Posted on 06/23/2005 9:32:59 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO – State lawmakers are no longer sitting on the sidelines as the San Diego Chargers scramble to build a $450 million stadium under the city's haunting fiscal cloud.
Legislation to create a state bonding authority that could help the Chargers secure tax-free financing for a new home is on a steady march through the Legislature and to the governor's desk.
Where that home might be has been a matter of speculation in recent years. While the Chargers insist they want to stay in San Diego, the prospect of moving north has added intrigue to their quest for a new stadium.
Interests in Los Angeles and Orange counties also are sparring over the best site for a stadium that could lure a National Football League franchise missing from the region since the Rams and Raiders defected in 1995 to St. Louis and Oakland, respectively.
"I can unequivocably say the impetus had nothing to do with empowering any team over the other," said Sen. Kevin Murray, a Los Angeles Democrat carrying the bill. "I don't want anybody to think that some team is trying to get stolen."
Still, suspicion has roiled over the years that Los Angeles interests have been trying to lure the Chargers, much like they did the Clippers of the National Basketball Association.
The legislation has attracted the support of a reclusive Colorado billionaire who has expressed interest in bringing a team to Los Angeles. The measure also could help Alex Spanos, the politically influential owner of the Chargers.
Murray's bill, SB 4, has quietly cleared the state Senate and one Assembly committee.
The legislation would establish a state commission, appointed by the governor and legislative leaders, that would have the authority to issue tax-free revenue bonds to finance stadiums, theaters, pavilions and other entertainment venues.
Revenues from leases, taxes, parking and other income from a stadium and related development could be used to pay the debt. The measure also would allow for the controversial practice of "seat licenses" that, in many cases, requires patrons to pay an extra fee for the right to buy tickets in prime locations.
The use of the state's tax-exempt status would allow developers to avoid paying federal taxes on most revenue generated by the project. That savings also could be used to help pay off the debt.
The state general fund could not be tapped if revenues come up short.
"This simply uses our tax-exempt status without putting us on the hook for any money," Murray said.
The Chargers have just unveiled a stadium plan that they intend to take directly to the voters, a move some see as an end-run around the San Diego City Council. If the Chargers can gather enough signatures, the initiative could go on the ballot in November 2006.
Under the latest proposal, the Chargers say a Super Bowl-worthy facility would be built at the Mission Valley site of their current home, Qualcomm Stadium, which would be torn down. The Chargers envision 6,000 condominiums, a hotel, offices and retail nearby. Also, their proposal includes a 4,000-space parking facility and a 30-acre park along the San Diego River. The city's $50 million bill for a 1997 stadium expansion also would be paid.
The city's finances have been hobbled by a pension system deficit of at least $1.4 billion and related investigations. San Diego currently is unable to sell bonds at reasonable interest rates, and officials have indicated the city is in no position to help finance a stadium. However, the Chargers want the city to turn over 60 acres at Qualcomm Stadium at no cost. The Chargers have yet to identify potential development partners, which could be enticed to the project by the promise of tax-free financing.
"This could help them build a new stadium and keep their team," Murray said of San Diego and the Chargers.
Mark Fabiani, a spokesman for the team, said the Chargers have had "no role" in crafting the legislation.
"It has not been something we've been involved in," Fabiani said.
The Anschutz Entertainment Group, which operates Staples Center where the Los Angeles Lakers, Clippers and Kings play, has been actively lobbying for the bill's passage. The group, known as AEG, is the only private interest to publicly support the measure.
AEG is one arm of Colorado businessman Philip Anschutz's vast empire, which includes holdings in several sports teams and entertainment venues like Staples Center. It also owns the Home Depot Center, a world-class track and field, tennis and soccer facility in Carson. His organization has been at the center of several discussions about building a new Los Angeles-area stadium.
An AEG representative did not return a phone call seeking comment.
In testimony supporting the bill before the Legislature, AEG lobbyist Marc Aprea limited his remarks to pointing out how a similar tax-free revenue bond program in 1997 helped build Staples Center and revitalize downtown Los Angeles. Other communities should be able to take advantage of those kinds of bonds, he said.
The publicly owned Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum is in the running for an NFL franchise. Those pushing a stadium in Carson have dropped out, and Anaheim is aggressively pursuing a team.
"There has been some talk that this bill might be one vehicle they might be able to use," said Assemblyman Tom Harman, an Orange County Republican.
More than football is on the line, he said. For example, Dodger Stadium is getting old. New stadiums and concert halls could spark urban economies, he said.
"These facilities do have a huge ripple effect," Harman said.
With local governments strapped, particularly San Diego, the state needs to step in, Murray said.
Other than Staples Center, there are no suitable California facilities to attract big-ticket events such as national political conventions and college basketball's Final Four tournament, he said.
"I just know we have second-rate venues around the state. . . . We need first-class venues," Murray said.
There is no indication of where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger stands on the measure. Spanos has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Schwarzenegger and his various political causes over the years.
With local governments strapped, particularly San Diego, the state needs to step in, Murray said.
----
This decodes to "we need to take more money from the taxpayers to fund our favorite, non-essential projects!!"
San Diego is a great city (and close to my old hometown) but it's currently governed by a bunch of clowns in the mayor's office and the city council. There's so much property tax and hotel room tax revenue pouring into San Diego's government. Without their irresponbile and inept financial management, they would have no financial problems whatsover. This stadium deal should have been done a long time ago--give the Chargers some land at the current 166 acre site and help them with partial financing and Spanos will do the rest. The SD city council has too many left-leaning, anti-business dummys who can't manage anything properly. What a joke the city council is in SD; the new stadium should have been built by now and opened for next season.
The Chargers want San Diego to have a new football stadium. Most voters know this. But many voters may not be aware that the Chargers’ proposal for a new stadium will actually save San Diego money.
[snip] The new stadium would relieve San Diego of more than $9 million a year the Citizen’s Task Force found that the city now spends to subsidize the 166-acre Qualcomm Stadium site. The financial drain from the city’s general fund could otherwise be used for the police and fire departments, libraries and other essential services.
So basically, "give us a new stadium deal because it's less unfair to you than the current stadium deal."
- J. Paul Getty
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.