Get in line, Chargers

St. Louis Rams owner to build Inglewood stadium

The Los Angeles Times reported today (January 5) that Stan Kroenke, owner of the St. Louis Rams, plans to build an 80,000-seat NFL stadium in Inglewood. Such a rumor has been rampant for a year, after Kroenke bought 60 acres in that area. But 60 acres isn't enough for the planned stadium, so Kroenke joined forces with Stockbridge Capital Group, which owns the Hollywood Park site. There will be other real estate developments in the area, according to the Times.

This makes three planned stadiums in the Los Angeles area: Kroenke's, the proposed Farmers Field downtown, and Ed Roski's proposal for City of Industry. Three NFL teams are unhappy with their present stadiums and are rumored to be eyeing L.A.; they are the Rams, Chargers, and Oakland Raiders. The NFL apparently wants two teams in L.A., but no movement is expected before 2016. Kroenke's stadium wouldn't be completed until 2018, although teams could move to Los Angeles and play temporarily in the Rose Bowl or L.A. Coliseum.

The Times article doesn't deal with the stupidity of St. Louis officials in the wooing of the Los Angeles Rams in 1994. St. Louis had lost the Cardinals to Phoenix in 1987. The city wanted another team. So it built a domed stadium in 1993 without a tenant; taxpayers shelled out 96 percent of the money. In negotiations between the Rams and St. Louis, the Rams, which couldn't wangle a sufficient subsidy to stay in Los Angeles, suggested a contract inclusion: the St. Louis stadium had to be "first tier" — in the top 25 percent of league stadiums — or the team could move in 2005 or 2015. St. Louis officials were so desperate to land a team that they overlooked this trick play. The lease isn't clear on what constitutes "first tier." And at the rate new stadiums are being built, few stadiums will remain in the top 25 percent for long. So, the Rams are free to move. St. Louis is putting together a subsidy package, but according to the Times, the team and the city are $575 million apart.

There is little support for a taxpayer subsidy in Los Angeles, although there is always wiggle room that can create a subsidy under another name. Right now, it appears the Rams may be first in line to get to Los Angeles.

Share / Tools

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • AddThis
  • Email

More from SDReader


While the NFL could fix this dire need for LA football by authorizing a couple of new teams the desire is for more local government subsidies. Playing one location off another to make suckers of both locations.

Or are we just reaching a football saturation point? Have they reached a point where there is too much NFL product around? Or are the billionaire owners in real danger of losing so much money that they need to suck up valuable city resources from the shrinking middle class and growing poor?

MichaelValentine: I wish I could say that the public has reached the saturation point on subsidizing billionaires' stadiums. However, I don't think the evidence is there. The 20 percent of absolutely rabid Chargers fans constitute a large voting bloc, and politicians know it.

Games are incredibly expensive and watching at home in comfort is becoming more popular. Still, most stadiums fill up. Remember, the team outspends opposition by 100-1 or more when the public is voting. That is a huge, almost insuperable advantage. The team and its supporters will lie about what the stadium will cost and how much the team will put in the pot. But the mainstream media probably won't report the lies. I am pessimistic about any Chargers deal. Best, Don Bauder

Of the three locations mentioned, I'd favor the Hollywood Park/Inglewood location. But it's been forever since I lived in LA, and I can't claim any insight other than that of a distant spectator. I do find in amazing and gratifying that there's little support for a stadium subsidy in LA. It's not as though football is unpopular there: USC and UCLA and other local teams get huge amounts of attention.

Today I got to listen to one of the local AM radio blabbermouths, and he was lamenting the potential loss of the Spanos franchise to LA. He kept making the same emotional appeals to civic pride and the love-hate relationship of SD with LA. But then he went on to repeat a claim that the "economic effect" of the Chargers was "incalculable". He must have said that ten times. Why, I ask, is that "incalculable?" With the current state of econometrics and the ability to track receipts, expenses, taxes, et. al., I'd say that the effect is very calculable. And when measured, it will be found to be not that great, except as a massive wealth transfer from middle-class people and corporations to wildly overpaid athletes and to the Spanos gang. New money in the local area? Fuhgeddabouddit! Doesn't happen and will never happen.

Time to buck up, SD! Tell Deano and his gang that they have a really good thing going now, and that if the current stadium has some flaws, the city will fix them. If the bums cannot go to LA--and where else could they go?--it's time to stop all the dumb talk about a new stadium in a bad spot in town. The current location is far better, and actually that facility is really a good one.

