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
Mayor Faulconer's folly
"Therefore, they are worth approximately $2 billion. At least to Steve Ballmer." Exactly what I said.— January 15, 2015 3:49 p.m.
New sewer lines or new stadium fro San Diego? Your choice.
don bauder A question just came to mind. Do you know who is it that actually owns the Stadium? Is it the city, perhaps the county, or maybe some sports authority created for that purpose.— January 15, 2015 1:52 p.m.
Mayor Faulconer's folly
Don Bauder Prior to the beginning of the 2014 season, Forbes valued the Chargers at $995 million. Of that, a mere $99 million, 9.9%, was derived from the value of playing in Qualcom. Contrast that with the Dallas Cowboys, whose $3.2 BILLION in valuation includes $860 million, 26.3%, from their stadium. Imagine that. The Dallas Cowboys play in a stadium that is worth more than 85% of the Chargers total value. A point on the Clippers. The fact that the Steve Ballmer paid $2 billion for the Clippers doesn't mean they are worth $2 Billion. If you placed a valuation on the other NBA teams using same multiple as the Clippers' sale price, then the Clippers would not even be in the top 10 and both the Knicks and the Lakers would be valued at nearly $5 BILLION. The simple truth is that Ballmer payed way more than the Clippers were worth. Except for one thing; he's worth $20+ billion and he wanted to own an NBA team and was willing to severely over pay to get them. Remember, Balmer was willing to pay to keep the Sonics in Seattle, before they moved, tried to buy them back a couple of yrs later and 2 yrs ago tried to buy the Kings from the Maloof family and them to back to Seattle. It wasn't the team that made the Clippers so expensive to buy, it was the guy who wanted to own an NBA team for many years and when he finally had a legit shot to get one, was willing to pay whatever it cost to get them. Not too many people with that kind of money to throw around just because they "want" something.— January 15, 2015 1:47 p.m.
Get in line, Chargers
**St. Louis pitches stadium plan to keep Rams** http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-sp-…— January 9, 2015 12:31 p.m.
Ure legacy
Yeah, I had the same thought. I guess a lot of people get confused by that whole United Kingdom thing, apparently not realizing that England is part of the UK, not the other way around. Almost like someone referring to Great Britain, when they mean England.— January 9, 2015 12:20 p.m.
Get in line, Chargers
don bauder read the earlier comments again. imjustabill posted ImJustABill Jan. 8, 2015 @ 11:43 a.m. If LA gets 2024 Summer Olympics I think there will be a renewed push for an LA stadium. to which it appears you replied Don Bauder Jan. 8, 2015 @ 4:54 p.m. ImJustABill: Yes, probably, unless the voters find out how much the city lost hosting the Olympics. Best, Don Bauder Since LA was the only city imjustabill referenced as hosting an Olympics, and was also the topic of discussion regarding a new stadium, it seems a reasonable assumption you were referring to LA. As for the "red ink" ,I agreed by saying "there are huge amounts of red ink everywhere else where the Olympics have been held". Plese reread the final 2 sentences of my above comment; they spell things out pretty clearly BTW about a year ago in you said: Don Bauder Jan. 28, 2014 @ 7:46 p.m. aardvark: Hosting an Olympics is a losing venture. Best, Don Bauder to which I said danfogel Jan. 31, 2014 @ 12:09 p.m. I believe that the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles would be an exception to your conclusion. to which you replied Don Bauder Jan. 31, 2014 @ 7:59 p.m. danfogel: That's what LA claims, anyway. Best, Don Bauder I seem to recall another occasion in which you disagreed that the 1984 Olympics A: made money and B: were privately financed, but I don't feel like looking it up.— January 9, 2015 12:14 p.m.
Get in line, Chargers
The Cubs attendance has actually dropped a little in the last couple of years. They were one of the teams who routinely could be counted on to draw over 3 million per year But over the last couple of seasons, their attendance has fallen by about 500k per season.— January 9, 2015 7:49 a.m.
Developer vs. developer, continued
don bauder, I was being facetious/sarcastic. You know, the whole lawyer calling people names, hurling insults, making thinly veiled treats thing. Although now that I think about it, johnnyvegas/surfpuppy619's threats weren't really al that veiled. Anyway, I know that johnnyvegas/surfpuppy619 went to LS in Michigan, or at least claims to have. The only place I know of where he posts now is on the LA Times under the name WildGurl, complete with picture of scantily clad woman. Actually, it was another Reader commenter whom I know personally who pointed it out to me a few months ago.— January 9, 2015 7:44 a.m.
Get in line, Chargers
I have been to Italy twice, but it has been more than a decade since my last trip. From a historical sense, I huess I would say I preferred Rome, but from a cultural sense, so to speak, I would say Milan. My wife and daughter definitely enjoyed the fashion aspect, which I'm sure my credit card bills reflected. But alas, Milan is not one of the options for the Olympics, only Rome. So with that being said, again If you're one of the visitors to the Olympics not from the US, where would you rather visit, Boston or Rome?— January 9, 2015 7:34 a.m.
Get in line, Chargers
don bauder, The 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles were a success financially ANY way you look at them. Their success still resonates today. One only needs to do a little research on the LA84 Foundation to see that. And as I said in my comment above, the 2 summer games in Los Angeles, 1932 and 1984 are the ONLY 2 US held Olympics to be profitable and Los Angeles in 1984 is the only one privately financed. Yes, there are huge amounts of red ink everywhere else where the Olympics have been held. However, since your comment was clearly referring to the voters finding out how much the city of Los Angeles lost hosting the Olympics in 1984, my reply was confined to those Olympics specifically. And in that reference, you were wrong.— January 9, 2015 7:24 a.m.