chargers previously promised that they would stay in San Diego until 2020 and they found loopholes to get out of that promise. So my hunch is that they probably have loopholes to get out of other things if they need to.— August 19, 2016 3:47 p.m.
San Diego taxpayers to be Chargers laughingstock?
I have no idea how these things work. Is it common practice for a city to issue bonds that can only be paid back from one specific revenue source, under the conditions that if that revenue source falls short the bond-holders don't get their payment?— August 19, 2016 3:39 p.m.
San Diego taxpayers to be Chargers laughingstock?
I'm certainly no expert but I don't see how the Chargers can just declare the city not responsible for payment unless the Chargers specifically state that they are responsible. Is there text in the initiative which specifically says that the Chargers are completely responsible for coming up with any extra money needed if the TOT falls below expectations?— August 19, 2016 3:10 p.m.
San Diego taxpayers to be Chargers laughingstock?
There are 2 major lies being extensively pushed by the yes-on-C group: 1. The money all comes from tourists. This won't cost San Diegans anything. (LIE. Tax revenue is public money which belongs to San Diegans) 2. The project is not a "Charger's Stadium". It's a convention center expansion and general purpose stadium. LIE. The Charger's are the only group that want or need a "state of the art" stadium. Perhaps there will be a few big concerts or other events there but most of those could be held elsewhere. SDSU football, soccer games, big concerts, etc could all be held in a much less expensive renovated QCOM stadium. The convention center "expansion" won't do much to help keep comic-con (which is the only somewhat reasonable argument for expanding the convention center).— August 19, 2016 9:34 a.m.
San Diego taxpayers to be Chargers laughingstock?
Vote NO on ballot measure C.— August 18, 2016 3:12 p.m.
San Diego taxpayers to be Chargers laughingstock?
Apparently this will be a prop "C" just like the Petco vote was. The Chargers' propoganda is starting to roll. For your amusement / disgust.... "A yes vote on C will allow for the creation of a new facility that could host world-class events and conventions such as Super Bowls, NCAA Final Fours, NCAA title games, professional soccer, concerts, the X Games and a host of other high-profile events. And no general funds will be used to build this new venue as it will be paid for by the Chargers and the NFL as well as tourists and business travelers staying in San Diego hotels. " http://www.chargers.com/news/2016/08/18/its-offic…— August 18, 2016 3:10 p.m.
San Diego taxpayers to be Chargers laughingstock?
We definitely should all go out and vote. I don't want to see the Chargers go - but I will not support public funds going to a football stadium. It's a ridiculous way to allocate public funds.— August 18, 2016 7:37 a.m.