San Diego Stadium Coalition Blog

The Latest on the Chargers Stadium Search (April 2010)


Q: Is it true the Chargers are working closely with the City of San Diego on securing a Downtown site for their new stadium?
A: Yes. The Chargers organization and local leaders – including Mayor Sanders and Fred Maas of the CCDC – have been in discussions for several months regarding property near Petco Park. The site currently consists of 15 acres where the Wonder Bread building, Tailgate Park and a San Diego Transit bus yard currently reside. Both the Chargers and the City are especially interested in this site as it removes approximately $200M from the $1B total price tag thanks to existing infrastructure. In addition, the site's proximity to the Convention Center and Petco create many interesting possibilities for attracting major events to San Diego.

The Chargers have moved forward with several important steps including the hiring of key consultants and a design firm which is encouraging as it shows that this site is quickly gaining momentum. One of the Chargers' consultants, Turner Construction Company, is evaluating the impact of the nearby earthquake fault and the contamination of the bus yards, but initial reports are that these issues can be successfully managed. Another of the Chargers' consultants, Populous, is working on a stadium design that will accommodate the site's small footprint -- which would be the smallest stadium site in the NFL. Again, initial reports indicate that although the stadium design will be challenging, the challenges may in the end be manageable.

At the same time, the City is engaged in two studies: One to determine how the stadium might be financed, and the other to justify an increase in the CCDC's downtown spending cap. The spending cap increase will be essential to moving any large downtown project, including a stadium, forward.

Public support for this plan will be critical to keep it moving forward, but this is extremely promising by all accounts and the San Diego Stadium Coalition is committed to gathering public support behind this effort.


Q: Are the Chargers still in discussions with the City of Chula Vista regarding the construction of a new stadium in that region of the County?
A: No. It has become clear that the power plant on the Chula Vista site is not going to be shut down at any point in the near, or even intermediate term, future. As a result the Chargers have suspended discussions with the City for now to focus on other options within the County. If, in the future, the City of Chula Vista succeeds in shutting down an existing power plant, and City Officials are interest ed in re-starting discussions with the team, the Chargers have indicated that they would re-open negotiations at that time.

Q: Is it true that the Chargers are still exploring the possibility of building a stadium in Oceanside?
A: No. Several months ago, the team engaged in discussions with Thomas Enter prises which is a large credible developer. Thomas Enterprises currently has City approval to build 950,000 square feet of retail space on roughly 90 acres along State Route 76 in Oceanside between Foussat Road and Mission Avenue. However there were several obstacles standing in the way including FAA regulations regarding the nearby municipal airport. The airport would have to be closed and flight traffic redirected to nearby Palomar Airport for this area to become a viable stadium site.

Another property near I-5 in Oceanside known as the Goat Hill property currently houses a golf course. This site has also entered the stadium discussion. However, the Chargers recent financial feasibility study of the Goat Hill property showed it to be incompatible -- because of its relatively small size -- with their privately-funded-stadium plan.

Nonetheless, the team continues to explore these and other sites as potential ancillary development options that could help fund a stadium in another part of the County.


Q: Is the Escondido stadium effort still moving forward?
A: No. The City of Escondido has suspended their effort to bring the Chargers and a new stadium to that region while the team moves forward on their Downtown San Diego effort. However, the Mayor and local civic and business leaders have indicated that they will resume this effort in the event that the Downtown site doesn’t materialize, and the Chargers have indicated that they would be interested in re-starting discussions if the downtown San Diego site does not pan out.


Q: Is the State of California is considering a purchase of the current Qualcomm stadium site as part of a plan to expand the San Diego State Campus?
A: Yes. Mayor Jerry Sanders and SDSU President Stephen Weber have met in recent months on the possibility of the University using the land to solve significant problems facing both entities. The proposal, which is still in the preliminary stages, would not directly impact the Qualcomm stadium structure, however, It does, call for displacing some of the 18,000 parking spaces to make way for student and faculty housing, research facilities and a riverfront park. If approved, this further removes the current stadium site in Mission Valley from the list of potential options and would create a more de finitive timeline for the team’s relocation to remain viable. This recent development has potentially troubling implications for the Chargers re gardless of its impact on the Qualcomm stadium structure itself.


Q: When will The Chargers again have an option to leave San Diego County?
A: The Chargers remain committed to staying in San Diego County, however, they can explore a relocation deal with other cities at any time. The team can relocate between February 1st and May 1st each year until their lease with the City expires after the 2020 season. This process of searching for a new stadium site will not continue indefinitely and it is reasonable to believe that at some point in the near future, when all options within San Diego County have been exhausted, the team will begin looking to other regions. Nonethe less, their commitment to remain in the County is clear when you factor in the nearly 8 years and over $10M that they’ve invested in their search for a new stadium site.