Visduh: Your logic is impeccable and your prose extremely well-crafted. I wish I had expressed the same sentiment with as much skill. (I've been saying the same thing since 1996, but not saying it as well as you do.)

Yes, the economic effect is calculable. It is minuscule. Every economist who is not paid by a team or the league comes to that conclusion. Subsidizing billionaire sports team owners is economic folly. As you say, it is a shift of wealth from the poor and middle class to millionaire players and billionaire owners. Best, Don Bauder

Two problems--the stadium does have flaws, and they are multiplying (just like the rest of the infrastructure in the city). The team also has one other option--they could move to San Antonio. Also--you state that a radio person said that the Chargers had an "incalculable" economic effect for the city. They would (and should) be afraid to give the real numbers. I would hate to see the Chargers leave, personally, but would San Diego roll up and die? Hardly.

aardvark: Los Angeles lost two teams in the mid-1990s, the Rams and the Raiders, and the city did not roll up and die. Qualcomm Stadium may have flaws, but San Diego's deeply-flawed infrastructure is far more important.

Yes, the team could move to San Antonio. It could also move to Las Vegas. The notion that the NFL dislikes Las Vegas because of the gambling is utterly laughable. The NFL began as a vehicle for gambling on Sundays. The team owners have traditionally been high rollers, often tied to organized crime. Don't count out Las Vegas as a potential home. Best, Don Bauder

Don: JMO, but I must disagree. The NFL is a success in the sportsbooks, but I doubt it would be a success at the gate. I guess it's not impossible, just highly improbable.

aardvark, despite the owners' protesting otherwise, the real money doesn't come from the live gate, it comes from the TV contracts. From 2014 to 2021, the networks will pay about $40 billion+ for the broadcast rights. That's more than 5 billion a year! Ticket revenue is split 60/40 with the visiting team. The BIG money from the stadium is from the sale of luxury boxes. That money is static; the box is paid for in full and it doesn't matter how many people show up to the stadium.

danfogel--I am very aware of that, but the NFL is also about image, and the image of a stadium with thousands of empty seats wouldn't play well for the league.

aardvark., The point I was making is that even the lowliest of team uaually average above 85% capacity. In a typical 70k stadium, such as Qualcomm for example, that's only about 10k or so empty seats spread out through the expanse of the stadium. That's not a lot, at least from my view point. I can imagine a stadium in Vegas drawing well. I could see a lot of people in town anyway sticking around for an afternoon to take in an NFL. Just my opinion. Opinions vary

danfogel: It's true that many Vegas visitors are there to gamble -- period. However, consider the thrill of putting money down on a game and then watching that game -- rather like putting money on a pony at the race track and watching the race. It can be exhilarating if you win.

Also, there are many extremely rich people in Vegas who would snap up the luxury seats and boxes and club seats. And that's where big money is made for a team.

Further, Vegas is a huge convention market. Some attending conventions might go to a game on weekends. Best, Don Bauder

aardvark: In games in which a stadium has many empty seats, the cameramen try not to have those empty seats shown on TV. Best, Don Bauder

Per http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/super/2014/01/30/super-bowl-nfl-revenue-denver-broncos-seattle-seahawks/5061197/ the NFL's annual revenue breaks down as follows:

About $5 billion from media and television rights to broadcast games.
About $1-2 billion in sponsorships, such as its long-running deal with PepsiCo, worth about $90 million to $100 million per year.
About $2 billion related to attendance and ticket sales.
About $1 billion in merchandise and licensing.

ImJustABill: That USA Today story has some important information. It is worth a read. Best, Don Bauder

danfogel: I agree that TV is a huge source of team revenue. I also agree that the luxury seats, club seats, and other chattels of the rich and chic are the big sources of revenue inside the stadium.

This is a problem the Chargers have, and they know it. There are not enough big bucks folks in San Diego to make as much money from the luxury seats and boxes as many other cities have. This is one reason the NFL desperately wants one or two -- preferably two -- teams in L.A. There are plenty of rich folks in that market. It's also a huge TV market. Best, Don Bauder

aardvark: No doubt it is difficult to say whether a Las Vegas team would be successful at the gate.The same holds true for other market possibilities -- maybe the NFL wouldn't be as successful as expected.

