SurveyMonkey Analyze - Export · 2019-12-12 · Help Guide Our Chargers Stadium Quest. Q1: What do...

Q1: What do you want to know more about in thestadium discussion?

Respondent skipped thisquestion

Q2: Would you support a tax hike for a newstadium?

No

Q3: Would you support a sales tax hike? No

Q4: Would you support a hotel-room tax hike? No

Q5: Why or why not would you support a tax hike? Please explain.

The extortion of NFL should be weighed against the infrastructure issues the city needs deal with ASAP

Q6: Would you support giving the team land, or letting developers build on Qualcomm Stadium orSports Arena land to help pay for the stadium? Why or why not?

No. We should just redevelop the Q and sports arena without a stadium.

COMPLETECOMPLETECollector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link)Started:Started: Monday, February 23, 2015 1:02:24 PMMonday, February 23, 2015 1:02:24 PMLast Modified:Last Modified: Monday, February 23, 2015 1:03:56 PMMonday, February 23, 2015 1:03:56 PMTime Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:3100:01:31IP Address:IP Address: 72.198.187.1072.198.187.10

PAGE 1

#1

1 / 204

Help Guide Our Chargers Stadium Quest




No




The Chargers need to pay for their own stadium


Again, the team needs today for their own stadium


PAGE 1

#2

2 / 204


Q1: What do you want to know more about in the stadium discussion?

Why should tax-payers support a highly lucrative business while San Diego infrastructure is in such desperate need of repair?


No




See answer to question 1


See question 1


PAGE 1

#3

3 / 204



What's the opposition to the current stadium location? What is the real economic impact of stadium vs no stadium? Of chargers vs no chargers?What's the impact of a big, empty stadium in current location?


No


Q4: Would you support a hotel-room tax hike? Yes


I'm a charger's fan, but don't care that much.


Not sure anything should be *granted* to private interests, even if it means jobs.


PAGE 1

#4

4 / 204



Why does a stadium have to cost $1.2 billion and more? Can't San Diego hit the reset button on what an appropriate civic stadium should look like and cost. If this is to be a civic venture, it needs to reflect what the community can support. If it's a private venture, let them spend what they want.


No




It seems that the rationale for doing this in Carson is that private skybox buyers will help pay for the stadium. The case for San Diego needing tax payer support is there are not enough sky box buyers in this market. So in a sense, every tax payer is a skybox buyer without any of the benefits. Where's my piece of the skybox? I should at least get to attend a game for free for what my taxes are paying for in lieu of private buyers.


Yes. This is a viable option to get the job done through real estate. The resulting property tax revenue will be beneficial to the County in the end, and we'll get a new stadium, and the Chargers can build the stadium with all the bells and whistles they say they need.


PAGE 1

#5

5 / 204





No




Not happy about where our tax dollars are going now.


I won't support anything that isn't primarily a benefit for San Diegans.


PAGE 1

#6

6 / 204



Follow the money!


No




Tourists and the tourist industry should start paying it's way.


Wasn't Qualcom and surrounding land an option earlier? If so, who killed it.


PAGE 1

#7

7 / 204



The details of the financing plans for other NFL stadiums built in the past five years. This includes nuances like having a redevelopment agency invest, as I believe was done in Santa Cruz. Can San Diego use an existing redevelopment agency to issue debt without requiring a vote? Other ideas?


Yes

Q3: Would you support a sales tax hike? Yes



The extra tax burden on San Diegans wouldn't be that much if spread over a 30-year bond. It could also be guaranteed by increased TOT revenues.


I don't recall the details, but wasn't that what was proposed a decade ago? I support using the Qualcomm site. It is central and less costly than downtown land. Build a multipurpose stadium with adjacent sports arena. Sell the Point Loma sports area site to help finance some of it.


PAGE 1

#8

8 / 204



Is the Port of SD and the Convention Center lobbyists really trying to sabotage an effort to put the stadium downtown? Why didn't the proposal years ago to rebuild at Qualcomm sit go forward? Did anybody tell you guys today that you are the best? Love the honest, investigative reporting, keep at it!


Yes




Unfortunately, sales tax in CA is already among the highest in the nation; I would support an increase in the TOT and a special tax on all tickets sold to events in the new stadium.


Yes, the City could give land that is basically undeveloped or at best underdeveloped in exchange for increased tax basis property generating both sale and property tax revenues.


PAGE 1

#9

9 / 204





No



Q5: Why or why not would you support a tax hike?Please explain.


Q6: Would you support giving the team land, orletting developers build on Qualcomm Stadium orSports Arena land to help pay for the stadium? Whyor why not?



PAGE 1

#10

10 / 204



nothin


No




The Chargers can pay for a stadium themselves. Let the users pay!


maybe


PAGE 1

#11

11 / 204



Other than football uses


Yes

Q3: Would you support a sales tax hike? Respondent skipped thisquestion



We need first class facilities


Yes as a way to fund the project


PAGE 1

#12

12 / 204



Is the Spanos family prepared to invest any of their own money in any new stadium?


No




No public money for private gain!


Give team land? No! No public money (or property) for private gain. Let developers build on publicly owned property? Yes, as long as the city retains title to the land.


PAGE 1

#13

13 / 204



Does the City have a chance to build a new stadium given the potential financial commitment? Does any level of financial support from the City need 67% voter approval?


Yes




I think the Chargers are a community benefit, we need to keep a pro football team if we want to be a big league city


Yes, trade both sites for a new stadium! I still think Qualcomm is the perfect site for a new football stadium since both Chagers and Aztecs play there. And if letting these sites be developed reduces a City financial committment, that's better than a city wide vote requiring 67% approval, which will probably not happen.


PAGE 1

#14

14 / 204



As close to accurate numbers as can be calculated. 1. Real eco. benefit to city for a Chargers game/season. 2. Same criteria for convention center. Are they actually bis $ engines for the general populace? Not interested in studies sponsored by both of those interests.


No




Would support a hotel-room tax hike if it wasn't controlled by the hotel crowd. No other type tax hike until the pension debt is brought down, significantly.


Possibly yes, on Qualcomm site. Still believe that is the best site for the public. If they build a facility downtown--I'll vote no--they might as well go to Carson. Tired of going downtown for events---it is too damn crowded, hard to access, and excessively expensive for every thing. Trolley goes to the "Q"--put it a new project there...


PAGE 1

#15

15 / 204





No




This primarily benefits the Chargers. If they can finance it themselves in Carson, they should be doing this in San Diego.


This soft support would be easier for me to agree to.


PAGE 1

#16

16 / 204



Why do we want to keep the Chargers when our roads and bridges need repair, our schools are under-funded, tickets are so expensive that the average person can't afford to go to a game, and football itself is being shown to be a violent, major injury-producing activity "played" by a group of unrealistically huge men who earn salaries out of proportion to their contribution to society.


No






I would not support giving the team anything for all the reasons stated above. The Spanos family is wealthy and TV revenues pay them handsomely. Their interest is financial, not San Diego.


PAGE 1

#17

17 / 204



Deeper analysis of the different plans that are starting to bubble up for funding this stadium (in particularly without public money) - the public deserves a fair hearing of the actual options that we may or may not back.


No




The Chargers make enough money. The old argument that "new stadium = economic growth" is questionable at best. The NFL is a league with enough issues (in particular the head trauma crisis) to raise doubts as to whether a purpose-built football stadium is a worthwhile 40-year investment.


Only if the citizens get a share of the franchise, to prevent the Spanos family from threatening us with relocation ever again.


PAGE 1

#18

18 / 204



#1: what are the revenue streams being considered to pay for the stadium

#2: The Chargers keep saying they need a new stadium to compete. Yet according to Forbes, they are making $40 million a year profit, which is tax free. What gives?


Yes




Have to pay for it somehow.


Yes as to Qualcomm. The Chargers are an asset to the city. The real question is what a reasonable price tag.


PAGE 1

#19

19 / 204



I want to know why this is being pitched as just a Chargers issue. Cities the size of San Diego need facilities such as the aging Qualcomm for a myriad of purposes... When you look at it it is used for the Aztecs, Holiday Bowl, Poinsettia Bowl, concerts, large convention gatherings, monster trucks, motor cross, it has an emergency civil defence function like nothing else in central san diego could do, it could house soccer, a huge growing market given our demographics. It is part of our civic infrastructure and is only peripherally about the Chargers. Why is it framed this myopic provincial way?


Yes




Depends on the size and spread. I definitely believe this is a regional county wide issue not just a City issue. San Diego is a major US city, a major tourist destination and not a one horse town.


Yes I would for the reasons in 1 above.


PAGE 1

#20

20 / 204



Has Spanos taken into consideration that San Diegans really don't like driving...especially in LA traffic? If they go, I'm not going to drive to a methane gas-seeping, landfill of wretch to watch the team I grew up cheering for not give a smelly thought about our city.


Yes




I think a tax hike would impact our county's economy less than losing the Chargers.


Yes, the land is already being used as a stadium. Why not rebuild it?


PAGE 1

#21

21 / 204



What is the financial benefit for the City to have an NFL team? In clear, understandable terms, please.


No




I used to enjoy going to games, occasionally. It has become so expensive, and requires so much of a time commitment, that it's not really worth it, especially since it seems that we cannot field a winning team.


NO! Why on earth should we GIVE them anything? (Please reference my first comment.) If we GIVE the Chargers land, then I'd like the CITY to GIVE me the money I need to produce an independent film. I promise to build some really nice, ridiculously expensive clubhouse rooms where corporations can pay outrageous sums in order to view my film in comfort.


PAGE 1

#22

22 / 204



Who are these people who care if Chargers stay in San Diego ??


No




Chargers team is a private business. City assets or money should not be put at risk for a private business venture. City Staff is not qualified to make decisions regarding a private business.


NO. These assetts could be (a) used for public good, or (b) sold so the money could be used for public good.


PAGE 1

#23

23 / 204



Why hasn't the entire County of San Diego been engaged in this discussion. After all, the Charger game attendees are not just from the City of San Diego. I think the options would expand dramatically with an "all county" consideration.


No




The Spanos family business has made its money by putting together groups of financial investors to build large projects. This is what they DO! They should do it now. We'll supply the customer base...they should supply the investment money.


If they can develop otherwise neglected property that would benefit the City/County, sure! "Giving" should not be in the cards, though. Some tax consideration might work if it pencils out as a net financial positive for the City/County. The land should be truly "neglected", that is, previously developed and now derelict..NOT undeveloped land that currently contributes to the total environmental sustainability of an otherwise urbanized area.


