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
Qualcomm...a "patent troll"?
It's another case in which it's very tricky to make private-public "partnerships" fair for everyone. Public funding should benefit either the general public or the needy but sometimes public funding ends up benifitting the wealthy and/or well-connected more than the general public or the needy.— January 19, 2016 12:05 p.m.
Qualcomm...a "patent troll"?
I agree that taxpayers don't see a good return on investment for IP generated during UC research. I think this is a problem and is unfair. For example, Broadcom was started based on work cofounders Henry Samueli and Henry Nicolas did for Nicolas's PhD work at UCLA. I don't have any data but from what I've heard from at least one professor the UC techonology transfer office isn't particularly aggressive at negotiating licensing revenue. I think the rationale is that allowing faculty to leverage their academic research in industry provides good incentives to recruit and retain top faculty members even if UC can't quite keep up with top private engineering school (Stan, Caltech, MIT) compensation. Also I think they rationalize that by allowing industry to have easy access to university research then it encourages more industry investment in UC. BRCM and QCOM's founders have donated a lot of money to UCLA, UCI, and UCSD - probably in the 100's of millions total. All 3 schools have a lot of buildings and schools of engineering named after them. All in all, I think there are a lot of big conflicts of interests for UC and for UC professors. I think in a lot of cases the taxpayer doesn't see as much of a return-on-investment as they should. But that's hard to quantify.— January 19, 2016 7:17 a.m.
An option: Chargers stay, Qualcomm gets facelift
Many in SF are now questioning how much value this years' SB will really add to the Bay Area vs how much taxpayers have spent. http://abc7news.com/sports/san-francisco-city-lea… As we've discussed here many times, most objective economic analyses show that taxpayer "investment" in football stadia do not yield a positive ROI and the economic value of a SB to a city is much less than NFL P.R. would lead one to believe.— January 17, 2016 5:59 p.m.
An option: Chargers stay, Qualcomm gets facelift
My understanding is that any team relocating to LA must pay $550M to the NFL. I thought that had been decided on - maybe not an iron-clad guarantee but the number has been reported many places and I don't think there's much dispute about it. I'm sure Mr. Kroenke (and the other owners for that matter) wouldn't be happy if the Chargers or Raiders moved to LA and they had to pay less than the $550M that he is paying. Is the $550M number still up for re-negotiation?— January 17, 2016 9:02 a.m.
An option: Chargers stay, Qualcomm gets facelift
MLB should have had severe restrictions against borrowing against the team before Frank McCourt bought the Dodgers.— January 17, 2016 8:57 a.m.
An option: Chargers stay, Qualcomm gets facelift
Honestly given the last deal offered by Mayor Falconer and the task force - assuming that the election passes in June to give the Chargers about $350M corporate welfare - then it would seem to me staying in SD might be a better business option for Spanos. Stay in SD option: $100M consolation prize gift from NFL + $350M gift from taxpayers = $450M directly into Spanos coffers Almost complete control over stadium. No 1 team in a small to medium media market with a large loyal local fanbase Financing challenges that don't sound insurmountable (to me at least) Move to LA option: $550M relocation fee = $550M from Spanos coffers No 2 NFL team in a stadium to an owner that he hates. Maybe No 7 or 8 sports team in LA - but in a huge media market. Zero local fanbase. Definite financing questions. It would seem to me that to even consider LA Spanos would have to be extremely confident that an unpopular team in LA is still worth more than $1B ($550M + $450M + $100M) more than a popular team in SD. I was earlier claiming that the move to LA might boost the value by $1.5B. If that's true than the hypothetical $1.5B increase in value might be enough to cover the relocation fee - SD taxpayer handouts - NFL handout. But others who are wiser and more knowledgeable than me tend to think my estimate is quite high so maybe the increase in value doesn't justify the expenses of moving to LA. At any rate, it doesn't seem to me like it would be a no-brainer for them to move.— January 16, 2016 3:28 p.m.
An option: Chargers stay, Qualcomm gets facelift
Another argument for taxpayer funding of a stadium being promoted now is that a new stadium would be for many things other than football. I admit I didn't do an extensive study, but I decided to look up the schedule for AT&T Stadium ("Jerry World") in Dallas. This stadium is considered by many to be the best stadium in the NFL - so if there's any stadium that hosts a lot of events I would figure that would be a good example. Basically from what I could tell from the 2015 calendar, AT&T Stadium hosts Cowboys games, a few college football games, and a few concerts. And yes, as Don suggested earlier, tractor pulls. That's about it.— January 15, 2016 9:27 p.m.
It's not over. Chargers given time to woo San Diego
Some have said that the Spanos family will have to sell the team when Alex (92) passes away in order to pay estate taxes. Is this correct? If so, it would seem to me that the Spanos family should find a buyer ASAP and let the new owner decide what to do. Wouldn't it maximize the net value of the team to a new ownership group if the new ownership group gets to choose the new location?— January 14, 2016 9:28 p.m.
It's not over. Chargers given time to woo San Diego
Great reporting as always by Don and many insightful comments on this blog!!— January 14, 2016 9:25 p.m.
It's not over. Chargers given time to woo San Diego
San Diego Super ..... Raiders????— January 12, 2016 9:53 p.m.