skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

San Diego Chargers Will Seek New Mayor’s Backing For Stadium

Fans walk into Qualcomm Stadium.

Flickr

Above: Fans walk into Qualcomm Stadium.

The San Diego Chargers are eager to resume their long, winding push for a new stadium now that Republican Kevin Faulconer has been elected mayor.

The effort to replace aging Qualcomm Stadium has been idled by upheaval at City Hall. Faulconer beat fellow City Council member David Alvarez on Tuesday in a special election to replace Democrat Bob Filner, who resigned Aug. 30 amid a torrent of sexual harassment allegations.

Faulconer is expected to be sworn in March 3.

Attorney Mark Fabiani, who has led the Chargers' attempts to get a new stadium since 2002, says the important factor "is that somebody is going to be in office and hopefully will be in office for quite a while."

Fabiani says he hopes to meet with Faulconer once he's in office and has assembled a staff.

Comments

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 12, 2014 at 2:52 p.m. ― 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Why do we need a new stadium? Is the field on ours the wrong size? Are there not enough seats? No, and no. The seats are never even filled to capacity. I do not understand why we need a new stadium. Is there some problem with the current one?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 12, 2014 at 2:58 p.m. ― 5 months, 2 weeks ago

LOL, my goodness it didn't take long after Faulconer's election for the special interests to come out with their hands open for goodies!!

I bet that hideous plan of Manchester's to put a huge stadium downtown right next to the stadium we already have is sprawled out over a table in a back room somewhere in city hall waiting to be resurected by the newly elected as crotchety old crank fat cats in dated suits munch on cigars beaming with glee thinking of how much their net worths are going to quadruple under a Faulconer regime.

Sit back and enjoy, San Diego! You picked the developement hack for mayor and now we'll see three years of sweatheart deals and

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 12, 2014 at 2:59 p.m. ― 5 months, 2 weeks ago

downtown special interest handouts.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 12, 2014 at 3 p.m. ― 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Oh, and I don't blame the Republicans for this one, either.

I blame the Democrats who didn't turn out to vote.

Shame on you!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'cshamel'

cshamel | February 12, 2014 at 4:20 p.m. ― 5 months, 2 weeks ago

If the city can't spring for a new library, I see no reason the citizens of San Diego should pay anything toward a new stadium.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'GoSD'

GoSD | February 12, 2014 at 5:04 p.m. ― 5 months, 2 weeks ago

NO ONE goes to Libraries anymore - have you discovered the internet? If you want a place for your kids to stay drop them at daycare. The libraries are all empty wastelands or screaming war zones - doesn't everyone pay enough for your kids?

Half the county likes our sports teams - kids, families - football is America....Take your peking duck back to china where it belongs.

Go Bolts...this is our last shot at keeping our team - disregard all the losers. Cut off the welfare moochers and use the money toward a new stadium.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'GoSD'

GoSD | February 12, 2014 at 5:15 p.m. ― 5 months, 2 weeks ago

@JeanMarc - yes it is not safe anymore. It leaks when it rains. We can't attract a superbowl to attract additional revenue in it's current condition. It's becoming a liability.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 12, 2014 at 5:59 p.m. ― 5 months, 2 weeks ago

GoSD, you are completely wrong.

The downtown library is busy all the time and not with homeless people as anti-library people like yourself claim.

There is still in depth research that can't be be done online.

And a lot of people, myself included, get tired of staring at a computer screen and actually like reading a book.

In addition to traditional uses, libraries also serve as important civic and community centers.

During hurricane Sandy libraries actually became effective nodules of communication when power was down as people came and shared/posted vital information there.

It's clear you value adults making millions of dollars to throw around a ball more than you do knowledge, education, and civic society.

The chargers make millions of dollars and if they have the nerve to ask for one cent from SD tax payers it's time to say good riddance.