PAGE 1

#24

24 / 204



What do people REALLY think? Do they really care if the stadium is going or staying.. and no wishy wash answers- I want to know what Donna Frye thinks? And, what does Pam Slater-Price think? And, Ron Roberts? (not currently elected or, in Ron's case, term about to end, so no political fall-out in answering, though you never know what plans are next).. ask people like that- involved, invested, knowledgeable, but may give a straight answer... And, what are the predictions? How long will professional football be around? Are parents keeping kids out of high school football due to injury so is the pool of great players shrinking? It may take a generation or two to hit but this may be a truly dying sport- factoring in the whole concussion worries, etc.


No




Would the tax hike under #2 be just for property owners? Or based on income? Per household? Per resident? Inside City of SD only? Sales taxes are regressive, so no sales tax increase.


Why do we have to "give" them the land? Letting them build on a parcel achieves the same thing without giving them cash at the end of the contract term.


PAGE 1

#25

25 / 204



Any way in which taxpayer funds will be tapped for this thing.


No




I used to live in Seattle and first watched the Seahawks get a stadium, and then the Mariner's get their way as well. Finally, we voters had had enough and passed a ballot measure--no more public funds for these professional sports teams. It caused the Sonics to bolt for OKC, but at least funds were preserved for useful public services.

San Diego has horrible roads (I have to get my car aligned every few months), lousy old libraries, a falling apart city hall, poor public transit, bad sewer treatment and storm water systems, and a drought to contend with. A convention center expansion--which would actually boost our economy unlike this stadium--has no funding plan. We we can't keep increasing our already already high state and local tax burden to fund things we actually need as a public service if we've devoted potential new revenues to funding a private business.

I love having the chargers in San Diego. But I would much rather spend $800 million of new tax revenue on infrastructure improvements which will make the city better for everyone, not just people who are interested in or can afford the money to go see one the NFL's EIGHT home games a season. This should be the job of our elected officials, not falling all over themselves to provide subsidies for football.


Absolutely not. In a place where the land beneath our feet is some of the most valuable in the country why on earth would we just give it away to a private company? This should be illegal if it isn't already. We have a dearth of developable land here and it should be used either for a public purpose or be sold if no longer needed with the funds being used for public improvements everyone benefits from.


PAGE 1

#26

26 / 204



Nothing - I already know what I need to know.


No


Q4: Would you support a hotel-room tax hike? Respondent skipped thisquestion


No other businesses seem to need a gigantic public subsidy to build their workplace, especially when their owners are wealthy.


It can't be a blank check - the development needs to make sense aside from the stadium.


PAGE 1

#27

27 / 204





No




I don't support football




PAGE 1

#28

28 / 204





No




Tax dollars should not be used to help billionaire football team owners make even more money than they already have.


Yes, so long as no taxpayer dollars are used to help pay for the effort.


PAGE 1

#29

29 / 204



Paint a picture (economic, land-use, ego, etc.) of what the city would look like with a possible stadium deal, and one without the Chargers. Point out the specific differences... the amount of debt the city would have, the tax rates, the economic differences due to different uses of the land, the different feel of the city, maybe more focused on surfing, skateboarding, and deep rooted SoCal sports.


No




There are some Charges fans who would like the entire city (including non-fans) to pay for something that only they appreciate, when it is not in the financial interest of non-fans to do so.


No, giving land is the same as giving money. Selling the land would provide funds for the city so that we could invest that in infrastructure.


PAGE 1

#30

30 / 204



The Urban Planning aspect, engaging the people of San Diego in the surrounding community as well as the environment and creating an economic model that works for the people of San Diego. In my opinion, this approach is not even being discussed. The experienced visionaries are not seating at the table. A very missed opportunity in my opinion.


No




The NFL has a goal of making $25 billion by 2025 as a non-profit, the Chargers in 1 of their franchises. They are greedy and this is extorsion.


I think a collaborative solution is available for a social equity developer that is not greedy. The City of San Diego and the people own these valuable assets and in no way should we give anything away. Rightfully so, we should collaboratively build the next generation of communities and lease the stadium to those who want to use it for an economic model that is both profitable and fair to the city and the taxpayers.


PAGE 1

#31

31 / 204



The cost benefit analysis, in detail with the impact analysis of local universities, loss of bowl games etc.


Yes




My answers yes above are relative to a logical cost benefit analysis


Historically the city does not manage their properties well (mean make as much money as they should. So giving land versus a tax hike is good. Especially if it is the contaminated Qualcom land with no clean up responsibilities (a prior Chargers proposal). But a tax hike and giving them land seems excessive.


PAGE 1

#32

32 / 204



How much taxpayer support does Oakland and St. Louis have for building a new stadium? How much money did SD taxpayers pay for the last round of stadium building/expansion? Is there a connection between Faulkner's campaign donations and Spanos-related organizations?


No




The benefits of these taxes do not outweigh the costs to me. The hotel tax increase do not affect me directly but will reduce SD tourism revenue.


Do not support giving away land for free. Land is all the wealth we have here in SD. Will support the Chargers develop their own sites to help pay for the stadium, but they have to follow normal procedures and pay the city linkage fees and pay market value for the land.


PAGE 1

#33

33 / 204



Nothing - I couldn't care less about football or the stadium, and am totally opposed to taxpayer funding for any of it.


No




1) I think football is barbaric. 2) The owners should pay for it.


See above.


PAGE 1

#34

34 / 204



How much is the Spanos family and the NFL putting into the $1.7 billion project? Why can they finance the joint stadium in Carson with private funds but not here?


No




The cost of the stadium is a poor investment for so many reasons. 1. It is ridiculous to spend this kind of money on something that will realistically be used maybe 15-16 times a year. 2. Convention goers will not walk several blocks to a cock-eyed venue. 3. The site will make Downtown life miserable on game days. New trolleys will not be able to be added because they block the intersections creating a gridlock.


Let them use current Qualcomm Stadium site, if any. Sports Arena would require a trolley extension costing millions for just a few game days. A very bad return on investment for the city any way you look at it.

Why do we think taxpayers should subsidize a hugely profitable entity for a minimal return to the community? Let them pay or let them go.


PAGE 1

#35

35 / 204



The public should know the full cost of the Chargers to the City. That is, what it costs to maintain the stadium, exactly how much revenue we really get from the Chargers, what would be the annual debt service and who would pay it, what City services are we providing to the Chargers and how much are we really getting reimbursed from the Chargers.


No




I would support a TOT tax hike, but not to support the Chargers. The City already uses $10M in TOT monies to support the stadium annually. That money could be used for Mission Bay, Balboa Park, etc., which is used both by tourist and taxpayers.


No. The ownership of a football team is a money making business enterprise for the owner of the team. The City doesn't make any money off the Chargers. The Chargers don't fully pay for the City services provided to the Chargers, i.e. police services. Let Spanos get investors and let them pay for land and the building of the stadium, just like any other business enterprise. Or let the NFL contribute to the project.


PAGE 1

#36

36 / 204



Why can't the NFL pay for their own stupid stadium?


No




The NFL -- which already skirts all sorts of taxes by being a nonprofit and would certainly profit from a new stadium -- can more than afford it without having to strong-arm the city into helping pay for it. Sure, the city benefits from a new stadium, but it also benefits from any new business. I think every municipality in the U.S. should agree to put their collective foot down and stop financing what is, in essence, a giant corporate entertainment beast. Our tax dollars have better uses.


I don't believe taxpayers should give any sort of benefits to sports teams. There are far better places for our tax dollars to go than to help a rich conglomerate. Other businesses finance their own establishments. Why can't sports teams?


PAGE 1

#37

37 / 204



Chargers say they've been asking for a new stadium for over a decade. But what about the $100 million or so we spent renovating the stadium in the late 1990s. Wasn't that supposed to keep them here til 2023?t


No




Billionaire sports team owners do not need public subsidies.


No subsidy to a billionaire sports team owners is acceptable.


PAGE 1

#38

38 / 204



Sorry, but I'm not sympathetic.


No




Not interested in having a new stadium!


If a developer wants to rebuild Qualcomm, OK. If they're building something else to pay for a new stadium somewhere else, I want to know what it is.


PAGE 1

#39

39 / 204



what is the publics financial support to be


No




chargers are a privet for profit buisness


no


PAGE 1

#40

40 / 204



Subsidies from public funds that would be used to keep the Chargers in San Diego and/or otherwise support the franchise.


No




I do not believe that the Chargers' presence in San Diego contributes significantly to the quality of life here. At best they're a form of amusement, at times, for some people during a very limited calendar window. I think they are overestimating how important they are, and how much fans would be willing to sacrifice in order to keep them here. As VOSD has pointed out, the team and indeed the NFL if not the entire pro sports industry rests on manipulating fan emotions of loyalty which the pro teams do not in the least reciprocate. They're a business, pure and simple, and I don't believe the product they're offering is worth either the ticket prices, the exorbitant cable TV prices (ESPN, etc), or -- certainly --any form of public subsidy.


See above. The team may be, or could be, a plus for certain businesses in town. But that's almost always the case for any enterprise. In general, though, I don't think the overall quality of life here is improved much at all by having a pro football team. If they don't cost us much, fine -- they can stay. That would be true of any self-sustaining business. If, with all their money, they can't sustain themselves without a tantrum aimed at extracting public welfare support, then I think they should go somewhere where fan loyalty trumps good sense.


PAGE 1

#41

41 / 204



Has the city undertaken any land & development appraisals for the sports arena and Qualcomm stadium properties? I believe the Chargers did suggest selling those properties to fund a stadium in lieu of a "tax" which was laughable but they did bring up a point about the use of those properties. In short, has there been a "best use" analysis undertaken for those properties with vast parking lots? Has the city explored the idea of leasing part of the Q site to SDSU as an annex campus? If the Chargers leave, SDSU football and the bowl games (Holiday and Poinsettia) are presumably toast? Is there thought to a scaled down, low frills 35,000 seat stadium that SDSU and (hopefully) an MLS team could use while developing the rest of the property? Any additional info on the clean up at the Q property and who is paying for that?


No




No tax support. There is no credible data to support any notion that taxpayers get a material ROI on funds earmarked for stadium development.


"Giving"? No. Now, is there a scenario where the city could lease the team or a Spanos investment group part of the Q or sports arena properties at a nominal rate and confer development rights whereby funds could be generated to construct a new stadium? Possibly but the devil loves details. What kind of permits, fees, and taxes could the city collect from sub-lessees? Would the development generate enough $ to pay for the development, stadium, and give enough of a ROI to any investment group? Who pays for the Qualcomm stadium site cleanup? Lease would have to be at least 40 years? Thanks for putting this survey together.


PAGE 1

#42

42 / 204



Why the mayor and council have been so clueless for so long, and why the Chargers are taking priority over dire need for infrastructure repair. This is truly incomprehensible!!


No




No way should a tax hike be imposed for an NFL franchise (which itself doesn't pay taxes).


Any monies given should be for needed infrastructure improvement only.