Where We Stand: San Diego in Context
by Brigit Stadler

The following is a slightly reductionist version of my undergraduate thesis on the Chargers' search for a new stadium. Using economic and sociological literature along with press releases, newspaper articles, stadium site reports, housing data, team win-loss records and season ticket sales, I compared and contrasted the Chargers' current search with that of the successful acquisition of new stadiums by the Arizona Cardinals and Dallas Cowboys.

Where We've Been: Stadium Acquisition To Date Professional sport franchises (and specifically, the NFL) are essentially a monopoly and so use their status as leverage for new stadium construction. Despite massive support from fans, the Cleveland Browns still moved to Baltimore where the market was more favourable for a new stadium(1).

Economic impact studies commissioned by teams are "inevitably large and unambiguously positive"(2) with multipliers which are difficult to quantify. Former Maryland Governor Parris Glendenning grossly overstated the benefits of what is now M&T Bank Stadium on the surrounding area, stating that it would pull in at least $9 million, far more than was needed to repay the $6.2 million in bonds. In actuality, the best estimates for bond repayment were $5.45 million. Phoenix, as well, "projected an annual increase of $230 million in output for the City of Phoenix(3) in securing Bank One Ballpark, promising that it would be the impetus for downtown redevelopment which has yet to materialize.

Appeals to fan support and community identity are specious at best and downright manipulative at worst1. These are variables which can only be measured secondarily (as I have tried to do through season ticket sales) and so are easily manipulable by business and team leaders.

The Reality: Stadiums and Community Impact

Taxpayers bear much of the burden of stadiums when they are funded publicly(4). Public dollars which could have been spent on infrastructure, schools, etc. are instead funneled into stadium construction and maintenance1, (5). Sports spending is not its own sector of the economy; money which was spent at the game on Sunday could easily have been spent on dinner and movie on Friday night2. Sport competes with other sectors of the leisure economy for consumers' disposable income(6).

Stadiums do more to separate social classes than to integrate them6. With Downtown redevelopment comes the possibility for gentrification.

Where San Diego Fits

The Chargers are focusing all their efforts on acquiring the new stadium site Downtown where economic redevelopment has been going on for years, unlike Minneapolis or Phoenix. For its part, the Centre City Development Corporation is working to include price-restricted, mixed-income, or transitional housing. As of November 2009, 19.5% of units completed, 4.5% of the units proposed and 10.4% of all units fell into one of the above categories(7).

Up until December 12th, the team had promised to finance the stadium entirely through private funds. It is difficult to say how much of the burden of a new stadium the public would bear if it were funded both privately and through tax dollars. One option would be to emulate Arlington, Texas and specify that the City will pay half the cost or up to a certain amount, whichever is less, and that the Chargers and affiliated private entities will pay the other half plus overruns(8) (The Cardinals also stipulated that the City of Glendale would not pay for project overruns(9)). For their part, however, the Chargers are promising that they and the NFL will contribute $250-$300 million(10). Unlike previous sites, the Downtown site would require the least amount of investment in infrastructure (expanding roads/freeways, parking, etc.). A Downtown stadium, along with PetCo Park and the Convention Centre, could bring year-round revenue to the East Village.

Where We're Headed

This is the most difficult part to pin down. The City is currently more receptive to the Downtown site, yet both the City and State are still in the midst of a financial crisis, making City officials and taxpayers alike loath to spending money on a new stadium. For all parties involved -- the City, the Chargers, business leaders, and taxpayers -- honesty about the costs and benefits of the stadium -- economically and socially -- is most necessary. Understanding the impact of past stadiums, strategies which have been successful and which have not, and working toward solutions which most benefit (or least harm) the surrounding areas should be prioritized as stadium talks move forward.


