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
NFL's TV tumble and the stadium vote
Don: They "only" had just over 83,000 today, and they lost, to fall to 3-2. But at least they are paying for their own stadium, as opposed to another NFL franchise that is off to a 1-4 start and wants the city they play in to chip in $1.15 billion to build something we don't need.— October 9, 2016 5:47 p.m.
NFL's TV tumble and the stadium vote
Don: But he is off to a good start. A 3-1 record, and over 90,000 fans for both preseason games and the first regular season game. Getting reestablished in the LA area quickly, which makes it that much tougher for the Chargers to gain any kind of support up there should they move to LA.— October 9, 2016 2:08 p.m.
NFL's TV tumble and the stadium vote
Aren't the games streamed on Twitter or something? Plus, NFL Redzone is also cutting into regular network viewership numbers.— October 8, 2016 2:08 p.m.
Chargers, mayor, U-T collude on con job
Don: I'm sure the price has gone up (if the Kings are really for sale), since they will be playing in a new downtown arena in Sacramento this season.— October 4, 2016 4 p.m.
Chargers, mayor, U-T collude on con job
You might want to glance at the city charter before continuing your argument in favor of this project. And, out of curiosity, where will the money come from should TOT revenues fall short of expectations?— October 4, 2016 10:50 a.m.
Chargers, mayor, U-T collude on con job
Don: If the city could get someone else with a team to move here should the Chargers leave--AND get that someone to build a stadium for that team, I would be all for it. In this market, I just don't see that happening.— October 4, 2016 10:39 a.m.
Chargers, mayor, U-T collude on con job
Don: Completely agree with you, which is just another example why no one can believe anything Spanos or his minions say.— October 3, 2016 11:19 p.m.
Chargers, mayor, U-T collude on con job
Don: Many of those college stadiums have been refurbished--some several times. Also, the Q is almost 50 years old. By the time another team were to move here, the city would have probably torn it down for who know whatever reason. Getting someone to buy the Chargers and then build their own stadium here would probably cost $3-$4 billion minimum--I just don't see that happening. And should another team want to move here, the NFL owners would probably vote to NOT allow a team to move here without a new stadium.— October 3, 2016 11:18 p.m.
Chargers, mayor, U-T collude on con job
Don: Two things to remember. First, Spanos has already said he has a "great" deal to move into KroenkeWorld; secondly, remember that if another team were to move here, it would be in a new stadium. No team is moving here to play at the Q long-term. How much would THAT cost the taxpayers?— October 3, 2016 5:48 p.m.
Chargers, mayor, U-T collude on con job
Don: The Rams have played one home game, and drew 91,046 to the Coliseum. A perfect storm is brewing, and not in the Chargers favor. The Rams have gotten off to a 3-1 start, and tied for the lead in their division in the NFC. I would think the Rams would have another sell-out crowd this week. The Rams are reestablishing themselves in the LA area, while relatively few Angelinos want the Chargers to move to LA. In the meantime, the Chargers are self-destructing in the AFC West at 1-3, their attendance is dropping like a rock, and Spanos is promising the sun, moon and stars to anyone who he might think could get him a new stadium, er, convadium. Spanos has screwed himself--he has set the bar for money he claims the league and team will contribute towards a new facility. Should the Chargers lose with Measure C next month, I would hope Faulconer would tell Spanos that it's Mission Valley or nothing--downtown is out (and keep that $650 mil available that he was pledging to have to help build a new facility, as he will need it). We will see just how bad Spanos wants to stay in SD, and not have to deal with Kroenke as Kroenke's bitch, er, tenant in Inglewood.— October 3, 2016 3:34 p.m.