PAGE 1

#43

43 / 204





No




I don't believe orofessional sports enrich our community


Yes, then they will have skin in the game and renovating makes more sense than scrapping the stadium


PAGE 1

#44

44 / 204



I am fine with how discussions are going - however, am totally against it going downtown. Belongs in the Valley and would be an anchor for new development. I fully understand how to negotiate a large business deal and it is going about as I expected it would. Political will, financial wherewithal and public vs private vs NFL monopoly is a good fight to watch.


No




Tax hikes spread out the pain a bit, but need to be non-hotel, in my opinion. I realize I am in the minority on this side of the discussion. I also realize that a goodly number of folks in SD, basically despise the owners of the Chargers - as I am a long-time season ticket holder, I find them to be pretty much bad owners and losers as far as the mgmt side of things. If you get a chance, take a look at the case study in Phoenix done by the mgmt school on how much economic impact a stadium has - it is fairly decent. I posted it on my Facebook a few days ago and on the Facebook PowderBlues page.


Yes, I would trade the land in a fashion that it goes into a holding entity of some sort - ala, The Port District set-up with a separate administrative body of some kind to manage the entity. I would want to keep the land that the physical stadium rests on in control of that entity and then incentivise the Spanos crew with maybe 10-15 acres to develop


PAGE 1

#45

45 / 204



Why the push for a downtown stadium? I think Mission Valley is much more practical. I hate the idea of a downtown stadium that would impact on port jobs, for example.


No




The city has urgent infrastructure needs, including repairs and mass transit. First things first.


Yes. I think the stadium should be built at Qualcomm. I'd be fine with the city donating land for it.


PAGE 1

#46

46 / 204



What exactly is wrong with the current stadium? Not a general answer. I want details. It has parking. It has public transportation. It has plenty of seats. It has good weather.


No




If it can't be self supporting through a good business plan then forget it.


They can lease QUALCOMM land.


PAGE 1

#47

47 / 204





No




1. Our city/region has lots of problems and scarce resources to deal with them. I can think of a dozen better uses for $500+ million in public assets than subsidizing a billionaire's private business. 2. There is now ample evidence from the last ~20 years showing that publicly subsidized stadiums end up being huge money losers for the public. The promised increases in economic activity and tax revenues don't even come close to the value of the subsidies handed out.


NO! From a financial perspective, selling city land and giving away the revenue to fund a stadium is no different than just handing out money from the General Fund. The City and its taxpayers still end up the losers.


PAGE 1

#48

48 / 204



It appears from the research that having an NFL team does not bring money into the community what is the real cost/benefit to having a team? Why should the city pay for the owners of the team to make a profit while the city can't afford monies for community infrastructure and adequate policing of housing violations.


No




I don't believe anyone has shown that there is any return on investment for a city to financially support an NFL team. I'd rather put the funds into critical infrastructure to improve roads, neighborhoods, code enforcement.


It's not clear to me the cost/benefit of doing so. I look forward to VOSD investigating these options.


PAGE 1

#49

49 / 204



Did the local pols REALLY not know anything about the Chargers/Raiders 9-month effort on Carson?


No




Private profit-making organizations like the Chargers and the NFL can full well afford to pay for their own facilities.


Yes


PAGE 1

#50

50 / 204



What does academic research--not paid consultants--tell us about the value of a stadium to a city?


No




My impression from having scanned the academic literature is that this is a subsidy to billionaires with little or no net benefit to ordinary taxpayers. If I am wrong about that, I'll change my position. There are so many unmet needs in the city, e.g. infrastructure, why should we raise taxes for something that benefit absentee billionaires and the few thousands of people who can afford to attend the games? More to the point, why should the city support the 1% with subsidies? Isn't that part of the story of increasing inequality in America?


No and depends. Giving land is like giving money--it is no different in financial terms. If they build on city owned land, then they should pay rent. At fair market prices.


PAGE 1

#51

51 / 204





No




The Chargers are a losing team.


I might support letting developers build on Qaulcomm if it was a good deal for the city.


PAGE 1

#52

52 / 204



Why it is so important that a pro football team remain in San Diego. Based upon the current "deal" it seems that keeping the team here is a net financial lose for the City.


No




There are many, many other necessary uses for any funds that would be raised through a new tax or any allotment of city revenues, e.g. road repairs, city facilities, improved safety services.


If a fair price was paid to the City. The Chargers are a business, like many other businesses. The only employment created, other than the players and some administrative staff, are low-level service jobs.


PAGE 1

#53

53 / 204



Why does a private company (The Chargers ) expect the public to provide their place of business?


No




Private businesses are not supported by tax payers. How many of Qualcomm's buildings have been given to them (Qualcomm's stockholders) by the City or County?


Land owned by the government (aka taxpayers) could be leased to private companies for commercial uses at the prevailing leasing rate for like property.


PAGE 1

#54

54 / 204



Does question 2 refer to a property tax, or...?


No




Not for the stadium, but I would support a hotel tax for the convention center expansion. People keep saying the previous CC tax was an illegal tax; it was NOT. It was the method of approval that was illegal. Put a hotel tax on the ballot and 2/3 will approve, because it does not hit San Diego taxpayers, except those that stay at the hotel for some reason.


Yes if there were parking garages surrounding the current or new stadium in Mission Valley and if a sports arena was included in a sports complex downtown, which could serve as a concert venue for the Convention Center.


PAGE 1

#55

55 / 204



Are the Chargers a "community asset?" I'd like to see an exploration into the ways the team gives back to the community or supports people/places in the community, or doesn't. This could be the ownership personally, the corporate entity, and the players. What does the NFL do for the community in San Diego, if anything? What boards does the ownership sit on locally? How much money do they donate? What kind of time commitments do the owners or staff or players have off the field? How much money have they all raised for various causes? What do other philanthropists think of the team's position as a community asset? How does the Chargers community involvement compare to other NFL teams. It's probably not a perfect comparison, but I'm thinking of Tony Gwynn and the Padres. You see Padres at Little League fields across the county, as sponsors and supporters. Kids can run the bases at games. The local Hall of Champions is always on the field with one standout junior athlete or another before a game. Their commitment to military families is evident at many dedicated games and events throughout the year. The Gwynn Family was involved in many charities and organizations, and was/is inextricably intertwined with the local community. If you go way back to the Kroc ownership, that family has donated and supported so much in San Diego, during and after their involvement with the team. Do the Chargers have anything close to this kind of commitment to our city?


No








PAGE 1

#56

56 / 204



Chargers finances and relocation fees if they were to move elsewhere.


No




Private business should pay its own way.


Would not support giving land, but would support developers building on Qualcomm or Sports Arena if those space were underutilized.


PAGE 1

#57

57 / 204



what else could be done with the money the Chargers want San Diegans to invest in a stadium, including revenue and non-revenue generating options?


No




there are more pressing priorities for our community


no


PAGE 1

#58

58 / 204



city financial contribution.... and full impact of city site (cut off views, traffic, parking


No




This really is not in the public interest... used only a few days a year. To be honest some of the team owners are so rich they could write a check and build it themselves it appears. If city pays city should get part ownership or at least part of proceeds.


Why do sports teams get hand outs most others don't? The research I've read suggests that expensive sports venues do not benefit city treasury. If we build a new one it will be outdated in a few years and they'll want more. Most I'd go for is improving Qualcom.... totally opposed to a new site.


PAGE 1

#59

59 / 204



How will it be paid for and what will be the benefits afterwards


No




Taxes are for things that directly help/benefit the public. Subsidy for a profit-making private enterprise is not right.


No. City assets are owned by the people and are not to be gifted to private concerns. If assets are to be sold he proceeds should go to more urgent needs such as infrastructure repair, public safety, parks, beaches, etc.


PAGE 1

#60

60 / 204



The assertion I've heard that the team is worth $1B in S.D. and $2.5B in L.A. If so, wouldn't that "equity boost" mean the L.A. City should be charging teams to relocate there?


No




Concerns about the long-term viability of the NFL, believe it less important to have an NFL team to be a top-tier city. Think we can better spend the dollars elsewhere if we are seeking civic pride, competitive positioning, etc.


I would be very reluctant. The City has proven itself an awful negotiator on real estate transactions, and I don't trust that they have the staff nor expertise to negotiate a fair deal.


PAGE 1

#61

61 / 204



impossible to renovate Qualcomm?


No




have we talked to Santa Clara as to how they did it?




PAGE 1

#62

62 / 204



Location and financing.


No




The NFL is a multi-billion dollar industry.


Only if it did not adversely impact the finances of the city and its taxpayers.


PAGE 1

#63

63 / 204



Did they purchase the land in Carson or sign a purchase agreement? Status of sale? Role of Raiders in it?


Yes




I think the Chargers are an unusual asset. Irreplaceable. When cos. consider moving here, they are a draw. Adds heft to the city. Don't like it, don't want to give money to rich guys.


Yes


PAGE 1

#64

64 / 204



what are the benefits to tax payers who are not sports fans?


No




I do not see any clear gains for tax payers.


no. Again, I do not see any clear gains for tax payers.


PAGE 1

#65

65 / 204



Who is saying what and who is being asked to pay what


No




Why should we give money to the Spanos family?


Yes as long as city holds title and Spanos does not get richer


PAGE 1

#66

66 / 204



What contributions the Chargers are proposing to provide in order to make a deal work, and what concessions the tax payers will have to make to keep a football team in San Diego.


No




If the Chargers are willing to finance the LA stadium deal even with a second team, then why wouldn't we hold them to the same committment in San Diego? A tax hike is not needed.


Yes, I think this would be a reasonable compromise rather than a tax increase. Qualcomm is already earmarked for this type of use, so admitedly not knowing all of the land rights issues it appears this would be a reasonable contribution from the City. Even if they sold the Qualcomm stadium or Sports Arena land to developers and use the money on other property.


PAGE 1

#67

67 / 204



Are really any hard-facts numbers available re Stadium cost/profits to the City of San Diego. Those I've seen appear to be guesses or wishful thinking.


No




Taxes should be used for basic services such as roads and operational costs directly, not promotions.


No, no, and no. Football is a business, and a lucrative one one at that. Owner/operators should pay ALL their costs, just as I do for my business.


PAGE 1

#68

68 / 204



Are there any options for providing public financing that would not require 2/3 voter approval? Types of bonding, Joint Powers Authority with the County, etc.


No




City' s unfounded liability for infrastructure is much more important.


Yes. This type of subsidy would not impact city's general fund.


PAGE 1

#69

69 / 204





No




With the money the Chargers make they can pay for a new stadium.


No. I watch sports, but I don't feel cities should be held hostage by rich owners.


PAGE 1

#70

70 / 204



Why the NFL and/or Chargers insist on public financing for their private gain.


No




Very tired of the whole issue. The public does not need to be building the NFL a new stadium.