Let them leave, the citizens of San Diego will not be ripped of and bullied by a mediocre football team.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'x76'

x76 | February 13, 2014 at 5:29 a.m. ― 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Because Faulconer represents the 1%, here come the Chargers looking for corporate welfare on the scale of eight or nine digits. Forget it. Not happening. Build your own stadium.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Mmikey'

Mmikey | February 13, 2014 at 7:50 a.m. ― 5 months, 2 weeks ago

this is their next plan, since their bluff to move did not fly.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Lance'

Lance | February 13, 2014 at 9:24 a.m. ― 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Win a Super Bowl, and we'll talk.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'aztec69'

aztec69 | February 13, 2014 at 10:27 a.m. ― 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Give it up, Alex. If you want a new stadium YOU pay for it!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 13, 2014 at 10:52 a.m. ― 5 months, 2 weeks ago

joebalboa33 - Thank you, now I see. I have a few things to say though... we currently do not fill the stadium to capacity, ever. Since I do not care about sports, the only reason I would ever support a stadium is if it truly brought money to the city. If we cannot even fill our stadium with fans to watch the sorry Chargers now, why does anyone think spending billions on a new stadium is a good idea?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'mySDvoice'

mySDvoice | February 13, 2014 at 12:10 p.m. ― 5 months, 2 weeks ago

NFL is a club of billionaires that are making millions while claiming to be a 'non-profit'. They are protected from anti-trust regulations by congress.
And now they are looking for corporate welfare...
If Faulconer or the City Council begins to engage in making city land or money available, we need to get the recall petitions circulating....

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'radiofree'

radiofree | February 13, 2014 at 1:07 p.m. ― 5 months, 2 weeks ago

This issue shows a clear difference between free market capitalism and American capitalism.

If building a new stadium is a good idea, the owners and big developers will pay for one. If building a new stadium is not good economically, the fat cats will instead buy newspapers and politicians and try to convince enough people it is in everyone's interest to spend our tax money for a new stadium. They have calculated is is better to buy newspapers and politicians than to buy a stadium.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'joebalboa33'

joebalboa33 | February 13, 2014 at 2:42 p.m. ― 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Thanks JeanMarc,

You said you do not follow sports so I have to bring you up to speed the Chargers actually are on the upswing and had one of the best seasons in the last 5 years, even making the playoffs. The Chargers actually only had one black out game last year and the reason why we sometimes are the under the amount for sell outs is because it is based of the size of the stadium and percentage of seats sold. I think its 80 or 90 percent not sure. The Chargers actually sell 60,000 tickets regularly which is on par with other cities but the stadium we have now is 70,000+ structure, one of the largest seat wise in the country. That was the problem the city did when it choose to just expand the stadium seat count to 71,000 instead of rebuild and fix the structural deficiencies in the 1990s. The proposed structure from the most recent plans I've seen are for a 62,000 Stadium, which they normally cover percentage wise. If blackouts are the concern the chances of us not hitting that 80 or 90% would go down.
Not being a sports fan I can understand why people only see price tags. I would suggest also keeping an open mind to other things that would be indirectly related by a new facility like the impact of redevelopment in three under used neighborhoods, new construction jobs for those three sites, gaining a city-benefiting tax revenue from those three sites, gaining the much desired river park in Mission Valley, consolidation of the money the city already spends on the sports/civic locations and of course the larger impact of the Premiere Events and the business and tourism they attract through Super Bowls, NCAA final four tournaments, Bowl games, Concerts, Title Boxing Matches, etc. Unfortunately we also have to consider the alternative too. Not updating the facility and the lease with the expires. The most likely effect being a vacated facility and the impacts which I would not like to think about...
More reading on how the city would benefit:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/jan/11/stadium-done-right-could-benefit-all/
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Jan/11/stadium-financing-less-daunting-colony-capital/

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 13, 2014 at 3:13 p.m. ― 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Thanks joe, if the numbers add up and the stadium will bring a net profit to the city, I am all for it. I realize there are many indirect sources of revenue related to sporting teams and venues, such as nearby businesses, hotels, restaurants, etc.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Raptor1269'

Raptor1269 | April 1, 2014 at 1:45 p.m. ― 3 months, 4 weeks ago

I am not a Chargers fan BUT building a new football stadium is actually an investment. To begin...we are guaranteed a Super Bowl soon after its built AND definitely would be in line for future Bowl games, other sporting events, concerts, etc. This means $$$ to the city and businesses/hotels/etc. This is not much about football than it is about the benefiting the local city and tourism. And the Chargers are actually looking competitive so that helps. IMO we should have built it BEFORE Petco park.
As far as costs go...whatever the city has to put in (taxpayer $) should be compensated by rights to all stadium generated revenue once operational. In other words...the city gets THEIR $$$ FIRST as payback. make it happen!

( | suggest removal )