Sources 1. Leone, Katherine C., 1997. ?No Team, No Peace: Franchise Free-Agency in the National Football League.? Columbia Law Review. 97:473-523 2. Coates, Dennis and Brad R. Humphreys, 2003. ?Professional Sports Facilities, Franchises, and Urban Economic Development.? Public Finance and Management. 3:335-357. 3. Collins, Timothy W., 2008. ?Unevenness in urban governance: stadium building and downtown redevelopment in Phoenix, Arizona.? Evnironment and Planning C: Government and Policy. 26:1177-1196. 4. Hall, Matthew T., 2010. ?Public has 54% Stake in Projects, Expert Concludes.? Retrieved February 23, 2010. (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jan/28/public-has-54-stake-projects-expert-concludes/) 5. Eckstein, Rick and Kevin Delaney, 2002. ?New Sports Stadiums, Community Self-Esteem, and Community Collective Conscience.? Journal of Sport & Social Issues. 26:235-247. 6. Baade, Robert A. and Richard F. Dye, 1990. ?The Impact of Professional Sports on Metropolitan Area Development.? Growth and Change. Spring:1-14 7. Centre City Development Corporation, 2009. ?List of Projects.? Retrieved November 13, 2009. (http://www.ccdc.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/projects.home) 8. City of Arlington, TX, 2004. ?Frequently Asked Questions About the Dallas Cowboys Complex Development Project.? Retrieved November 18, 2009 (http://www.ci.arlington.tx.us/citysecretary/pdf/110204/110204_faq_english.pdf 9. Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority, 2009. ?University of Phoenix Stadium: Stadium Facts? Retrieved November 4, 2009. (http://www.universityofphoenixstadium.com/index.php?page=stadium_facts§ion=statistics) 10. San Diego Stadium Coalition, 2009. ?The Chargers on Why Public Funding is Necessary.? Retrieved February 23, 2010. (http://sdstadium.org/1285-The-Chargers-On-Why-Public-Funding-is-Necessary.html)

The Chargers recently released an Op-Ed which was published in the San Diego Union Tribune on Saturday December 12.

They've addressed some of the key issues and potential concerns surrounding the use of public funds for this stadium.

The San Diego Stadium Coalition endorses this approach and hopes that level heads will prevail as this discussion is explored in an open public forum in the coming months.

Here is the article reprinted in it's entirety:


The Union Tribune’s December 11th story on the need for some form of public funding for a new downtown NFL stadium has started a vigorous debate. And that’s a good thing, because it’s important for people to understand that a stadium downtown would require a funding plan very different from the plan they’ve been hearing about for the past several years.

As the public discussion gets started, though, one thing is for sure: No matter which way you come down on the question of public funding, this is not a debate between one side that is against taxpayer spending and one side that is for it.

The people who say they are in favor of the status quo – those who say that the Chargers should simply stay in Qualcomm Stadium and play out their lease through the year 2020 – are in fact advocating the spending of more than $300 million in taxpayer money between now and then just to keep the aging stadium operating. In short, by advocating inaction, proponents of the status quo are also advocating the expenditure of huge amounts of taxpayer money from now until 2020.

Those in favor of the downtown site are arguing that there is a better use for the Qualcomm site (that could potentially both generate new revenue and community amenities such as a park), as well as a better use for the $15 million a year that the city now spends on the existing stadium.

As the debate goes on, voters will of course make up their own minds. But it would be a mistake for anyone to cast this as a debate between taxpayer money vs. no taxpayer money. Taxpayer money is going to be spent no matter what. It is being spent right now, each and every year. The real question is how it can best be spent.

So why does the downtown site require a different kind of funding plan. The answer is really just one word: Size – as in the small size of the proposed downtown site. The Chargers’ previous attempts over the last seven years to privately finance a stadium all involved very large sites that could accommodate both a stadium and a related development project – the profits of which would help pay for the costs of the stadium. These large sites included, among others, the existing Qualcomm site (166 acres), the Chula Vista bay front site (130 acres), and the Oceanside drive-in and golf course sites (a combined 165 acres).
The downtown San Diego site now being considered is just over 10 acres – making it the smallest stadium site in the NFL. As a result, the site will accommodate, at most, the stadium, without any opportunity for the related development to help pay for the stadium.

For that reason, the successful development of a stadium at the downtown site will require sources of funding other than what might come from a related development, in addition to a $250 - $300 million investment by the Chargers and the NFL.

It’s too soon to say what other funding sources may be available. That’s the subject of an ongoing city-sponsored study by a stadium finance expert.

Nonetheless, we believe it’s important for everyone to understand that the downtown site will certainly require a different sort of funding plan than the stadium funding concept that they are already familiarly with. In short, the downtown site might require some sort of taxpayer subsidy.

Such a subsidy would only be possible if voters agree that an investment downtown will result in significant returns for taxpayers elsewhere. For example:

o Would a taxpayer investment downtown result in the city of San Diego saving the $300 million or more that taxpayers will otherwise pay through 2020 to maintain the Qualcomm site?

o Would an investment downtown allow the city of San Diego to sell, lease or otherwise generate hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue from the 166-acre Qualcomm site?

o Would a taxpayer investment downtown allow the city of San Diego to make better use of the 100 or so acres it owns in and around the Sports Arena site?

