Pulling the Trigger
For those of you living outside of San Diego,
the $400 million tempest-in-a-teacup surrounding
the San Diego Chargers/Qualcomm Stadium issue got a
little more blustery today when the Chargers
organization exercised the so-called "trigger"
clause to reopen contract negotiations with the
City of San Diego. The team's current contract
allows this reopener clause to be triggered once
every four years if the team claims financial
hardship. Once the reopener has been triggered, the
team and city have 90 days to reach a renegotiation
agreement, after which time the Chargers are free
to shop themselves around to other cities if San
Diego does not agree to offset the economic factors
contributing to the team's financial "hardship."
(See my
article from last October's "Motions" for a
more in-depth summary of the issues.)
Speculation has abounded during the past 12
months, as the mayor-appointed Citizens' Task Force
on Chargers Issues debated "fiscally responsible"
ways to keep the Chargers in San Diego. Would the
Chargers trigger? Will the public agree to build a
new stadium? Should the city simply enforce the
current contract and demand that the Chargers prove
their financial hardship?
While Chargers fans are a loyal bunch, their
fanaticism doesn't match that of, for instance,
Green Bay fans. Sure, the Packers are a better
team, but let's be honest... San Diegans have a lot
more leisure options during the winter than Green
Bay residents. The "football imperative" is not so
strong here. However, civic and business leaders
like having an NFL franchise here. If the Chargers
leave, so too will depart any chance of hosting
future Super Bowls. Though the evidence has been
somewhat disputed, most agree that the Big Game
brings many millions of tourism dollars to the
city.
My best guess is that the city will eventually
capitulate to the Chargers in a way that expends
the least amount of public monies (or none at all)
while satisfying the Chargers' demands. The most
likely proposal at this point seems to involve the
franchise financing the full cost of a new stadium
(projected at around $400 million) in exchange for
the rights to develop the 160-acre property on
which the Q currently sits. On the surface, such a
scenario seems attractive, since city taxpayers
won't have to pay for a new stadium. But
development rights to one of the most prime pieces
of real estate in the city make for a sweetheart
deal for the Chargers. Could such an agreement be
considered "fiscally responsible"?
Though the trigger only marks the opening salvo
in what will surely be a long, drawn-out battle
between battalions of attorneys on both sides, the
final outcome at this point seems certain: either
the Chargers will get a new stadium, or the
Chargers will leave town.
Development note: I've
noticed that this site doesn't look like it should
in Netscape Navigator. Rather than waste time
jury-rigging it to look right in a
soon-to-be-obsolete browser, I'll just add the
cliché "This site best viewed with Internet
Explorer."
©2003 Michael
Strickland ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
|
|
Daily Chuckle:
Experience is something you don't
get until just after you need it.
What is "The Daily Strick"?
I have long called
myself a writer, but too often I don't do
what a writer must do daily: write. So
you, dear reader, are the beneficiary of
my resolution to make a positive change in
at least one area of my life. Every single
day of this new year, I will write
something, anything, and post it here. It
is my intention to use this daily exercise
to jump-start my too-long-dormant creative
energies, and perhaps generate some
worthwhile material this year. Hopefully
you will find at least an occasional
amusement or insight in my daily
musings.
Today's
Column
Send
a Comment
Previously...
3/3:
Make
'Em Laugh
3/2:
Whither
Iraq?
3/1:
Strickland
Cellars
Previous months in
The
Archive
Like what you've
read?
Find more good reading on
(and support future Daily Stricks!)
|
|