No. There are better things to do with any revenue generated by such actions.


PAGE 1

#71

71 / 204



Will the Spanos family put up the money for a new stadium in SD as they proposed for Carson?


No




I hope the Chargers leave and get out of our hair!


No.--I hope they move to Carson. The diehard Charger fans can then drive up the I-5 to see them.,


PAGE 1

#72

72 / 204



Why can't spanos and some of his cronies fund the stadium in San Diego.


No




We have enough tax


Qualcomm stadium


PAGE 1

#73

73 / 204



What tactics could the Chargers and supporters take to get public money to build a stadium w/o 2/3 vote of registered voters? [In #2 below, I assume you mean property tax.]


No




Just drive on SD's streets - They are better in Uganda. Then think of what's hidden underground that needs fixing/updating. Our infrastructure is abysmal.


City (public) land can be rented/leased if the tenant pays a fair rent. Why should the average citizen subsidize rich owners to make them richer. What is the cost benefit analysis for the average Joe who is not a football fan?


PAGE 1

#74

74 / 204



Other stadiums have been built in recent years-- what impact have they had on their cities? For only eight games a year, what is our return on investment?


No




Because we should not have to pay for private sports teams.


Yes-- since the land is already set aside for stadiums, there would not be additional impact on those areas.


PAGE 1

#75

75 / 204



When are the Chargers leaving. It is all about bottom line and obviously the bottom line is much bigger in LA. Done deal.


No




Would support a tax hike for San Diego -- but not the Chargers. Too many local infrastructure needs.Same on hotel tax hike - but not for Chargers


No. Should not give San Diego assets (money or real estate) to millionaire team owners. Wayne Raffesberger has the right idea - redevelop the stadium land -- for San Diego, not Spanos.


PAGE 1

#76

76 / 204



How much is still owed by the city on the remodel done in 1997? What is the Chargers financial penalty if they move in 2016? What are the current annual maintenance costs and who pays them?


No




Not a Chargers' fan. I don't care if they leave.


Yes but only if it's part of a package that has the city paying no more than we now pay to support the team. Like Fabiani says, "no halfbaked measures"; we need a clean deal that explains all the cash flows.


PAGE 1

#77

77 / 204



Who pays and who benefits?


No




For what benefit to non-fans?


Let them pay for their investment.


PAGE 1

#78

78 / 204



What money is influencing any decision?


No




I am NOT interested in football. How about soccer? Do any tax dollars go to the ARTS - theater in particular?


Traffic is already gruesome in those areas. We DO NEED affordable housing/transit, however. Keep me posted.


PAGE 1

#79

79 / 204



I would like to see an explainer on the current stadium history, the original payment scheme, and the re-negotiated payment thing Scott Lewis has alluded to


No




I believe that the City's core services should be dedicated to infrastructure, public safety, and neighborhood issues like re-development/zoning and the updates to our community plan. I'd like to see them invest in different sectors of the economy if we're going to do a public investment that benefits a for-profit entity. Subsidizing a stadium for the Chargers benefits the team, its owners, and ultimately a low-wage sector. This isn't conducive to a better life for the majority of San Diegans.


In a limited sense yes. There is so much cost to the redevelopment at Qualcomm, that I could see some benefit to having an updated stadium there, plus giving away some land for mixed use and innovative development on part of that land in Mission Valley.


PAGE 1

#80

80 / 204



potential City of San Diego tax burden


No




over my dead body


sure, as long as there's no cost to City taxpayers.


PAGE 1

#81

81 / 204



Why taxpayers should pay private investors to build a stadium. I would like to know exactly how it would benefit San Diego to spend the money on a stadium vs. other necessary projects. Details please, not general promises.


No




We need so many other things in San Diego that I would support a tax hike for - infrastructure, schools, etc. Why subsidize the rich to become richer?


Why subsidize the rich to make money off of a sport that is unhealthy and luckily only happens 16 times a year? Why can't people who enjoy that sport pay for it? Why is that a public good?


PAGE 1

#82

82 / 204



Will Chargers pay rent on OUR new stadium?


Yes




We spend millions on parks, open space other non revenue entities... Why not a stadium?


Yes. Build new stadium next to Qualcomm then tear down the Q just like they did in Denver.


PAGE 1

#83

83 / 204



Building the Carson stadium on an inactive toxic landfill? Really! How about the inevitable escape of flammable methane gases, more toxic than CO2. The city of San Diego manages inactive landfills. Might be worth a call the the landfill engineers to see why the city largely does not allow building on old landfill sites.


No




Hotel room tax is paid by visitors.


Spanos, not taxpayers, should pay for it all with no land giveaways. Kroenke can do it; why not Spanos?


PAGE 1

#84

84 / 204



1. I believe your reporting indicated that no subsidy/bonds would be required from the City of Carson. Why is that not true in San Diego? 2. Why shouldn't the NFL lose its protected tax status ? Why are they different from other industries.


No




We have more pressing issues - infrastructure, transportation, housing, etc. The stadium serves a small constituency of sports fans. Someone will have to explain why I need to pay more to help multi-millionaire owners. LA has not died economically despite being without an NFL team for decades. The economic benefit is not convincing.


If you mean as places to build a stadium...Sports Arena area is already too congested. Qualcomm maybe...has trolley and decent freeway access. A stadium downtown that sits empty most of the year is not a great idea. Giving them land? Only if revenue sharing. If they can buy the land in Carson, why do we have to "give" the Spanos anything. We're being "played" and extorted.


PAGE 1

#85

85 / 204





Yes




Good for the community


SureIf it's the only way to get it doneBut I would have the land revert back to city in 50 years


PAGE 1

#86

86 / 204



Nothing.


No




I don't believe that billionaires need charity.


No. See #5.


PAGE 1

#87

87 / 204



What can I do to get the Chargers to leave so that our city gov't can attend to important things: infrastructure and pension plan repair.


No




The taxpayers should never pay to support an entertainment industry owned by rich people..


No. There should be no subsidies for the team.


PAGE 1

#88

88 / 204



Why we are giving a billionaire anything?


No




The NFL pays no tax. Why give them anything? Why not be the first city in the US with common sense and send them packing. We need better roads and infrastructure repairs.


No because we should not give business organizations that are wild profitable tax payers assistance


PAGE 1

#89

89 / 204



If (when) they move, will the Chargers and Raiders remain division rivals or will one of them switch. If one switches, which one would it be and where would they go?


No




1) The net economic benefit of building a stadium is negative.2) The Chargers are a mediocre teams so it's no great loss if they leave.3) Should we actually build Spanos a stadium, history suggests it will be less than 10 years before he comes demanding more concessions.


No. See 5.

It's a net positive is Spanos leaves. I'll help him pack. Seriously.


PAGE 1

#90

90 / 204



Not much.


No




City of San Diego is facing $2B shortfall in pension support obligations which have NOT been funded. Infrastructure needs are anywhere between $1.2B and $4B leaving approx. $4 to $6B in expenses over the next several years, and why in the world should the citizens of San Diego support tax increases for a private enterprise like an NFL team which makes billions of dollars?


The whole notion is absurd when you consider that there would be many other groups that would gladly pay taxes on that land. Why should we subsidize the Chargers?


PAGE 1

#91

91 / 204



How many games are played per year?

8?

Is it worth a new stadium for that?


No




The Chargers are a private company. Let them raise money themselves via the Stock Market like most other companies do. Holding taxpayers for ransom does not work anymore.


Never give a sports team anything. They should pay for it like everyone else.


PAGE 1

#92

92 / 204



When they're leaving. I do not want Spanos or his team here. Is that clear enough?


No




Not for a stadium. For fixing pot holes or building libraries, yes.


ABSOLUTELY NOT


PAGE 1

#93

93 / 204



Just the basic facts.


No




I would support a tax hike for sidewalks, bike lanes, street trees, and other neighborhood improvements but not to build a stadium for a wealthy NFL team.


Yes to developing Qualcomm site to pay for a stadium...but no land give away and no downtown stadium


PAGE 1

#94

94 / 204



Why don't the Chargers build a stadium themselves? Why do they get the profits and we get the risk? Do they believe in free market capitlism?


No




Because the Chargers are privately owned by the Spanos family. They are a profitable business and should be treated as a business.


Treat them as a business. No land. No money.


PAGE 1

#95

95 / 204



Possible scenarios of funding that do not involve a tax hike just for people who live in the City of San Diego. Would like to see a 30/30/30 split of costs with the NFL/Team/County of San Diego.


No




I could support a tax hike if it was county wide. This is a venue that attracts more than city people. Let's share the expense to the users.


Both Qualcomm and Sports Arena are far better venues than Downtown SD. Do I want to give developers those locations so that the new stadium can be built downtown - no. Do I think that Qualcomm could be rebuilt in to a world class stadium - yes. So can't we redevelop Qualcomm into something that is a stadium and a money making development off-season.


PAGE 1

#96

96 / 204



If anyone proposes a City- or county bond to pay all or part of the stadium, will they fully disclose that public moneys will be paid on the interest- IT is not "no cost to the taxpayer" as they promised in the ballot measure for Petco.


No




The chargers attitude towards the City sucks. The City can use the land in MV to much better use. I also bet if you factor in all the costs the City must pay to maintain the stadium( also handle any lawsuits related to the stadium) that the City loses money on whatever lease deal they currently have.


No. Absolutely not. I Think it is time the Chargers went somewhere else. And if the City plans to sell or develop the land that it get's top dollar for prime real estate.


PAGE 1

#97

97 / 204



I understand that pro football teams cannot be owned by a city (Green Bay being the "grandfathered" exception). So why would the Chargers expect taxpayer assistance?


No




I would support a tax-hike for police or education, but in no way for a professional sports team.


I would support LEASING the land - not giving it to them.


PAGE 1

#98

98 / 204



the SDSU side. They need a stadium too!


No




No money for millionaires


No. If the Chargers want to build a stadium, they should use their own money.


PAGE 1

#99

99 / 204



Who in the city developer-council complex is the power behind the scenes?


No




The Chargers are not an important item for the city.


Development of a retail/office/residential replacement on the Qualcomm Stadium site will make Friar's Road an even bigger traffic jam.


PAGE 1

#100

100 / 204



Just keep the Chargers and the NFL out of our pockets. No sales tax hikes, no any kind of tax related to supporting a sports team that is a business.


No




The Chargers and the NFL are big business. They would like to bill the public for building a new stadium that they could well afford to pay for themselves. Besides NFL franchises have been benefiting from taxpayer largesse to the tune of $4B on subsides for sports structures since 1986, according to Bloomberg News. If you look at the last deal the City of San Diego brokered with the Chargers, the City got screwed royally.


