Chargers Header
Forum Home News Media Vault Schedule Team Charger Girls Tickets Fan Zone Community En Español Fantasy Football Pro Shop

Go Back   The Official Los Angeles Chargers Forum > Chargers Talk > Around the NFL
Register FAQ Members List Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #311  
Old 04-02-2017, 08:28 PM
frozendisc's Avatar
frozendisc frozendisc is offline
Hall of Famer
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cotes-des-neiges, Montreal
Posts: 11,852
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimWest View Post
Sad but likely very accurate. SD residents don't want any new taxes, not even wanting them being charged to out-of-town tourists.

So the two main viable options for a future return of the NFL to San Diego are either a multi-billionaire who funds nearly all of a new stadium himself, or the city deciding they will find a way to ante up a lot more than they were willing to contribute for a Chargers stadium.

Neither appears probable in the short term.

Question: San Diego is a good-sized city and metro area, with an ideal climate. Is there some reason or reasons why the city does not attract more large corporations?

I believe California has extreme tax structure.....
__________________
1909...the year excellence started.

GO BOLTS !
Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 04-03-2017, 10:35 AM
The Moekid's Avatar
The Moekid The Moekid is offline
Hall of Famer
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 32,274
Default

LA Times on why privately financed stadiums should be the model:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...403-story.html

Right now, somewhere in the United States, a city is trying to attract or retain a major league sports team with the promise of a state-of-the-art stadium. At the same time, municipal officials are busy crunching numbers for bond issues and tax increases, trying to raise public money to sweeten the deal for the team owners who are their quarry. How many public dollars will be enough?
Stan Kroenke, owner of the Rams and the planned Los Angeles Stadium in Inglewood, understands that “next to none” is the right answer. With the exception of tax payment transfers amounting to a fraction of its $2.6 billion price tag, the money for the project will come out of Kroenke’s pocket. He will make a lot of money — but so will Los Angeles, in tax revenue, employment opportunities and entertainment spending.
Although these days Kroenke’s approach may seem novel, it’s actually decades-old and hyper-local. The model for the deal — which should be the model for any deal — is the one that created L.A.’s most beloved sports venue, Dodger Stadium.
When Brooklyn Dodgers owner Walter O’Malley agreed to move west in 1957, he pledged to build his ballpark at his own expense. This was no more routine at the time than Kroenke’s arrangement is today. Between 1953 and 1964 every other major league baseball stadium project — in Milwaukee, Baltimore, Kansas City, New York and San Francisco — was publicly funded. In fact, the last ballpark built with private money before Dodger Stadium was Yankee Stadium in 1923.
Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 04-04-2017, 09:31 PM
Chaloner's Avatar
Chaloner Chaloner is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Spring Valley
Posts: 621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frozendisc View Post
I believe California has extreme tax structure.....
Governor Brown just raised the gas tax to 40%. OUCH!
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 04-09-2017, 05:46 PM
JimWest's Avatar
JimWest JimWest is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Moekid View Post

The model for the deal — which should be the model for any deal — is the one that created L.A.’s most beloved sports venue, Dodger Stadium.

When Brooklyn Dodgers owner Walter O’Malley agreed to move west in 1957, he pledged to build his ballpark at his own expense.
I've read a lot about the Dodgers situation when they were in Brooklyn, and the attempts to get them a new stadium there in the 1950's. O'Malley was willing to build a new park as long as it was in Brooklyn, (he was offered land in Queens, where Citi Field is) but he wanted free land in the borough. An area where the current Barclays Center is, Atlantic and Flatbush, was what he wanted. However, there were certain legalities and impediments that made that virtually impossible.

Failing to get his free land in Brooklyn, he looked westward, where LA was willing to clear out the residents of Chavez Ravine, and give him that land. The link I attached is one of the numerous ones that give detail to all of the machinations of that deal. From what I surmise of it all, there were plenty of shenanigans involved with the politicians of that time.

There is a lot of information online about the Dodgers-Chavez Ravine deal.

http://www.oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=...ew=entire_text
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:03 PM.


© 2017 Los Angeles Chargers. All Rights Reserved.