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
Some things to check on Chargers' stadium plan
Thank you for the kind words shirley and Don!— March 27, 2016 1:51 p.m.
Some things to check on Chargers' stadium plan
Yes - even if one believes that money which comes from tourists doesn't have any negative effects on San Diego then the responsible thing to do is to try to allocate that money where it's needed most. It's hard to for me to buy the argument that subsidizing a football team and vastly increasing the wealth of it's already wealthy owners is the most pressing need to spend tax money on. But I do think the "free money" angle is something the proponents of this initiative will push. I've heard the argument a lot on sports talk radio and I've heard it from Fred Maas on a recent TV news segment.— March 27, 2016 12:36 p.m.
Some things to check on Chargers' stadium plan
Excellent summary of problems with the proposal Don. The proposal is not in anyone's best interests except for the Chargers and perhaps some die-hard Charger fans who are willing to commit a significant amount of public revenue to subsidize wealthy football players and an extremely wealthy ownership group. Personally I think they will have an uphill battle trying to get this passed. 2 things that will be needed for the initiative to pass: 1. The 50% + 1 vote threshold needs to be held up in court (sounds unlikely to me - the Howard Jarvis Foundation, among other powerful groups, will fight hard to maintain the 2/3 new tax threshold). 2. Many voters will need to buy into the "it's just tourist money, it doesn't cost San Diegans anything" logic. Clearly this logic is misguided. Any tax change will have economic and social consequences which should be studied and debated in detail. To just shrug off a tax increase as "who care's, someone else is paying for it" is irresponsible.— March 27, 2016 11:20 a.m.
Chargers or Comic-Con? SD can't get both (and needs neither)
Apparently there was a ruling in a case between the city of Upland and a cannabis club which might provide a big loophole in the 2/3 requirement. I'm no lawyer but it sounds like pretty convoluted logic to me, to argue that a citizen initiative can raise taxes with a 50% vote but a city initiative requires 2/3. But at any rate that seems to be the jist of a recent ruling. Per VOSD, " a bombshell appellate court decision was published that implies special taxes enacted by ballot measure do not need to receive a two-thirds vote to become law." http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/politics/th…— March 25, 2016 10:05 a.m.
Chargers or Comic-Con? SD can't get both (and needs neither)
My guess is I do not think 2/3 will vote for this proposal. 50% + 1 might. Especially if this is a special election in 2017 (and not a high turnout 2016 election).— March 24, 2016 11:22 a.m.
Chargers or Comic-Con? SD can't get both (and needs neither)
And to clarify even more the 800M number came from the Bolts from the Blue article - I'm not sure where they got that number.— March 23, 2016 3:24 p.m.
Chargers or Comic-Con? SD can't get both (and needs neither)
One big question is whether or not this will require a 50% vote or a 2/3 vote. Some are claiming that a recent ruling http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/wp-content/uploads… sets a precedent for a big loophole in the 2/3 vote requirement.— March 23, 2016 2 p.m.
Chargers or Comic-Con? SD can't get both (and needs neither)
Just to clarify the 1.1B is actually 1.15B: 350M for stadium construction + 800M for land acquisition + convention center construction.— March 23, 2016 11:10 a.m.
Chargers or Comic-Con? SD can't get both (and needs neither)
More details are out today on Chargers plan (similar to Briggs/Frye) - Increase TOT to 16.5% - Taxpayers kick in 1.1B for stadium construction + land acquisition - They claim a precedent has been set which invalidates 2/3 vote requirement - HOLD ONTO YOUR WALLETS BOYS AND GIRLS! http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/3/22/1128924… http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/politics/th…— March 23, 2016 8:54 a.m.
Chargers or Comic-Con? SD can't get both (and needs neither)
If there were a simple initiative that proposed raising taxes to help the Chargers build a stadium I would be opposed but at least that would be an honest proposal. I suspect the Chargers, JMI, and other beneficiaries of the Briggs/Frye/Spanos/Moore initiative do not see much chance that an honest and straightforward ballot initiative would pass.— March 22, 2016 5:47 p.m.