Why should we give a corporation land? Why should we let developers build on Qualcomm Stadium or Sports Arena to help pay for a stadium? What is the benefit to the taxpayer of San Diego, the City of San Diego? There has to be a monetary benefit over the cost to do a deal with the Chargers or any other corporate entity. Sure it would be nice to keep the Chargers in San Diego, but not at a cost to the public. Let Spanos do the "threat dance". My guess is that if the Mayor and the City hold tight for a while longer, Spanos may just back down and come to the table more willing to put more skin in the game than he is willing to do now. Maybe the City could give the franchise discounts on construction fees (?). Any city getting this kind of treatment from a sports franchise should think twice about whether the public should pay scarce taxpayer dollars (in any way) for new stadiums for the already wealthy individuals owning the clubs.


PAGE 1

#101

101 / 204





No




Private profits should be funded privately.


Maybe. A lease to own option could be palatable if done correctly. But it should not be a giveaway.


PAGE 1

#102

102 / 204



how much it will cost the city


No




Why pay for a football team when our roads are bad, our bridges are unsafe, our old city hall needs to be replaced, and the Chargers are bad neighbors.


No. Chargers made city pay for unused seats for persons with disabilities. Why give them anything?


PAGE 1

#103

103 / 204





No




The team is a business. Let it support the stadium as a business.


No, I don't see that as a sound idea or a good use for the proceeds from a land sale.


PAGE 1

#104

104 / 204



What won't get done if we commit tax dollars to building a new stadium? Will the city get any true revenue from a new stadium?Why can't the Chargers commit their dollars to a stadium in San Diego if they want this to be their home?


No




My sidewalks are broken and the city may need to raise taxes to repair infrastructure. You can only raise taxes so much before we can't pay anymore. The city needs to prioritize.


I would support the city deeding land if the NFL paid for the stadium and paid taxes thereafter like any other business.


PAGE 1

#105

105 / 204



Why a substantial renovation or replacement of the existing Qualcomm is not a workable solution.


No




Other proposed civic projects such as an expanded convention center and/or a new city hall should take priority.


No, again any revenue sources generated by land sale or development should be targeted toward other more important civic projects such as the convention center expansion.


PAGE 1

#106

106 / 204



What does the city net from each game, taking into account all expenses and outlays, including maintenance, bond service, security, etc.? I suspect the city loses money every time the Chargers take the field.


No




I support tax hikes for public purposes, but not for a new stadium whose principal purpose is to augment the profits of the owners.


I may support transferring the Qualcomm site if that is the only way, but nothing more. If the Chargers can get a better deal in LA, they should take it.


PAGE 1

#107

107 / 204



the truth about the city finances and the Chargers now


No




We have other city priorities,streets, palm tree trimming on 8, that will benefit everyone not just football fans. Why shoul I have to pay for a stadium I don't care about


No. The team has their own moneySo does the nflLet them pay for itYou'd think this city is just about the ChargersI don't trust any if them


PAGE 1

#108

108 / 204



Why do the Chargers reject renovating Qualcomm?


No




My property taxes are already high, but hotel rooms are a no-brainer. Tourists and conventions wouldn't notice.


Probably yes on any of the 3. I'm a big Chargers fan.


PAGE 1

#109

109 / 204



Is there a way to subsidize it without a vote on higher taxes?


No




Because not worth a big subsidy.


I support a stadium at Qualcomm. If that requires some high density development, that's OK.


PAGE 1

#110

110 / 204



Not much. I find it very discouraging given how much priority the Chargers get from our elected officials vs. the real needs of the City.


No




I'm against giving either the Spanos family or the NFL taxpayer-funded benefits.


We gave away the store downtown to the Padres. Enough!


PAGE 1

#111

111 / 204



I would like to know more about what San Diego is already committed to and why the city is paying for expenses the Chargers originally agreed to cover. Also, we are told that football fans and ticket sales indicate that a football team and stadium is important to establish a positive quality of life for a city. Is this really true for San Diego? I would like to see more discussion that explores other options for this land that may reflect the San Diego vibe and better serve a healthy quality of life for her citizens. There is a population that does not care about football that much, if at all, why should it carry a burden for a fan base that has many members who don't even live in the city? Thanks for the work that you guys are doing! I look forward to reading your investigations and reports.


No




Our hotel tax is already high enough for our visitors! I would rather see the city encouraging visitors rather than treating them as cash cows to pay for a football teams expenses.


No, NO! This is prime land, well, prime land with some big problems in the way of a toxic plume. Give it away? It does seem as though we have been doing that already. Mission Valley has experienced tremendous growth and is underserved with parks and recreation areas that have easy access and continuous flow. Some of the newer bike and walking trails are great, but there are only a few and the road crossings need to be reworked. Before giving this prime land away, I would love to see our city develop a plan that addresses the needs of our many rather than catering to the few.


PAGE 1

#112

112 / 204



More on the current stadium lease


No




For infastructure needs only. Not a stadium. We don't need the Chargers...they need to play somewhere and I'll bet San Diego is their best choice.


No land gifts or grabs. The valley is already too crowded. If the City wants to redevelop that's one thing...why give away public lands when we have so many infastructure needs?


PAGE 1

#113

113 / 204



What the Chargers are willing to give? What the NFL is willing to give? More details on possible financing. What sort of pro/con are you getting from this inquiry. What would be a good deal for the City? How could the County help.


No




I would support a tax hike to catch up on all the infrastructure needs, not for the stadium. They need to be dealt with first. The Chargers and the NFL need to step up.


I think developing Qualcomm land for a new stadium would be okay. I liked the Quigley response in the UT the other week. Somebody suggested a new stadium inside the old one. Intriguing. Though my son late of Chicago said the Bears had a terrible (looking?) stadium there


PAGE 1

#114

114 / 204



Price, financing vehicle,seat license consideration,and location


Yes




Support ONLY if at Mission Valley


yes, Chargers are important to your cities future


PAGE 1

#115

115 / 204



Why does this trump very other San Diego story? Sure "it sells newspapers", but are we really buying the premise that the departure of the Chargers will render us a failed city, or that keeping them will insure that we remain "America's Finest"? Ridiculous, for the great majority of us life will go on if they seek greener pastures in Carson, and we'll still be only mildly engaged fans if they stay. Fortunately, we have real lives that entail lots of other demands and diversions.


No




Stadiums are bad investments. If I'm going to pay more taxes, I'd like it to go toward something that will really benefit our city like improving Balboa Park -- an asset that is truly unique to San Diego.


Maybe. But it won't be enough for Spanos. The core problem, which probably can't be solved, is that the team "needs" a big public subsidy because the market won't purchase tons of PSL's and the sponsorship number is not huge; however, the public is disinterested in providing this support. Look at the poll numbers.


PAGE 1

#116

116 / 204



Financial Information. The Chargers say they will be at a financial disadvantage but they have never shown their"books" With revenue sharing and a salary cap how are they at a disadvantage. Needs questioning and explaining. Fixed costs vs profits for the owners and NFLtax exampt status. Also what yearly cost, including credits from the city, are related to the stadium. Who controls what? parking security at games etc.


No




The city is full of dedicated funds. This would just add a dedicated source without real financial controls. The politicians and city staff (some) have shown they are unable to properly manage tax sources. Especially politicians.


Yes,. Why do they say the stadium in Carson can be built without public tax monies. Run the figures on PSLs. Just don't work out to the millions they claim.Give property and let them arrange financing at their cost and own the facility.


PAGE 1

#117

117 / 204



the cost to the public, period.


No




let's spend our tax money on programs to improve city needs for the underserved, needy, and infrastructure not some billionaire's plaything.


probably not; why should WE give THEM something, between Spanos & the NFL they're drowning in dough, we're drowning in unmet needs


PAGE 1

#118

118 / 204



what are the economics of building on the current location? City gets $0 today, what is tax revenue benefit of giving land to Chargers for private development vs. benefit of land sale + tax revenue to non-Chargers developer?


No




the City has not proven they can manage existing tax revenues, pensions, etc...in a responsible manner. if someone can demonstrate increased tax revenue and services to city from new stadium would exceed cost of tax hike, I'm interested.


yes, I think this $ zero out of pocket approach is the only viable solution. there are definitely long-term property tax revenue benefits. my understanding is Qualcomm generates no revenue for the city today, so new development on that site "should" be a net benefit in tax revenue + any additional benefit of super bowl money.


PAGE 1

#119

119 / 204



Because of the Chargers seemingly demand that a joint use facility with an expanded convention center seems to be non-negotiable, will that prevent the task force from truly being objective or will they be there to figure out how to get a 2/3rds vote for the project


No




Stadiums are notorious money losers and they take up a lot of space. Owners should pay for them with their own money. If an owner has a team in a so-called small market, then he should bring on private partners to help fund new facilities.


No. That is city property and any money raised from that property should go to the city, not to owners of sports franchises.


PAGE 1

#120

120 / 204



I'd like to know more details about the Carson deal. Are the Chargers already committed to purchase it, regardless if they move there or not? Also, let's look at different ways how the financing plays out - we're seeing numbers like $1.6 billion, but let's break it down - what would be the actual amount San Diego city/county would be paying each year, and what would be the actual benefits rec'd for those dollars?

I'd also like to see an analysis of the worth of the Spanos family compared to other NFL team owners. It's reported they're one of the "poorer" ones, but by what stretch? Even with a new stadium here, can they afford to put a competitive product on the field in the future?


Yes




I'd support a modest hotel room tax hike, since the rate in San Diego is quite a bit lower than in other major California cities.

The reason? I see the benefits of having professional sports in town, but I don't want to break the bank giving money to the NFL, which rakes in billions. I also detest their methods of playing one city against another to get cash-strapped municipalities to build newer and bigger stadiums that cater principally to the NFL.

If we have a sales tax hike, it's got to be for our infrastructure or more police officers, not a stadium to please the NFL.


Yes, but there better be a huge upside for the people of San Diego. As a fan, The Q isn't bad, but the Sports Arena is a dump.


PAGE 1

#121

121 / 204



I don't think that I need to know anything more about the Stadium discussion. The millonaire owners of the two sports teams involved have already purchased the land uo north.


No




I don't believe that public monies should be used to make millionaires richer. Sports team owners are millionaires.


See the response to number 5. above.


PAGE 1

#122

122 / 204



Why isn't the county included? Why has it taken a direct threat by the Chargers to get SD politicians off their asses? Why does it take a 66% vote?


Yes




I want SD to be considered a "major" city in the USA and losing the team will negate that.


I'm not sure. I'd want to view each proposal first.


PAGE 1

#123

123 / 204



Cost of the practice field complex yearly opperations vs rent.A clear breakdown of anticipated seat lic., ad revenue, ticket sales for San Diego vs Los Angeles market.Transit Occupancy Tax revenue and its uses plus potential as funding source.