I suspect a team would be successful in Las Vegas. The metro area is full of extremely rich people. Thus, a team there could make a lot of money on luxury seats and boxes. The proletariat could take the other seats. Best, Don Bauder

"The notion that the NFL dislikes Las Vegas because of the gambling is utterly laughable." don bauder, You still have never commented on the fact that the NFL, along with the NHL,NBA,MLB and NCAA were successful in getting a federal judge to issue a permanent injunction preventing sports gambling in New Jersey casinos. Could it be that you believe this to be a gambit to keep all of the sports gambling centralized in Vegas?

danfogel: The NFL, in particular, is tied at the hip to gambling. The NHL, NBA, and MLB are less tied. You may be right: the leagues want to keep the gambling in Vegas.

But remember, this Jersey case was about LEGAL gambling. Sports gambling generally takes place in the subterranean economy, and I am not just talking about office pools. Best, Don Bauder

Marvin Harrison: You may be right that Inglewood is not a good location for a pro football stadium. However, Kroenke has been a very successful real estate investor. Best, Don Bauder

It's funny how they have to have 2 teams.

I guess once the NFL loses LA as the big extortion chip to convince other cities to give tax money to their local teams they might as well have as many teams as LA will support.

ImJustABill: The NFL wants two teams because LA has an enormous TV audience, and there are plenty of exceedingly rich people who could occupy luxury boxes and seats and purchase club seats.

But LA was not a good market for the Rams and Raiders in the 1990s. That's the reason they moved away. Could it be that Angelenos are satisfied with following USC and UCLA, and don't have that much interest in pro football? I would think somebody in LA would be pondering the past. Best, Don Bauder

My experience and feel for LA is that the city tends to follow whoever is winning. (Except for SC/UCLA which have die-hard college fanbases). At any given time between the Clippers, Lakers, Dodgers and Kings there is at least one team which is a legitimate title contender and that's (those are) the team(s) LA follows. You can add in the OC teams Angels and Ducks for that matter so out of the 6 greater LA major sports teams there's at least 1 or 2 which are title contenders. The Raiders and Rams weren't frequent title contenders in the late 1980's.

ImJustABill, A couple of thoughts. First, throwing out the 87 season, the Rams made the playoffs in '85,'86', "88 and '89, playing in the NFC Championship in 1985 and 1989. Not too bad. The Raiders made the AFC Championship, but having lost Bo the previous game, they got humiliated by Buffalo. As far as supporting only teams that are winning, take a look at the Lakers over the last 3 seasons. The have been in the top 10 in attendance at 99.7, 98.8 and 99.4 percent of capacity and that's having been OK 2 yrs ago and sucking last year and this. Same with the Kings; over 90 percent capacity even when they have been far out of the playoffs, which is very hard to do in the NHL. And the Dodgers, don't even bother. They have been under 3 million in attendance 1 time in the last 15 yrs. My point is this. Having moved from San Diego to Los Angeles in 1994, I can tell you that from my experience, the fan bases of the LA teams are pretty loyal, win or lose. But parenthetically, that may be the problem. An NFL team in LA, regardless of who it is, won't be an la team, merely just a team playing in LA. And I find it highly unlikely that they would have that same kind of loyalty enjoyed by the other LA teams. once the new car smell is gone and if they are not immediately successful. That's were the 18 million population will be a benefit. Just my opinion. Opinions vary.

danfogel--That is where I think the Rams would be different. They were an LA team for almost 50 years, and I think they would do very well in the market. I have my doubts about the Chargers or Raiders in that market.

aardvark: But the Rams were not accepted by Angelenos in their last years. Ownership was held in contempt. However, maybe people do not have long memories. Best, Don Bauder

Don: Rams owner (at the time) Georgia Frontiere was hated in the LA area--I believe they would welcome the Rams back now with open arms.

Bo Jackson was arguably the greatest athlete of my generation. Shame he got hurt.

ImJustABill: As I recall, the baseball team for which Bo Jackson played didn't want him to play football -- for good reasons, it turned out. Best, Don Bauder

I might not be characterizing the LA fan base accurately as I'm only going from a limited time living in LA (roughly mid 80's - mid 90's) and of course a limited number of people I came in contact with.

I guess the thing is regardless of loyal fans if you have 10 million people - or 20 million or more depending on how you count - in the metro area you WILL get big crowds at NFL games.

