Skip to main content

LATEST UPDATES: Tracking COVID-19 | Racial Justice | KPBS Voter Guide

Visit the Midday Edition homepage

San Diego State Athletic Director: University Explores Stadium Options After Split From Developer

May 23, 2017 1:24 p.m.

San Diego State Athletic Director: University Explores Stadium Options After Split From Developer


Nick Stone, partner, FS Investors

Related Story: San Diego State Athletic Director: University Explores Stadium Options After Split From Developer


This is a rush transcript created by a contractor for KPBS to improve accessibility for the deaf and hard-of-hearing. Please refer to the media file as the formal record of this interview. Opinions expressed by guests during interviews reflect the guest’s individual views and do not necessarily represent those of KPBS staff, members or its sponsors.

This is Maureen Cavanaugh -- this is KPBS Midday Edition I am Maureen Cavanaugh. San Diego state surprised many by withdrawing from discussions with investors. They have a multiuse Stadium that could support athletic games. Lissette Campos Eric Anderson this week. The first question is wherewith the Aztecs football team play.
They could be staying at put that -- going to Petco or staying at QUALCOMM. Our hope is that we can open a new stadium in mission Valley by September 2020.
How do you open a Stadium and QUALCOMM if you are not already working with an adventure.

We can finance approximately $150 million Stadium. We think we can build a $150 million Stadium. Which is the property.
Explained to me what is and what you see that being.

Having sent the last month's Georgia Tech they were reported for the 7585 interstate in the jumped on the interstate -- interstate and had Technology Square. The business school was located there. They have a lot of mixed-use retail and a lot of host convention center. They have the Fortune 500 companies that common and you research and development.
San Diego state has this technology Park like UCSD connect and incubator
You're looking at our center that is something that can put down there and flourish. Whatever us with a research and that is a lot of lab space and things like that where people can come and and do our and D.
It is not something we are ready to jump into. Initially we can go down there and build outs this that is thoughtful for what we need and rent that space and regenerating the University as a going concern.
What you think is the strongest selling point.
We are and economic driver. We are in San Diego. I would think that there is great pride in San Diego and seeing an economic driver likes San Diego state University grow and flourish to become the research institution that we want to become is what people would want to see. Their children and the children's children have a chance to attend San Diego state University.
Is it final or is there a chance you could see some common ground in the future.
We have talked for almost 2 years
Quite frankly it is time to move on. We are running out of time before what could potentially be on a special and November. They have to act on that. We decided it was time to move forward. We are looking for an RFP process that is city Council and the mayor's office completed and have an open and collaborative process.
Thank you for joining us.
Joining me now is Nick stone all over the proposed soccer city
SDSU claims a soccer city plan grill from a 12 acre Stadium to a two-acre development without consultation with them. I wanted to do consult with them as this soccer city plan grew and developed and offered them space and it.
The redevelopment of the entire parcel has been in since day one. Since June of last year we were talking about a Stadium at an office building. And a four-way development in the site and we are asking what can we develop for you.
It is roughly the same answer now which is a set of long-term me that could be met here. That is pretty aligned with the deal that they were trying to strike with the charges which would happen tribute $100 million to the charges -- Chargers.
It seems like you never really can -- included them in this plan. They were kind of an add-on
They were a group that were trying to create a solution for all the way.
There is not a specific stated need for what they really need in the near-term. We brought up options to say here are ways you can give the land to build what you need. Left foot forward a gift of 17 acres a gift of $100 million in the University and a Stadium. We are staying on the hook for half of the maintenance cost. There is a real push on behalf of Steve Altman who is in the jam center at a huge donor others who not two weeks ago hosted a fundraiser for them at his house to engage and support the University that ultimately has not resulted in transaction or that they see not interested in. They will come back to the table as they think about it.
Did you want to charge them $13 million an acre as the article says?
No. This is in response to the University asking for half of the land for free. The initial was that we were paying the Stadium costs we should get half of the land. We want to secure and make it buildable.
The ask of we want half of this on the site for free it's really challenging. We are talking about doing all of that acreage is spending $13 million an acre and a lot of that is building the River Park with the $4 million [Indiscernible] that would stay with us and as we shrink the acreage that same $40 million number exists. We are just spending more per acre.
Now that you understand that the University understood that. Would you be willing to offer them another acreage people that kind of lien?
Good thing to think about is what is trying to get else. So if you have real University uses. Have a lot of options. One that they put out in the state of the alumni we need to hundred thousand square feet of scientific research space. So great we hear you we will build it for you. Let's make sure it gets built in the near-term.
To make that entire site work people need to be there and having hundreds of acres left to accomplish that. We will happily build it for you that is the piece that has been most missing typically in a negotiation there's a statement of X and Y amounts come to a conclusion. Discussion has put them in there will be no dialogue since.
The reasons the claim they were priced out of the negotiation is because the investors are anticipating multimillion dollar losses on the MLS soccer franchise. Here is a quote from the article. Wicker is quoted as saying we said we are not paying for your soccer program. He says investors responded if you want to buy land that is what you are paying. SDSU is a public university so is it right to want the University to a cup some of the losses on your proposed and best.
Just to be totally clear what we were articulating to the University with this piece of paper is that we are having started losses. The same is done for the sports franchise. You build a Brandon Belt people who are interested in coming to your Stadium.
Finally the fact that they have broken off negotiations with FS investors seems to has that seems to have rattled some of the support.
They will not vote to put this issue on November spell matter what the other council members are on the fence. How do you intend to regain the support.
You do not have to like the project. I understand that there is a variety of use of whether this is the right object.
The clear intent of what was voted on was that we want as many of our voices to count as possible.
Now we have a vote were if it occurs November of this year it is relevant. If it goes to November of next year you are asking them to choose between soccer and no soccer. It is not a vote.
We are speaking with Nick stone a partner with FS investors. We appreciate it.
Thank you.