Kaplan: Why is CSAG under fire for proposal?

Scott Kaplan sounds off on local media for criticizing CSAG’s stadium proposal.

Comments

comments

Comments

2 thoughts on “Kaplan: Why is CSAG under fire for proposal?

  1. rob cohen

    Hi Scott….if the mayor for some reason says no vote will take place, rest assured petitions will be circulated to override his decision. Very little now gets done without at least the threat of a vote. For example, there was the Barrio Logan compromise that the mayor and business interests didn’t like, so they circulated a petition and got it to a city-wide vote. Same thing happened on the minimum wage issue, and most recently the One Paseo development was about to go to a vote, though for now that seems to have been averted. While no new taxes are required under the CSAG plan, general fund monies will be so you know there will be someone, somewhere who will challenge it.

    I agree with you that criticism of the CSAG is off base. They worked hard and for free and they should be commended. Your use of the trash can in your video was appropriate though because when and if the Chargers negotiators and the city’s negotiators meet, the report will go into the circular file, and the Chargers negotiators will probably start the meeting by saying this is what we want and need and there will probably not be lot of horse trading. If the LA threat is real, and Spanos is serious about leaving, then I don’t think there is much SD can do.

    I think the mayor, in the event the team leaves, can point to CSAG and tell San Diegans, “hey, I tried”, and it probably won’t harm him politically. While there are a lot of Charger fans in town, there are also plenty of folks who don’t really care.

  2. MachoMenos

    Congratulations to the men and women of the CSAG. I had no faith in them. I totally believed that they were just prepared to give us an unworkable plan to provide political coverage for the Mayor. Instead, they gave us a plan that is workable for the City and County. They gave us a plan that the Chargers, no matter how much they will publicly balk, know is fair considering the increased revenues that a new stadium will bring them and that the increased stadium building costs merits.

    Although some in the “local” media have balked at the rent the tenants will pay for using our new stadium going towards the financing of the new stadium they apparently didn’t read or understand the entire CSAG plan. The profits from selling the 75 acres to a developer and the resulting new taxes from new development will not be realized immediately. That is why the CSAG didn’t make the financing rely on this money because it simply won’t be available in the beginning of this project. And didn’t anybody read the part of the plan that states that when completed the stadium site will be worth around 3-4 billion dollars? Talk about return on your investment!

    I still feel that the Chargers are staying and hope that the City and County stand firm in their bargaining position with our Bolts. Let’s remember that the indifference from the Chargers and the negativity from the NFL is their bread and butter. That’s how they get stadiums built. Let’s not forget the most important thing – the NFL wants what’s best for the NFL. And what is that if not the best possible outcome for all three teams. The best result would be that all three get new stadiums but that’s not happening.

    So, let’s look at the scenarios. Let’s pretend for one second that a stadium can be built on that methane-oozing dump in Carson. If the Chargers and Raiders get their stadium that leaves an unhappy Kronke. The second richest owner in the NFL has already said he will build a stadium no matter what in Inglewood. That will mean two stadiums in L.A. Yes, Los Angeles may be big but it cannot sustain three NFL teams afloat. Not happening.

    Second scenario is Inglewood happens. If, as everybody is saying, the Chargers move in as second tenants that creates two problems. One, Spanos becomes one very unhappy tenant. Naming rights will go to Kronke since it’s his stadium. Spanos knows that he will be in a L.A. Clipper scenario. He will always be second banana to the Rams. Two, that leaves the Raiders without a new stadium since Oakland has not been able to put together any kind of proposal for a new stadium. Why would the NFL want a deal that only benefits two teams?

    Third scenario is Inglewood happens but instead of the Chargers going to L.A. with the Rams it’s the Raiders. Mark Davis would take this in a heart beat considering he is the poorest owner in the NFL and he has already said yes to being a tenant in the Carson stadium. Why wouldn’t he jump ship and go to Inglewood since they are way ahead as far as getting a stadium done? And since San Diego already has a viable plan for keeping the Chargers in San Diego on the table all that would be left to do is work out the details. This would be the win, win, win scenario that the NFL is looking for. Kronke gets his stadium in L.A., Davis finally gets the new stadium he so desperately wants to replace the sewage spewing black hole in Oakland and Spanos gets to stay in San Diego where he’s already said he wants to stay.

    As to the negativity in the local media, you should call out Dan Sileo and Darren Smith from your own station because they are the ones who are most strongly evicerating this plan. They seem to forget that they will be looking for new jobs if the Chargers leave San Diego.

    As far as the public vote goes, there was supposedly a poll that came out today that your Dan Sileo was crowing about this morning that said 84% of San Diegans were against the CSAG proposal. Whether it’s because of the public being weened on Fox News rhetoric of getting something for nothing or if it’s the local media that is owned and operated by their task masters in L.A. crippling this plan for the get go by their never ending bile I don’t know.

    What I do know is that Mayor Faulkner will kill a new stadium in San Diego if he takes the cowards way out and insists on a vote instead of doing what he was voted into office for-to lead us into the 21st century instead of keeping us stuck in the past.