ImJustABill: With the size of the LA market, good crowds should seem assured. However, with the high cost of attending games, that might not be as easy as one thinks. I do think that the luxury seats and boxes would be filled, and that's where the money will be made.

LA SHOULD be able to support two teams, but if my money were in the pot, I would be at least a little bit nervous. Best, Don Bauder

danfogel: The Rams had some great teams. But Georgia Frontiere wanted fat subsidies to keep the team there and couldn't get them. They were playing in Anaheim for their last several seasons. (Even Anaheim wouldn't pony up subsidies.) In their last game there, fewer than 26,000 were in the stands, and they were booing management. Best, Don Bauder

don bauder, I wouldn't call 14 yrs, the same length of time that Dan Fouts played in the NFL, a few seasons, but that's just me. I wouldn't say that the Rams had any great teams while in Anaheim. They had some players who had great seasons, Wendell Tyler in 1981, Eric Dickerson in 1984, Henry Ellard in 1988, and Jerome Bettis' Offensive Rookie of the Year season in 1993 come to mind, but they never had a great QB while in Anaheim. And you need a geat QB to have a great team. Yes, they did make it to the playoffs 7 times after moving to Anaheim, but they only made it as far as the NFC Championship game, twice, and got crushed both times. Great teams? While playing in the Coliseum yes, while in Anaheim, not so much.

danfogel: I have watched a lot of pro games on TV, but as far as I can remember, I have only seen two in person. One was at Wrigley Field -- a horrible place to watch a game. The other was at Jack Murphy, now called Qualcomm. Most of the seats there are excellent, but not ours. My oldest son and I sat under the scoreboard/video screen. We couldn't see the game when the action was on the other half of the field. Best, Don Bauder

ImJustABill: Yours may be a percipient assessment of LA. To a great extent, it's probably true of most cities. People get bored with losers.

The big exception is the Chicago Cubs. Chicagoans keep supporting that team as it continues to lose, year after year, decade after decade. My older son once observed that any general manager who would field a good Cubs team should be fired. Why spend money on building a good team when the fans -- in the ballpark and on TV -- will support a bad one?

P.S. In my youth, living in a Chicago suburb, I was a rabid Cubs fan. I have been scarred psychologically from the experience. Best, Don Bauder

The Cubs do still have a loyal fan base. I think Wrigley Field is actually one of the coolest stadiums out there (although I suspect like everyone else they probably want taxpayers to build them a new one).

ImJustABill: Wrigley Field, built in 1914, will be undergoing renovation to the tune of $575 million. The renovation is touted as privately financed, but I would be skeptical of that. For one thing, the team is trying to get federal tax credits. Best, Don Bauder

The Cubs attendance has actually dropped a little in the last couple of years. They were one of the teams who routinely could be counted on to draw over 3 million per year But over the last couple of seasons, their attendance has fallen by about 500k per season.

danfogel: You mean Chicagoans are finally getting smart? Having spent more than 20 years of my life there, I am skeptical. I don't doubt your statistics, but wonder if other factors were involved. Best, Don Bauder

don bauder The Raiders in the 1990's? Only 2 words needed: Al Davis. Enough said. The Rams got little fan support because they sucked. It's that simple. After getting crushed by the 49ers in the '89 NFC Championship game, they did nothing. They didn't even have a winning season. Fans quit going to games because they were terrible, meaning many of their games the last 5 yrs were blacked out. Georgia wanted a new stadium, or at least a massive reno the the Big A. OC was in a recession, so that wasn't going to happen and the Rams exited stage left. Something many people overlook when considering the size of the market in LA. Most refer to the LA market as the second largest in the country. I believe that you have to consider the entire market that LA would draw from. It's not just the 9 million LA-OC market that most refer to. It encompasses the entire greater Los Angeles area, LA and Orange counties, PLUS Ventura, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. That's over 18 million people, according to the 2012 census. You can talk about the sports scene being diluted all you want, be it college, pro or both, But I believe that with that many people to draw from, if it gets built, people will show up.

danfogel: I agree with you on the definition of the LA market -- it does indeed include those surrounding counties. A lot of commentators say that LA is simply used as a threat to cities to come up with piles of money to build a new stadium or upgrade an existing one to keep the team from moving to LA. That was certainly true of Tampa Bay for awhile. Baseball teams were regularly threatening to move there unless their cities coughed up.

