Advertisement
Advertisement

Chargers must allay fears with good faith effort

Share

After 110 pages of legal gobbledygook and millions of dollars spent on spin, we are destined to have as many questions as answers about the Chargers stadium initiative even after voters cast their ballots on Nov. 8.

That is not anyone’s fault. That is, according to folks on all sides of the issue and those familiar with political machinations, the way these things are inherently designed.

The language in an initiative is binding. Thus, it can only address so much.

Advertisement

But one gigantic cloud can at least be dissipated. It can be done now. Really, it must be.

The Chargers have to pledge that if it is determined the cost of their stadium-convention center project puts even a cent of the city’s general fund in peril they will not go forward.

Whether general fund money was at risk would be determined by a committee convened to establish what the actual costs of land acquisition, MTS bus yard relocation, construction and other costs will be, as well as the division of the stadium-convention center’s operational revenue and expenses.

This will be the process after the election, assuming the initiative is approved.

The pledge from the Chargers must come now.

Dean Spanos must say that if it is determined by an independent/bi-partisan group that the proposed transient occupancy tax increase might not be sufficient to cover the bills, he won’t hold the city to the terms of the initiative.

(This goes beyond the initiative’s language that says it “would not impose any obligation on the city to pay for operations and maintenance and capital costs for the convention center expansion and stadium out of the general fund.” Not “imposing an obligation” doesn’t necessarily mean the city couldn’t have to find a way to fund a potential shortfall.)

Such a guarantee by Spanos would reasonably allay the fears of those who say the Chargers’ plan for a downtown stadium and convention center is a recipe for financial ruin.

Not taking this step leaves too much open for interpretation.

And after the past year or so, the Chargers can’t afford locals interpreting that they are untrustworthy. Too, there is evidence in the plight of other NFL stadium projects that portends possible problems.

Of course, this would do nothing to soothe those opposed to the initiative on the basis of being anti-tax increase and/or against public subsidies for stadium construction. That’s an argument for another time, and it is likely one with no hope of resolution. Too, it does not assuage those opposed to the non-contiguous convention space. That is also a non-starter as an argument.

What the pledge by Spanos would do is provide some guard against the city being on the hook for more than it can handle.

We can’t have that.

A concept can be wonderful and bad.

Is the Chargers initiative, which suggests a beautiful Super Bowl-worthy edifice next to Petco Park, such a proposal? It is if there is a chance it could burden a city that can’t adequately fix streets or give a competitive wage to police officers.

Chargers release their vision for stadium

You have to acknowledge that, no matter how desperately you want the Chargers to remain in San Diego.

The Chargers say they have run simulations in which even two recessions don’t come close to using all the money provided by their proposed net increase of four percent in the hotel tax.

Spelled out in their initiative is that they will provide $350 million and the NFL will provide $300 million toward construction of the stadium portion of the project. The cost of the convention center and land acquisition is not specified, but the team has said it expects the total cost of the project to be $1.8 billion.

That’s great. The Chargers say it will be x. What if it’s xy or xy + z?

What if the cost of land and relocation of the MTS bus yard is north of the $200 million estimated? What if the cost of cement and/or steel and/or ceiling tiles and/or fuel skyrocket? What if infrastructure improvement, the cost of which is not provided for in the initiative, is prohibitive?

See? A lot of questions.

But not so many that we should just throw up our hands and say, “Never!”

Look, we’re going to have time after the election to figure out some things. Construction won’t start by Thanksgiving. We’re looking at the end of 2017 before we even know whether a shovel will ever turn dirt on this thing.

Potential/probable lawsuits aside, should the measure pass, the city would have to appoint an entity to work with the Chargers on the construction, operation and maintenance of the facility.

The sides would then hammer out real costs.

Only at that time will we know what we can really expect to spend and whether what voters mandated is actually feasible.

We should accept a certain amount of ambiguity until then. However, we need a larger measure of good faith from the Chargers now.

Advertisement