No




I would support a modest 0.5-0.75% increase for 3-7 years to pay for missing citywide infrastructure...sewer, water, stormwater, sidewalks, street lights, bike lanes, park acreage purchase, and road repair.


No, The City should be a benificiary of new development at Qualcomm Stadium and Sports Arena. The City should lead on rapidly compelling the cleanup of the hazardous plums below the Qualcomm site and lead on the San Diego River restoration.

SDSU, USD, and UCSD should develop a 30,000 seat "University" football stadium and develop the remainder of the Qualcomm site as a SDSU village and market rate commercial, office, and residential village. The site should include a large river park, Pedestrian and bicycle crossing of the river and explore the potential of an elementary school.


PAGE 1

#124

124 / 204



Will our elected leaders promise no public funding to retain the Chargers?l


No




Chargers are a private entity owned by wealthy people. They should be self0sufficient. Studies have shown that public funding of new stadiums does not sufficiently reward the taxpayers.


Perhaps -= the stadium is a reality whether used by the Chargers or SD State. Quid pro quo would be realease of current City obligations to the Chargers.


PAGE 1

#125

125 / 204



Frankly, I'm not highly interested but we all need to know what deals may be struck.


No




I would support a tax hike for infrastructure repair, not for a sports team. I'm not sure about a hotel room tax hike, I'd need to know how we compare to other cities.


Possibly. I'd need to be convinced that the city as a whole benefits from having a stadium and would be worse off without a home team.


PAGE 1

#126

126 / 204



How "real" of a proposal is this?


No




I know that the state of Nebraska added a minimal sales tax to support sports at the University of Nebraska, and the facilities and program there are wonderful. Seems to me, San Diego could do the same.


The stadium or sports arena areas seems like reasonable places to me. I am not a season ticket holder, but do enjoy going to Charger games, now and then.


PAGE 1

#127

127 / 204



Why we need to keep the Chargers when we cannot eve fix our own infrastructure


No




Stadiums do not bring sufficient revenue to the city/county to offset the assistance we would give.


No. This land needs to go back to the public and either be used for city/county offices or other things for which we are now leasing private offices and buildings.


PAGE 1

#128

128 / 204



A number of studies suggest that a professional sports stadium isn't nearly the economic boon to a city that its supporters represent it to be, & that cultural institutions like the opera & art museums produce a higher ROI on tax dollars.I'd sure like to see your reporters dig up those studies & do a compare & contrast.


No




NFL teams are owned by billionaires who can afford to build their own stadia. I can think of about three dozen needs in San Diego that I'd rather see money go to.


Same standard: no giveaways, no tax dollars. Let the owners pay for their stadium.


PAGE 1

#129

129 / 204



How much public money do the Bolts want?


No




I'd support a hotel room tax because it would put the burden on visitors, not residents, and it would not be a deterent to visiting San Diego. Potential visitors would not stay away because of it.


I wouldn't give land to them but I'd let them build on the current stadium site with the rights to develop the portion of the land not in the new stadium footprint. But make them pay for the environmental cleanup underneath the parking lot. Let them finance their new facility with hotel room tax $, those development rights on the current land, and the inevitable PSL's that they will sell to season ticket holders. Face it, no matter what there will be PSL's!


PAGE 1

#130

130 / 204



No, let the Chargers pack and move tomorrow.


No




The NFL and the owners can pay for their own venue. The value to the city as a whole is not as much as it is to the users.


No


PAGE 1

#131

131 / 204



Everything.


No




Use taxes for what is really needed by everyone.


See item #5. Public land and these buildings are not for sale.


PAGE 1

#132

132 / 204



When will it end?


No




Football is dangerous.


Nothing for free.


PAGE 1

#133

133 / 204



What the total cost over multiple years for implementation of each proposed plan will be to San Diego city taxpayers. What are the uncertainties and the for sure knowns.


No




The entire cost of any proposed stadium build and all operating costs for the for-profit business known as the San Diego Chargers should be the entire responsibility of that business. No public funding should be provided that is not also available to any other San Diego-based business.


No. The for-profit business known as the San Diego Chargers should purchase any necessary land at market rates. They then can do whatever the zoning allows for that land.


PAGE 1

#134

134 / 204



Financial pros/cons re such an investment.What I understand so far is that there is not a real financial benefit to the city.


No




I am 5yrs in SD. I really feel the fervor of the residents who support Chargers even when they lose. I think the Chargers org. thinks those will drive to Carson. I do feel the behind the scenes Chargers activity is a slap to us. I am not a football fan but I feel the community fervor.


I would need to know more about it. As I said from what I have read major investment in stadiums has not paid off for cities.


PAGE 1

#135

135 / 204



Is there any information about the actual economic benefit or economic drain that the Chargers currently engender? It's helpful to read about national data; but, the Chargers are local.


No




The Chargers are a very profitable organization which contributes little to nothing to our civic life. The Chargers "brand" is no more valuable than the "Qualcom" brand -- and it would be as inappropriate to subsidize the Chargers as it would be to give tax benefits to any other for-profit organization.


No. Same as above


PAGE 1

#136

136 / 204



What economic benefit do the Chargers games provide and how does that compare with city subsidies necessary to build a new stadium?


No




As a private enterprise football should cover all its costs


No....see above


PAGE 1

#137

137 / 204



Statistical probabilities of possible outcomes. Do a 538 for us.


Yes




if we're going to increase taxes, let it be for vital infrastructure upgrades assistance to the needy.


Yes, no current out of pocket taxpayer funds. It would probably only be lost revenue for a future budget shortfall if they were to sell the land.


PAGE 1

#138

138 / 204



What are the anticipated costs for a seat in a new stadium?


Yes




A great City is like a great Condominium. A large group pays a little for many things that make the City or Condo great. We don't use all available entities but the fact that they are there make us great. I don't use the library but having it there makes us great. Those who don't care about the Chargers need to understand that they help make us great. Or else, we have San Diego as it was in 1950. Small, and not great.. I am willing to pay my share of taxes to make us a great city.


I will support what ever my elected officials believe is the best solution.


PAGE 1

#139

139 / 204



what will it take to make the chargers move out of san diego??


No




The chargers make a huge amount of money. If they want a new stadium they should find non-governmental sponsors to pay for it. We are capitalistic society, not "bread and circuses, as in Nero's Rome. We shouldn't be giving money for sports when our infrastructure is in such bad shape. Also,,, why does the city of San Diego have to carry this burden? Why not have San Diego county and/or the other nearby cities be pushed to pay for the stadium also- they also benefit from having the stadium here.


I believe the Qualcomm Stadium and Sports Arena are public lands. I don't support giving any land to a sports team. And, like the NTC give-away; I don't see why San Diego should give our very expensive real estate away for any reason… and, for all those in the county who vote… but only San Diego city seems to have to pay for the stadium.. I think that the other beneficiaries should be asked to pay up as well.


PAGE 1

#140

140 / 204





Yes




I feel that the Chargers are a source of civic pride and interest that cannot be matched by any other entity. If we lose them, chances are that San diego will NEVER again have an NFL franchise. That is not how a big league city operates.


Yes


PAGE 1

#141

141 / 204



I want to know more about how the financing might work, and deeper information on hard dollar benefits to the city (rent, etc.) compared to the fuzzy economic impact (jobs, advertising, bowl games, etc.). What's the likely impact on SDSU and Qualcomm stadium if Chargers leave?


No




I don't want to pay higher taxes to subsidize a billionaire's hobby. We have $2 billion of infrastructure investments that are LONG OVERDUE and this is already diverting time and resources from things the city desperately needs.


If Spanos wants to build on the current stadium site, then he can knock himself out, especially if the Chargers pay rent back to the city. But I'm sick of paying him for the privilege of having his team in San Diego. BTW - Hotel room tax hike answer is "maybe"; if it can be shown to benefit San Diego in the long run.


PAGE 1

#142

142 / 204



Can anyone cite a report showing any financial gain to San Diego by keeping the Chargers here?


No




I believe having the Chargers in San Diego costs the city. Why should we raise taxes so the city could have less money to spend on important things, such as sidewalks, streets and bike paths?


NO! Encourage the Chargers to move to LA (or anywhere). Then use the proceeds from developing Qualcomm Stadium or Sports Arena to improve our city in important ways, like bike paths, streets and sidewalks.


PAGE 1

#143

143 / 204





No




Tax hike would affect folks who don't go to charger games or care about professional football. Owners and supporter can foot any costs.


Yes. I guess profesdionsl footbsll is good for SD and it's economy but we have any more pressing needs for our citizens thN paying for a stadium. Seems giving land the city owns is less less costly.


PAGE 1

#144

144 / 204



Why isn't this being treated as a regional concern? Most of the people I know who attend Chargers games don't live in the city of San Diego; they come from El Cajon, Boulevard, etc. As a San Diego taxpayer, I do not want to subsidize the entertainment of people from throughout southern California.


No




The Chargers do not draw only citizens of San Diego. I see no benefit to me as a taxpayer in the city of San Diego in paying for others' entertainment. Let the team owners reduce players' salaries and finance their own stadium. In addition, with the new evidence of concussions and brain damage, it seems to open us to serious liability issues.


No. I particularly oppose land in downtown or the waterfront, but also in Mission Valley, all of which which are supposed to be natural green/ open areas for all citizens to enjoy.


PAGE 1

#145

145 / 204



What is the mayor/council priority for a Charger stadium vs other infrastructure priorities: streets, water and sewer upgrades (both pipe repairs and infrastructure to allow recycling), sidewalks, convention center maintenance and expansion. Why?


No




The Chargers are basically a private business. I do not support using public tax revenue to support a private business, especially given that most of the pressing infrastructure needs of the City are not currently funded.


No. This plan would be a give away to a private business. Again, if a land sale was to be used to raise revenue, there are many unfunded public needs that, for me, would take precedence.


PAGE 1

#146

146 / 204





No




A regular person like me can't afford to go to the game. Not that I would want to.


No. See above.


PAGE 1

#147

147 / 204



Nothing - i have been a life-long (50+) Chargers fan but now I am so disgusted by the ploys to finance a billion-dollar on the backs of taxpayers, I say go ahead and go. I am a fan no more.


No




See above AND the taxpayers should not have to foot the bill to improve the bottom line for the playthings of billionaires without gaining any stake in their investment.


No


PAGE 1

#148

148 / 204



What happens to Qualcomm when the Chargers leave? Mission Valley is already over developed. Anyone take a look at the old gravel pit? It is disgusting how many units are being put there without any improvement of the roads in the valley.


No




hotel room taxes should be used for convention center expansion or promoting the city.


Only if the city is getting a return on investment in terms of a percentage of the chargers.


PAGE 1

#149

149 / 204



why taxpayers are expected to fund ANYTHING that mostly profits the NFL.