However, I believe the NFL really wants a team -- probably two -- in the LA market, largely because that market is as huge as you say. Best, Don Bauder

If LA gets 2024 Summer Olympics I think there will be a renewed push for an LA stadium.

Well, the 1984 games in Los Angeles were put on without any public money and also made a profit. So, if they can do the same for the 2024 games, I say let them have at it. But the site won't be announced for two more years and LA would be going up against at least Rome, probably Paris and maybe a city in Germany or South Africa. Long odds but in any case The NFL question will likely have been answered by then. That could be known fairly soon if St Louis gives notice of intent to exercise their option to convert to a year to year lease.

danfogel: I agree that the NFL question will likely have been settled by the time the 2024 Olympics come. On the other hand, look how long it has been going on without any resolution. Best, Don Bauder

Just announced - Boston will be the US nominee for 2024 Summer Olympics

Yeah, Boston has absolutely no chance against Rome, Paris and probably Berlin. It will likely be as embarrassing as when Chicago was picked to bid for next years games.

danfogel: I was in Rome last year. It was so crowded I don't know how the Olympics fans and contestants will be squeezed into the place. Florence was just as congested.. Best, Don Bauder

Don Bauder But were you there in July? If you're one of the thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, NOT from the US, where would you rather visit in July, Boston or Rome?

danfogel: We were there in May. Without question, Rome is a great city. However, I prefer Milan. People sneer that it is an industrial center, but it has La Scala, among other things. It also has money. Best, Don Bauder

I have been to Italy twice, but it has been more than a decade since my last trip. From a historical sense, I huess I would say I preferred Rome, but from a cultural sense, so to speak, I would say Milan. My wife and daughter definitely enjoyed the fashion aspect, which I'm sure my credit card bills reflected. But alas, Milan is not one of the options for the Olympics, only Rome. So with that being said, again If you're one of the visitors to the Olympics not from the US, where would you rather visit, Boston or Rome?

danfogel: There is no doubt that Rome is one of the world's great cities -- the Vatican museum, ruins, etc. With all those small cars and quasi-motorbikes zooming around, it is amazing that more pedestrians aren't killed. Maybe they are, but the news is squelched. Best, Don Bauder

ImJustABill: Really? I have been on the computer all day and haven't seen that. Best, Don Bauder

ImJustABill: Yes, probably, unless the voters find out how much the city lost hosting the Olympics. Best, Don Bauder

Don Bauder The 1984 Summer Olympics were by far the most financially successful in history. They were the first in history not to be sponsored by the government. There was no public money. It was done with private donations and massive corporate funding. The total expenditures came into about $546 million, with almost half of that being paid by ABC for the broadcast right. The games netted a surplus of $232.5 million, 40% of which stayed in the So-Cal region.At the time, the only other GAMES to show a profit were the 1932 Olympics...in Los Angeles.The Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los Angeles, now known as the LA84 Foundation was created with an endowment from the games. Now in all fairness, it is true that The federal government provided about $75 million in funding and support for the 1984 Summer Olympics; the majority of which was used to help provide safety- and security-related services during the Games, the same support have been provided if the 1984 Summer Olympic Games had been held in the US city and has been provide in all other US cities hosting Olympic games.

danfogel: I agree that, all things considered, the 1984 Olmpics were successful financially. However, if you look at other Olympics -- summer and winter -- what you see is a lot of red ink. Best, Don Bauder

don bauder, The 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles were a success financially ANY way you look at them. Their success still resonates today. One only needs to do a little research on the LA84 Foundation to see that. And as I said in my comment above, the 2 summer games in Los Angeles, 1932 and 1984 are the ONLY 2 US held Olympics to be profitable and Los Angeles in 1984 is the only one privately financed. Yes, there are huge amounts of red ink everywhere else where the Olympics have been held. However, since your comment was clearly referring to the voters finding out how much the city of Los Angeles lost hosting the Olympics in 1984, my reply was confined to those Olympics specifically. And in that reference, you were wrong.