These are all open questions, and ultimately voters will decide whether a public investment in this kind of project makes sense. For our part, the Chargers believe that, at this early stage of the process, the one thing that does make sense is to continue to explore these ideas to see where they might lead.

Recent Stadium Updates – 12.01.09

Q: Is it true the Chargers are working closely with the City of San Diego on securing a Downtown site for their new stadium?
A: Yes. The Chargers organization and local leaders – including Mayor Sanders and Fred Maas of the CCDC – have been in discussions for several months regarding property near Petco Park. The site currently consists of 15 acres where the Wonder Bread building, Tailgate Park and a San Diego Transit bus yard currently reside.
The Chargers have moved forward with several important steps including the hiring of key consultants and a design firm which is encouraging as it shows that this site is quickly gaining momentum.
Nonetheless, several financial and logistical obstacles remain, but the Chargers are especially interested in this site as it removes approximately $200M from the $1B total price tag thanks to existing infrastructure.
Public support for this plan will be critical to keep it moving forward, but this is extremely promising by all accounts and the San Diego Stadium Coalition is committed to gathering public support behind this effort.

Q: Are the Chargers still in discussions with the City of Chula Vista regarding the construction of a new stadium in that region of the County?
A: No. With the recent Iraq deployment of Councilman and City of Chula Vista point-person John McCann in addition to the numerous ob¬stacles associated with the most viable sites in Chula Vista, the Chargers have suspended discussions with the City for now to focus on other options within the County. If, in the future, the City of Chula Vista succeeds in shutting down an existing power plant, and City Officials are interest¬ed in re-starting discussions with the team, the Chargers have indicated that they would re-open negotiations at that time.

Q: Is it true that the Chargers are still exploring the possibility of building a stadium in Oceanside?
A: No. Several months ago, the team engaged in discussions with Thomas Enter¬prises which is a large credible developer. Thomas Enterprises currently has City approval to build 950,000 square feet of retail space on roughly 90 acres along State Route 76 in Oceanside between Foussat Road and Mission Avenue. However there were several obstacles standing in the way including FAA regulations regarding the nearby municipal airport. The airport would have to be closed and flight traffic redirected to nearby Palomar Airport for this area to become a viable stadium site.
Another property near I-5 in Oceanside known as the Goat Hill property currently houses a golf course. This site has also entered the stadium discussion. However, the Chargers recent financial feasibility study of the Goat Hill property showed it to be incompatible with their privately-funded-stadium plan.
Nonetheless, the team continues to explore these and other sites as potential ancillary development options that could help fund a stadium in another part of the County.

Q: Is the Escondido stadium effort still moving forward?
A: No. The City of Escondido has suspended their effort to bring the Chargers and a new stadium to that region while the team moves forward on their Downtown effort. However, the Mayor and local civic and business leaders have indicated that they will resume this effort in the event that the Downtown site doesn’t materialize.

Q: Is the State of California is considering a purchase of the current Qualcomm stadium site as part of a plan to expand the San Diego State Campus?
A: Yes. Mayor Jerry Sanders and SDSU President Stephen Weber have met in recent months on the possibility of the University using the land to solve significant problems facing both entities. The proposal, which is still in the preliminary stages, would not directly impact the Qualcomm stadium structure, however, It does, call for displacing some of the 18,000 parking spaces to make way for student and faculty housing, research facilities and a riverfront park. If approved, this further removes the current stadium site in Mission Valley from the list of potential options and would create a more de¬finitive timeline for the team’s relocation to remain viable. This recent development has potentially troubling implications for the Chargers re¬gardless of its impact on the Qualcomm stadium structure itself.

Q: When will The Chargers again have an option to leave San Diego County?
A: The Chargers remain committed to staying in San Diego County, however, they can explore a relocation deal with other cities between February 1st and May 1st each year until their lease with the City expires after the 2020 season. This process of searching for a new stadium site will not continue indefinitely and it is reasonable to believe that at some point in the near future, when all options within San Diego County have been exhausted, the team will begin looking to other regions. Nonethe¬less, their commitment to remain in the County is clear when you factor in the nearly 8 years and over $10M that they’ve invested in their search for a new stadium site.

Jeff from Bolthype runs perhaps one of the best and most respected Chargers blogs on the internet. Recently he spent some time with us discussing the ever-pressing stadium issue facing our County. He asked some great questions so please take a minute to read his interview when you have a moment. http://www.bolthype.com/2009/08/can-stadium-dreams-become-san-diego.html