HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Waterfront stadium plan r...

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:28 PM


Waterfront stadium plan revives debate

A proposal by U-T San Diego’s ownership and opinion arm that champions a football stadium, a sports arena and an expanded convention center along San Diego’s waterfront has revived a public debate over 96 acres of land long coveted by developers.

Padres owner John Moores first suggested a stadium at the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal in 2004, but the idea has been rebuffed so often by labor officials and the Port of San Diego that the Chargers always discounted the option.

Until now.


Yup, because we know cities can afford this crap, and we should all put stadiums where trolley systems run from... or for major port facilities...

And we also know 1 B in sports facilities make more sense than money in education...

6 replies, 1361 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply Waterfront stadium plan revives debate (Original post)
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 OP
msongs Jan 2012 #1
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #2
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #3
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #4
Obamanaut Jan 2012 #5
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #6

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:30 PM

1. no more welfare subsidies for filthy rich entertainment owners and players please nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:31 PM

2. Hey that is one of the big picture items we now fight


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 04:52 PM

3. From the non corporate paper


There was little doubt in anybody’s mind that developer Doug Manchester’s purchase of San Diego’s daily newspaper would result in a new wave of grand plans and big box economic boosterism. And this last Sunday’s newspaper, replete with a front page editorial and a special opinion section (printed on higher quality paper for those who might want to preserve the words of wisdom contained therein) did not disappoint.

Clearly the visionaries in Papa Doug’s planning sessions for this outburst of expansionist thinking heeded the call to go Bigger, more Badass and Bolder at every turn. Take a look for yourself here.

New football stadium? Check. Bigger Convention Center? Check. New Sports Arena? Check. Concessions for Organized Labor? Check. Sops to the Coastal Commission? Check. New home for the San Diego ‘Wings’ sculpture that nobody seems to want on the waterfront? Check (I think). Vague promises about how this project will improve life for people living in communities of color? Check. The only two things I couldn’t find in the plan were a location for the urban SuperWalmart that we urgently needed so badly last year and a new City Hall building. I’m guessing if that City Council President Tony Young endorses this plan, they’ll find a place for the Walmart.

What the SDUT’s plan does is take a bunch of ideas, dial them up a notch and roll them into one. Of course just how this will all be paid for is another question, but the answer seems to lie in combining a series of “revenue measures” that lie just outside the realm of what the Taxpayer Association would term as tax increases. Assumption after assumption (so many ifs!) are piled on top of each other leaving the casual reader with the impression that the funding for this is completely doable as long as we trust in the creative financing plans of America’s Finest City’s powerbrokers. Do take the time to peruse the details here. Scott Lewis over at Voice of San Diego also ponders the money question here.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 05:15 PM

4. And from the other non corp paper


While a public controversy rages around Sunday's waterfront stadium proposal by the U-T San Diego, another major project by the paper's owner has been facing difficulties with city planners.

According to a September 20, 2011 "Notice of Violation," provided by the mayor's office this month in response to a November request made under the state public records act, the Grand Del Mar resort, developed by U-T owner Douglas Manchester, has allegedly run afoul of the city's Resource Protection Ordinance.

Alleged violations include, "unauthorized grading, including removal of sensitive biological resources, to create and construct equestrian trails and construct an equestrian center at and around the Grand Del Mar Resort, approximately 30,700 square feet in size, including riding and grooming corrals, and a stable, approximately 4,000 square feet in size."

The notice says that the grading and construction was done "without required building or grading permits. This unauthorized grading and construction activity impacted a total area approximately 1.68 acres in size."


Now why does this very "local" issue matter? Think insert land development here in insert American city here... you scratch my back and all that.

Oh and the UT... guess who NOW owns the "paper of record" in this town? You may want to look for a SIMILAR pattern where you live.

(I am kind of busy with another story right now... so going over a bunch of OTHER non nice stats... I hate stats... but my fellow reporters are doing a bang up job with this one)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #4)

Response to Obamanaut (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 29, 2012, 12:15 PM

6. I love you to, thanks for the kick


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread