Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
Archives
Classifieds
Stories
Events
Contests
Music
Movies
Theater
Food
Legal Guide
February 12, 2025
February 5, 2025
January 29, 2025
January 22, 2025
January 15, 2025
January 8, 2025
January 1, 2025
December 25, 2024
December 18, 2024
December 11, 2024
December 4, 2024
Close
February 12, 2025
February 5, 2025
January 29, 2025
January 22, 2025
January 15, 2025
January 8, 2025
January 1, 2025
December 25, 2024
December 18, 2024
December 11, 2024
December 4, 2024
February 12, 2025
February 5, 2025
January 29, 2025
January 22, 2025
January 15, 2025
January 8, 2025
January 1, 2025
December 25, 2024
December 18, 2024
December 11, 2024
December 4, 2024
Close
Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
San Diego taxpayers to be Chargers laughingstock?
There is zero chance the initiative will pass. Polls might not be perfect but they're not going to be off by a factor of 2. Charger fans might hold out hope for a miracle fast start and playoff quality team but most projections predict a poor year for the Chargers. Even in preseason they are off to a bad start - a 27-10 preseason loss, several key players hurt, and an unsigned draft pick who's turned out to be greedy, lazy and stupid.— August 18, 2016 6:55 a.m.
San Diego taxpayers to be Chargers laughingstock?
As the U-T polls you've referenced indicate, the initiative has almost no chance of receiving the required 2/3 approval. I'm really not sure what the Chargers' plan is. Are they hoping to buy time until ? Are they hoping to somehow re-negotiate with Stan Kroenke? Are they hoping to re-negotiate with the San Diego task force? After the ballot measure fails we will see the next move for the Chargers.— August 17, 2016 9:06 p.m.
New Chargers stadium guarantees higher prices
The jerseys in the stands might be blue and gold. Or silver and black. Or yellow and black. Or orange and blue. The ticket money is always green. That's the color that matters.— August 11, 2016 8:49 p.m.
New Chargers stadium guarantees higher prices
Joseph Oppenheim, I don't consider the Chargers' stadium (yes, I know they can and do host other events there but it's mostly for the Chargers) "infrastructure". Per wikipedia, "Infrastructure refers to structures, systems, and facilities serving a country, city, or area, including the services and facilities necessary for its economy to function." The stadium isn't necessary for the the San Diego economy to function so I wouldn't consider it infrastructure.— August 11, 2016 6:15 p.m.
New Chargers stadium guarantees higher prices
That is a good point, but I would point out that many (most?) of the "season ticket holders" selling single game tickets to non-Charger fans are ticket brokers.— August 11, 2016 6:08 p.m.
New Chargers stadium guarantees higher prices
Trump has said worse things than that. Frankly, I'm not particularly bothered by offensive statements (at least compared to many pundits), but I think many of Trump's statements indicate a lack of good judgement and even a potential lack of sanity. Those things concern me.— August 11, 2016 7:54 a.m.
New Chargers stadium guarantees higher prices
Unbelievable how expensive hats have gotten. I paid about $25 for a Padres hat (in their REAL colors of brown and yellow of course) at Petco but that was about the cheapest one they sold. Many hats were over $50.— August 10, 2016 6:35 p.m.
New Chargers stadium guarantees higher prices
I really don't understand the Chargers' strategy. Did they really think they could get the stadium proposal to pass? Or is this all just a super-complex ploy for the Chargers to get more concessions from the NFL? ("Look Roger we tried really hard to get a stadium built in San Diego but we couldn't. So could you make Stan give us a better deal to move into Inglewood?")— August 10, 2016 6:34 p.m.
California homes less likely to sink in sea
Time to invest in Siberia for the (to be) moderate climate?— August 4, 2016 1 p.m.
California homes less likely to sink in sea
"If the consensus of climate scientists is correct, almost two million United States homes will be underwater by the year 2100" Sorry to nitpick but if I read the article correctly I think that statement is a bit of an misinterpretation of the data. The Zillow study is based on the WORST CASE projections of the scientific community which are about a 6 ft rise in sea level https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-enviro… The mid level projections (i.e. what the scientific community's best estimate is right now) are "only" about 2 feet. Which is still a big problem but would result in a smaller number of homes and economic impact than the Zillow analysis based on the worst case expectations. Of course, if there is no reduction in the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions we may end up in the worst case scenario.— August 3, 2016 6:54 p.m.