skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Mayor’s Office Plans Meeting With San Diego Chargers On Stadium

Above: Fans walk into Qualcomm Stadium.

The first staff-level meeting between the Chargers and the San Diego mayor's office over the National Football League team's decade-long hunt for a new stadium is set for next week, a mayoral spokesman confirmed Thursday.

Deputy Chief of Staff Matt Awbrey described the gathering set for Wednesday as an "an initial meeting to discuss with the Chargers Mayor (Kevin) Faulconer's priorities on this issue, which are keeping the Chargers in San Diego while protecting San Diego taxpayers.''

It doesn't appear that Faulconer himself will take part in the get-together.

It was learned last week that a member of the mayor's staff had spoken with Chargers executives by phone, but the substance of the conversation was not revealed.

The team has done an extensive, countywide search for a site for a new facility to replace aging Qualcomm Stadium. The effort has been derailed for years by the city's fiscal meltdown and the recession.

A couple of years ago, Chargers officials settled on an East Village location near Petco Park, but the site presents a tight squeeze for an NFL stadium and would require environmental mitigation.

More recently, the team proposed building a stadium in conjunction with an expansion of the San Diego Convention Center, which at the time was facing a skeptical California Coastal Commission. The commissioners eventually approved the expansion project as is.

The Chargers met with then-interim Mayor Todd Gloria last September.

Comments

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | April 3, 2014 at 8:09 p.m. ― 4 months, 3 weeks ago

NO football stadium downtown.

Any serious proposal to do so will be met with swift environmental lawsuits, and will leave such a project unattainable just like Old Man Manchester's vanity "navy broadway" complex.

Why can't they just build a new one where Qualcomm is?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'sdreefer21'

sdreefer21 | April 4, 2014 at 9:48 a.m. ― 4 months, 2 weeks ago

If the el cheapo spanos family wants to pony up Im in.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Mmikey'

Mmikey | April 4, 2014 at 10:06 a.m. ― 4 months, 2 weeks ago

behind closed doors, the good o'l boy system goes on.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DonWood'

DonWood | April 4, 2014 at 3:42 p.m. ― 4 months, 2 weeks ago

The city owns acres of valuable land at the Qualcomm Stadium site in Mission Valley and the sports arena site in the Midway area. Together, these taxpayer owned sites might be worth up to a billion dollars. The new mayor has said that he wouldn't sign off on any deal where city general funds were invested in building a new stadium. Why would he now even consider selling off this valuable city land or giving it away to developers in order to subsidize the billionaire Spanos family? Selling off highly valuable city property to invest the revenue into a stadium subsidy isn't all that far from spending taxpayer dollars on one. If the city no longer has any use for those two properties, why doesn't it sell them off to the highest bidders and use the money to fix street potholes and the $ billion backlog in infrastructure repair it is now talking about issuing bonds to pay for?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'RegularChristian'

RegularChristian | April 4, 2014 at 5 p.m. ― 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Why not sell shares of team stock instead of issuing a bond?

Fans could see the payback to their investment directly in their pockets through quarterly or annual dividend returns, instead of the usual unproved and unconvincing way of applying for one of the jobs or seeing the tourist dollars channeled into the city's general fund.

It would also create a really loyal fan base, one that would share in the trams fortunes through thick and thin, rather than just paying for occasional infrastructure projects and then cheering from the sidelines.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Mmikey'

Mmikey | April 5, 2014 at 8:02 a.m. ― 4 months, 2 weeks ago

put it to a vote and let the tax payers decide ( even with all the bogus ads the vote will generate, I think the tax payers will make the right decision)

but then again, the tax payers never really get a say in big business matters

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'WonderProfessor'

WonderProfessor | April 5, 2014 at 10 p.m. ― 4 months, 2 weeks ago

It is always so amusing to me that so many of the same folks who decry public funds for libraries, public broadcasting, art, etc. will change their tune when it comes to professional sports teams. It is just me or does anyone else look at our world of football and see the world of the Roman gladiators? Bread and circuses!

I sure hope that MMikey above is correct and that the voters will vote down giving over a billion dollars to the Chargers but sadly, I think a majority will vote yes. They want their bread and circuses on Sunday afternoons!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'RegularChristian'

RegularChristian | April 6, 2014 at 6:59 a.m. ― 4 months, 2 weeks ago

I hope we don't ever get to a vote. If issuing company stock isn't an exciting way to raise thew funds, how about the Chargers floating a corporate bond?

That's how most companies expand. If the city of San Diego co-signs on the bond, I'm sure the banks would stampede to provide the funds. These deals happen every day.

( | suggest removal )