No




I do not want my tax dollars to support for-profit endeavors whose profits primarily end up in the pockets of private businesses.


I do not support giving the team city-owned (ie: citizen-owned) land. They should purchase it. Developers should build wherever they desire as long as they follow the rules and pay for the land. I understand that sports teams encourage people to spend money in a city. But if the city then gives the money away (back to the sports league), where is the benefit to citizens??? Sports teams are not public-use (like parks, roads, schools, etc)....they should not be funded, even partially, by tax dollars. I would not support any tax dollars going towards the NFL unless I saw data that showed the city more than recoups it....I have never seen data that shows that. Developers make money, the NFL makes money, and local businesses makes money on these kind of "deals"....three reasons that citizen tax dollars should NOT be involved.


PAGE 1

#150

150 / 204



How much private money will be spent? The nfl is a non profit organization, yet they have billions. The NFL should loan the money.


No




Because only people who own homes pay extra. This way everyone pays a little extra.


I don't support giving the team land. If the chargers want the money, why should it be free. The chargers & city should be partners. They both would win


PAGE 1

#151

151 / 204



How much money has the City spent since 1968 on stadium improvements, attendance guarantees, etc. at the Chargers request, or as part of a negotiated deal with the Chargers?


No




The City has other needs. We're going to raise taxes for money for the Chargers when our infrastructure (streets, sewer and water) is a mess, cops are underpaid, libraries and arts in general are underfunded. Need I go on?


If they built a new stadium at the Qualcomm site and the City negotiated a decent deal to get revenues, I would probably support that. As for the Sports Arena, didn't we finally get a high-level hockey team? Or a the Chargers proposing a combination stadium/convention center/hockey rink?


PAGE 1

#152

152 / 204



Are there any plans to attempt to provide public funding/subsidies/"trades" that could affect San Diego County residents, not just City of San Diego residents


No




Football is big business, and a new luxury stadium is a want/desire, not a necessity. Management and support staff should consider salary reductions to help finance a new stadium before asking for subsidies from residents or visitors.


No. A football franchise should not be given special treatment over other businesses. San Diego does not need a football team to be a world class city.


PAGE 1

#153

153 / 204



Why isn't every meeting and contact between Chargers and City/County public and transparent?


No




NFL football is a business. The public has no duty to support a business that is already highly profitable. The owners are already getting massive special tax breaks. These people prey on the gullibility of the citizens and it is shameful.


No, unless the City actually owned the team. The City already subsidizes these owners more than $10M a year. The City should get 60,000 free tickets a game for what we are paying now.


PAGE 1

#154

154 / 204



Not much. If the Chargers can afford to privately fund a stadium in Carson....


No




We just need to let them go. We are constantly being asked to validate the Chargers who clearly hold the old-school position that the city owes them something, when, in fact, they are all about their own bottom line.


I think the Green Bay model is the only way to go. We give something to them (land, etc.) and we get partial ownership of the tem. Nothing else is fair as far as I can seel


PAGE 1

#155

155 / 204



Who owns the land downtown where they are looking for the stadium? What developer will benefit most from downtown site and/or qualcomm site?


Yes




I might support a tax if the Qualcomm site is chosen; I would nogt support a tax hike for a downtown site.


No for either. The Arena site should be a profit maker for the city. I support a stadium on the current site. Selling land is a one time venture; utilizing currently owned property saves money and will eventually turn a profit potentially. The City needs to utilize their resources for the city benefit not to line the pockets of developers.


PAGE 1

#156

156 / 204



Are only Charger fans involved, or do we taxpayers get to have a word as well?


No




No money for millionaires.


No! We're still paying for the last Charger bailout -- to say nothing of delayed support for street repairs, schools, etc.


PAGE 1

#157

157 / 204



Who is going to pay for it.


No




The Chargers are a private business entity and should not be supported with tax dollars.


If it would help keep the Chargers in San Diego, I could possibly agree to it.


PAGE 1

#158

158 / 204



nothing


No




This is not a public responsibility


No. This is not a public responsibility


PAGE 1

#159

159 / 204



If a majority of regular San Diegans - taxpayers but not necessarily football freaks - value keeping the Chargers enough to build them a new home.


No




Of all the needs we have for more revenue, a new stadium has to rank way down the list. If I'm to support a tax hike, let it be for something of broader and more significant value.


All other considerations aside, the extensive concrete sea that is Qualcomm seems to be environmentally problematic. In either location, the environmental impacts should drive any considerations of future usage.


PAGE 1

#160

160 / 204



Why can't the owners pay for the stadium like they did in Dallas?


No




This is a private business worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Why should the taxpayers pay a billion dollars for their place of business, which is used only 10-14 days per year!


If the city already owns the land, the team could buy it at less than market rate as the city's contribution.


PAGE 1

#161

161 / 204



Would giving away the Sports arena be considered as part of a deal with Spanos


No




Another tax hike would further increase the cost of living in this already one of the most expensive citys


No. That land belongs to we taxpayers. The Sports arena generates revenue for the city.


PAGE 1

#162

162 / 204



When will the Chargers move to LA? The sooner the better for all San Diego residents.


No




There are more pressing needs by the community that require funds and any increase in tax should go to cover them, e.g. libraries, infrastructure updates,


NO. They should purchase any land for the stadium with their own money.


PAGE 1

#163

163 / 204



Nothing


No




Who cares


no


PAGE 1

#164

164 / 204



Any scheme to get at public funding. I'd like to know of any effort to shoehorn this monstrosity into a downtown location.


No




I would support all these tax hikes to meet the cost of deferred maintenance in Balboa Park--a free public space, but none to support a football team owned as a business.


No. Reason is that I think the current site should remain a football stadium.and I am happy for the Charger organization to make any structural changes they want to pay for.


PAGE 1

#165

165 / 204



What is the deal with the Oakland partnership? How can an Oakland team have their home field 400 miles south?


No




Most people attending would be much more wealthy than most San Diegans. Us supporting them and the Billionaire owners makes no sense.


No. No public support. Actually, I hope they can stay here, but NO public money or freebies.


PAGE 1

#166

166 / 204



Proposed locations, tax payer involvement


No




The NFL is worth billions, get them to chip in along with the chargers, SDSU and sponsors... people and taxes last.


A land trade of some sorts would make sense. Better than forcing the public to pay for it


PAGE 1

#167

167 / 204



I do not like the Charger's ownership. Never have.But I do love the team, and have since I watched it in black and white TV in the '60s when they were with the AFL and champions.


Yes




A city without an NFL team is a poor excuse for an American city.


Yes, but within reason. There has to be a reasonable solution.


PAGE 1

#168

168 / 204



NFL is the largest "non-profit" in United States of American.How does it qualify for this status?


No




No corporate welfare.


No. Why not: no corporate welfare for mega millionaire owners.


PAGE 1

#169

169 / 204





No




The Chargers and the NFL should pay for their own stadium.


No. We need the revenue from any land to fix our infrastructure throughout the city. It should not go to a multimillionaire.


PAGE 1

#170

170 / 204



Needs of the city vs want of a new charger stadium

Costs

How the city has protected tax payers and citizens in past deals


No




I would only support a hike in the hotel tax if it went to multiple items....convention center, sports arena redevelopment, and other projects the citizens need


Not sure. It would have to be a great deal for San Diegians.

I prefer to let the chargers go and let them crawl back when the Carson deal falls through...and if it doesn't I wish Carson good fortune. I will be happy that we can spend time dealing with the problems in San Diego instead of the problems of spoiled rich NFL owners who manipulate the market, subsidize their riches with tax payer dollars, and a whole host of other problems.

I was relieved when they announced a possible move. I had hope that the city could finally move on. We are a world class city with or without the Chargers.


PAGE 1

#171

171 / 204



I want to know why our local Congressional representatives haven't already begun looking into repealing the NFL's absurd anti-trust exemptions and non-profit status, regardless of our current situation with the Chargers. We deserve direct and unabated questions to be asked of all of them.


No




Of the three, it's probably true that a hotel-room tax hike is most palatable to the general public. That said, I'd never support raising it to build a stadium. If the city feels the TOT is currently at a level that can be raised without impacting average room nights, it should do so anyway for the purpose of raising general funds for other crucial city needs. Not a stadium.


Nobody should ever entertain this as a serious question. Land is as good as money.


PAGE 1

#172

172 / 204



Any ideas that are outside the box.


Yes




We need to put some money as an incentive with the Chargers and the NFL footing most of the bill.


Yes but the city needs to get more out of it than the current agreement.


PAGE 1

#173

173 / 204



How very soon will they be moving and gone?


No




We need, streets, sewers, water, libraries, rec center hours and fire stations - Charger fans canfor sure watch games on T.V. when C's in L.A.


No, no, no!!! Why would we give them this veryvaluable land???


PAGE 1

#174

174 / 204



What have other jurisdictions negotiated to receive from sports teams in return for their subsidies of public funds to build stadiums? And, looking back, have they actually received what was initially promised to them to secure approvals by the public governing authorities?


No




Giving away public funds to a private business is unconscionable.


Leasing public land to a business who promises to improve and develop it is acceptable, so long as it eventually reverts back to public ownership and the public receives fair and reasonable compensation for the lease.


PAGE 1

#175

175 / 204



What percentage of San Diego City residents actually attended a Chargers game in person last year?


No




Why should I subsidize a billionaire's business? Why use scare tax dollars for an activity that only a tiny percentage of San Diegans participate in?


Only if there was a believable economic study showing that the overall project would provide more benefit to the economy than any other.


PAGE 1

#176

176 / 204



Whether or not the whole County will be involved.


Yes




Within reason, a modest tax hike might be necessary. The Chargers are intimately interwoven into the fabric of this city.


Yes, but only if it reduces the tax burden on the people of San Diego.


PAGE 1

#177

177 / 204



Who is donating to task force? How much are they donating?If not a tax increase is it a 50% vote? Is it only advisory?


No




Too many other priorities for a tax hike, ie: infrastructure


Yes. Qualcomm site and Sports Areana site are currently under performing properties.

COMPLETECOMPLETECollector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link)Started:Started: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:43:35 AMTuesday, February 24, 2015 12:43:35 AMLast Modified:Last Modified: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:48:35 AMTuesday, February 24, 2015 12:48:35 AMTime Spent:Time Spent: 00:05:0000:05:00IP Address:IP Address: 99.21.194.7099.21.194.70

PAGE 1

#178

178 / 204



Who is paying?


No








PAGE 1

#179

179 / 204



I think you're already doing fine. Am not a Chargers fan and definitely not a Spanos or his creepy cadre fan. Just keep me up-to-date on how public funding may affect my wallet. I think the San Diego discount is alive and well anyway and fair weather patrons will find other allegiances while the "true blue" will follow the team to wherever they land up.