danfogel: I am searching for an antecedent indicating that I said Los Angeles lost money on the 1984 Olympics. I can't fine one. I did know that LA had made money on the 1984 games. If I tied red ink to the 1984 LA Olympics, please tell me where I said that. What I meant to say was that hosting the Olympics is normally a money drainer. Best, Don Bauder

don bauder read the earlier comments again. imjustabill posted ImJustABill Jan. 8, 2015 @ 11:43 a.m. If LA gets 2024 Summer Olympics I think there will be a renewed push for an LA stadium. to which it appears you replied Don Bauder Jan. 8, 2015 @ 4:54 p.m. ImJustABill: Yes, probably, unless the voters find out how much the city lost hosting the Olympics. Best, Don Bauder Since LA was the only city imjustabill referenced as hosting an Olympics, and was also the topic of discussion regarding a new stadium, it seems a reasonable assumption you were referring to LA. As for the "red ink" ,I agreed by saying "there are huge amounts of red ink everywhere else where the Olympics have been held". Plese reread the final 2 sentences of my above comment; they spell things out pretty clearly BTW about a year ago in you said:

Don Bauder Jan. 28, 2014 @ 7:46 p.m. aardvark: Hosting an Olympics is a losing venture. Best, Don Bauder

to which I said danfogel Jan. 31, 2014 @ 12:09 p.m. I believe that the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles would be an exception to your conclusion. to which you replied

Don Bauder Jan. 31, 2014 @ 7:59 p.m. danfogel: That's what LA claims, anyway. Best, Don Bauder

I seem to recall another occasion in which you disagreed that the 1984 Olympics A: made money and B: were privately financed, but I don't feel like looking it up.

danfogel: You did much more homework than I have time to do. It looks like you are right. I was wrong. Best, Don Bauder

There isn't going to be a stadium there. I firmly believe Kroenke has other plans for that land. I think he's working with the NFL... trying to create a "threat" of the Chargers or some other team leaving to try to frighten taxpayers and politicians into passing a huge public subsidy in that area. And at the same time, he can hold out the "promise" of an NFL team to lA... if they'll play ball. If we all call his bluff, the Chargers will stay in San Diego, the taxpayers' money will stay in their pocket, and that land will be developed by Kroenke or sold to someone else to develop amidst cries of a "lost opportunity".

The "required" public "investment" for a new NFL stadium has simply grown too large. Even sports-crazy LA isn't signing up. Neither will San Diego. And I think the same thing will happen next time New York or some other town full of rabid sports fans winds up with a stadium that's "too old, too tired, too behind-the-times" and a team making ominous remarks about looking elsewheres... the numbers have grown too big, and I think the days of taxpayers anteing up are drawing to a close.

jnojr: I disagree on one point. I don't think LA is just being used as a threat. I think the NFL really wants at least one team, and preferably two, in that very rich market.

I certainly hope you are right that the taxpayer investment in stadiums has grown too large and even San Diego won't go ahead with a fat subsidy for a billionaire family. Best, Don Bauder

danfogel: Interesting article. But Missouri taxpayers won't foot 40% of the bill. Double that to 80% and you will be in the ballpark. I don't know that the NFL will make a loan to St. Louis or San Diego, but will jump at the chance to make a loan to Los Angeles. Best, Don Bauder

Don: As you say--40%? Not even close.

aardvark: The U-T has a story this morning (Saturday) in which somebody, with a straight face, claims that taxpayers might only have to put in $200 million. This is hilarious, particularly since any new stadium these days is going to cost at least $1 billion. This $200 million statement is also emblematic of the lies that teams and their lackeys tell when trying to squeeze money out of a metropolis.

As I have said, taxpayers can expect to pay 70 to 80 percent of any stadium. Best, Don Bauder

Don: Obviously, they can point to the sale of the Qualcomm and Sports Arena properties as a way to pay for a new downtown stadium, but just as obvious, they don't count the hundreds of millions those sales could bring as a payment by taxpayers. If that were to happen (and somehow pass with the electorate), the next project on the near-term horizon would be the construction of a new arena because, after all, the old arena will be torn down if that land is sold.

aardvark: There are several problems with developing the land on which Qualcomm sits. One of those problems is Mission Valley is already overdeveloped. A second problem is the market is not ready yet for development of that site. There are other problems, too. And you are right that if the Sports Arena is torn down, the welfare queens that make up the downtown establishment will start lobbying for a new arena for a hockey or basketball team, or both.Best, Don Bauder

Log in to comment

Skip Ad

Let’s Be Friends

Subscribe for local event alerts, concerts tickets, promotions and more from the San Diego Reader