No




I don't support a tax hike for the Chargers because we have far too many unfunded liabilities. Our infrastructure is crumbling and we have no coherent plan and no viable funding mechanism so that repairs can catch up with deterioration. The convention center has no plan/funding mechanism to keep up with maintenance. outpace


Depends. I think developers and politicians here have so many unholy alliances, that there'd have to be transparency and publicity around such deals before I'd be satisfied that we weren't being taken to the proverbial cleaners.


PAGE 1

#180

180 / 204





No








PAGE 1

#181

181 / 204



Can the City of San Diego and San Diego County support major league sports? I've been hearing for at least twenty-five years that our teams lose because we can't afford the top players. We are a good farm team operation - we draft second-rate players and develop them into first-rate players and then they move on to those who can afford the big salaries. I would like to hear an analysis of the television market revenue to major league football teams. If the Chargers are asking for help, show me their audited financial statements for the past twenty years.


No




Sports events draw from an area larger than the City of San Diego. Sports revenues should pay for their expenses. Supposedly, we don't have the television market to support major league sports.


Get the priorities straight. We have other priorities for our tax dollars, like overdue infrastructure repairs and construction. We desperately need affordable housing. The land at the intersection of I-15 and Friars Road has an existing bus and trolley stop and there is already too much commercial use of Mission Valley. Build housing there after the tear-down of the stadium and clean-up of the oil leakage.


PAGE 1

#182

182 / 204



The current value of the Qualcomm, Sports Arena, and Bus Depot sites. Any unique funding solutions in other cities.


No




There is no economic reason to give money to the NFL. I do not have confidence in the long-term future of the NFL. I think the economic hit will be minor if they move.


No. Giving land is the same as giving money. Either use the land for better purposes or sell the land to finance infrastructure improvements.


PAGE 1

#183

183 / 204



What it will cost the taxpayers and what we won't get if we use the funds for a stadium.


No




My understanding of the data is that professional sports is revenue neutral at best. And I'd be prouder of our city if we just told the Chargers to shove it!


i do not oppose private development of entertainment facilities. If there's no public money and the project meets all environmental requirements and land use requirement, ok. No "giving" to developers...


PAGE 1

#184

184 / 204



Is there a tax hike of any kind involved in this discussion? We have funded the Chargers long enough!


No




Rarely is Qualcomm sold-out, rarely would we be hosting the Super Bowl and I believe there are only 8 or 9 games played there every year. I say let the Charges pay to touch-up the current stadium. That is the only rational approach considering the multitude of needs we have in this wonderful city. Or, let the Chargers do what they have to in order to build a new one, like all other business owners must do.


NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!


PAGE 1

#185

185 / 204



Nothing


No




This is a private business that profits rich people. All of the so-called side benefits (hotels, workers, etc.) are minimal compared to the cost of the project. We need $ 2 billion in infrastructure repairs: why should we pay for a playground for rich people?


Why can't the Chargers pay for things like ordinary people: buy or rent, that's what the rest of us do. My bottom line, bumper sticker slogan is this: Not One Cent For A Stadium!


PAGE 1

#186

186 / 204



Full disclosure on cost to taxpayer.


No




Would NOT support tax hike because NFL makes exorbitant profits at taxpayers' expense.


No! Let the team/NFL pay its own way.


PAGE 1

#187

187 / 204



Why should we spend millions of taxpayer dollars instead if repairing our streets and infrastructure or building housing for the 8500 homeless living on our streets?????


No




It just encourages the Chargers to keep after their plan to build a new stadium. And would a tax hike really cover the entire cost or would the tax payers still be on the hook overall. I think it is a Trojan Horse!


No, especially if it is downtown or along any of our waterfronts. We couldn't get the airport moved, how could we find land that the taxpayers would be willing to give away!


PAGE 1

#188

188 / 204





No




revenue based taxes are fine, but additional income taxes are not.


yes, other cities do this, and we can be bush league or major league. I vote for major league


PAGE 1

#189

189 / 204



Poll data re: public support


No




Its hard to pass a tax hike in SD. If we pass one, it should be for something important like roads or schools


No. The Chargers are just not a priority to me and I see no reason to go so far to keep that particular business in town. Based on attendence, it seems that San Diegans agree.


PAGE 1

#190

190 / 204



You are doing fine right now.


No




Not for a stadium, but as I understand it, our hotel tax is lower than most of California's major cities. It should not be a private slush fund for the major hotels, but should go to the General Fund, since there are costs to the city in having additional people here, although it could be earmarked for Parks and Rec., since our parks, museums and beaches are what really bring people to SD, and whose funding has been drastically cut to pay for stadiums, etc.


No, the team is a private business and should not get special subsidies, whether in the form of money, land, tax credits or taxpayer backed loans. The City has debts and obligations, if we were to get rid of major assets, we should not just give them away. We stopped funding the pension fund to pay for the ticket guarantee and debt from the expansion of Qual-com Stadium, if we get rid of it, we should sell it to pay that debt rather than give it away. Further, all of the past proposals for using these sites for development have left the City holding the bag for paying for all the required infrastructure from major traffic and water/sewer system upgrades, to new fire stations. Remember the deal Major Murphy turned down: Give the Chargers the stadium site, worth about $600,000, a $200,000 "loan", that would be "paid back by the additional property taxes from the development", hence, really not paid back at all, since those property taxes are what is supposed to pay for ongoing services, like police fire, etc. for the development, and leave the City with the cost of extensive new roads, water mains etc. which some estimated, as I recall, would be around $400,000. This billion dollar subsidy was promoted as not costing the taxpayer anything, since it didn't involve putting a tax increase on the ballot. I expect something like this is what will now be pushed for.


PAGE 1

#191

191 / 204





No




I *might* support somekind of tax if it were a county-wide. Let everyone in the county pay for a stadium if they want it, not just the citizens of the City.


Hell no! No permanent giveaways of our precious public property to a private companies. However, I would support a new stadium at the present site owned wholly by the City and/or County IF we can determine the cost and devide that cost by the number of adult County residents and tax those residents


PAGE 1

#192

192 / 204



What would move any civic leader to spend millions of $ to support a facility that may get 100 hours of use a year when our 7/24/365 day use of infrastructure - sewers, water pipes and roads -need billions of $? Do civic leaders value 100 hours of football more than daily use of our parks, libraries and beaches?


No




The NFL and the Charges are private for-profit businesses and should be supported by their customers not by taxes, grants of land, etc.


No. The UTC mall and One Paseo are private investments. So are the NFL and Chargers. Let free enterprise reign and the market function for the taxpayers.


PAGE 1

#193

193 / 204



Why is it not a county-wide discussion ? The Chargers are a regional team, not solely a City thing. Why not Oceanside or Chula Vista ?


No




No City funds should be used to support a private business.


No. No City assets should support a private business.


PAGE 1

#194

194 / 204



Remodel of Qualcomm and the site redevelop


No




Government support of private business


Yes!!! To me your getting more skin form the Chargers. Let them run Qualcomm right now saving the city money.


PAGE 1

#195

195 / 204



nothing. I think the present stadium is adequate with improvements. I want money spent on people needs not sports that make millions for private Companies.


No




I support a tax hike for convention expansion. Not a new stadium.


No. That land belongs to the city and people ..not private concerns. Don't build in a flood plain. Keep it rural. Keep the stadium for recreation,parks etc.


PAGE 1

#196

196 / 204



Are the taxpayer going to have to put up $, and if so, how much?


No




Taxpayers should not have to pay so that millionaires can have their special box seats. There are too many issues in this city that have been put on the back burner.


I just don't understand why taxpayers have to support the super rich. This is their playground, they should pay for it. OR Go the GreenBay route and make the Chargers a publicly owned team.


PAGE 1

#197

197 / 204



I've heard way too much already!


No




Chargers and NFL should shoulder all costs.


Perhaps, as these sites are more centrally located, plus the taxpayers paid multiple millions for a trolley to the Stadium.


PAGE 1

#198

198 / 204





No




We are already paying big taxes on our homes but I would support a sales tax.


Yes and also strongly support giving the land and stadium to San Diego state if chargers leave.


PAGE 1

#199

199 / 204



If they're going to rename the Chraiders?


No




1. The NFL is a non-profit - we are already subsidizing them. 2. If the Chargers have enough money to build in LA why not SD? If they are so 'loyal' to SD why didn't they float ideas past us over the past couple years? 3. The Chargers threatened years ago to leave SD when the option was contractually available, then have made no discernible concerted effort to engage the community to support a new stadium. Why should we trust they will act in good faith now while WE are under the gun?


Absolutely not.

COMPLETECOMPLETECollector:Collector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link)(Web Link)Started:Started: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:13:00 PMTuesday, February 24, 2015 12:13:00 PMLast Modified:Last Modified: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:16:33 PMTuesday, February 24, 2015 12:16:33 PMTime Spent:Time Spent: 00:03:3300:03:33IP Address:IP Address: 184.182.190.146184.182.190.146

PAGE 1

#200

200 / 204



why is only the city being blamed? why aren't county and burbs being asked to fund stadium along with additional police service costs on game days.


No




NFL needs to get off government welfare


no, this is public money. Don't the politicians think the tax payers can see any free property for the NFL makes poor financial sense. Use property for full-time year-round tech career jobs downtown. No more sports fields downtown-- we are weary of all the drunk rowdy sports fans who trash our area. We want full time high-paying career jobs downtown whose employees will frequent the restaurants year-round. Downtown is a dead zone weekdays-- we needs full-time year-round jobs downtown. Construction work is temp., ball fields are only used partial year--- no more public funds for teams.


PAGE 1

#201

201 / 204



What will it cost the taxpayers


No




The owners are rich enough to pay for their own facilities.


See above


PAGE 1

#202

202 / 204



How long has planning by the Chargers and Raiders been going on?Who, if anyone besides the Spanos family, supports a downtown stadium?


No




Not needed; see answer to #6


Do not give Spanos/the Chargers anything because they can't be trusted. Rob Wellington Quigley has made the case; Mission Valley is the only logical place for the stadium. Renovate the Q or build new next to it; both approaches have worked in other places. Sell or lease land in M.V. to developers on favorable terms and safeguards - no more stadium seating deals!


PAGE 1

#203

203 / 204



Please look into what NFL/team can reasonably contribute, not just what they are willing to, e.g., 49ers took on a lot of debt.


No




I would support a tax increase for other projects but not for the stadium.


Probably not. I don't think taxpayers should be subsidizing billionaires.


PAGE 1

#204

204 / 204


SurveyMonkey Analyze - Export · 2019-12-12 · Help Guide Our Chargers Stadium Quest. Q1: What do...

Documents

Transcript of SurveyMonkey Analyze - Export · 2019-12-12 · Help Guide Our Chargers Stadium Quest. Q1: What do...