San Diego needs to follow Minnesota’s example and build a new stadium

3
141

It’s no secret the Chargers need an upgrade from the historic Qualcomm Stadium. We’ve spoke of the issue multiple times on the site, but with Minnesota being awarded the Super Bowl this week, it’s worth bringing up again.

After February’s special election that placed new San Diego mayor, Kevin Faulconer, in office, there appeared to be hope for an innovative resolution. The two sides, Faulconer and the Chargers, sat down in April for a meeting to open stadium talks for the first time under the new political regime. While this felt like step in the right direction, the fans were paid lip service by Falcouner. “We’re certainly a ways out from coming up with any solution, but we started interacting with the Chargers….” or in other words, the new mayor hasn’t made any progress on the issue. Faulconer is searching for the “solution that protects us as taxpayers,” but unfortunately, this isn’t getting the Bolts any closer to bringing a new pearl to downtown San Diego.

I will never claim to be any sort of political or socioeconomic guru, but it’s disappointing to see Minnesota taxpayers put forth $500 million to pay for roughly half of the costs of the Vikings new stadium. Roger Goodell points to the billion-dollar stadium as the biggest factor in selecting the Twin Cities as the Super Bowl destination for 2018 in a move that could bring an additional $500 million to the city. Simply put, the NFL rewards cities who invest in the product. No owner wants to ask his city to pony up hardworking taxpayers’ dollars and not deliver the biggest spectacle in sports. Now this isn’t just some “snap of the fingers” issue in which the answer is right in front of us, but the Chargers need a new stadium. There is no reason this city shouldn’t be hosting the Super Bowl every 5-10 years.

Arguably the most popular sports blogger in the country, David Portnoy of Barstool Sports, gave his two cents on the issue Wednesday. “If your team makes it [to the Super Bowl] and you spend a ton of money to go watch the game you should have the best weekend of your life. That’s why it should always rotate between Miami, San Diego and New Orleans…Who wants to travel to Minnesota in the dead of winter? So stupid.” While this is just one man’s opinion, it speaks to the attitude of the average sports fan in America. There is a reason San Diego is America’s Finest City; people want to travel here. There is absolutely no reason San Diego shouldn’t have a stadium capable of holding a Super Bowl.

Aside from the impact of hosting the NFL’s championship, the proposed $900 million dollar project’s location (just east of Petco Park) would really liven the downtown area and bring an economic boost to the space.

Clearly I don’t have the brain to figure out how this stadium will be funded, but I do know this is necessary. Between the Spanos family, the NFL, and the city of San Diego, progress towards a resolution is vital. We love this team and not only want it to remain in San Diego for years to come, but also hope to give our players and staff the atmosphere they deserve.

Here’s to a new stadium, Bolt up!

 

Previous articleSeahawks need to think about Dan Quinn’s successor now
Next articleFive biggest upgrades that the Raiders already had on their roster
  • Michael

    While the cost of a stadium to a city would be high, shouldn’t the question be how quickly would they get their initial investment back and how much money could the city make from that investment, such as bringing other events to the city as well as 2 or 3 Superbowls.If the owners of the team and the NFL get an return on their investment the city needs to look at it the same way.How much revenue will the City of San Diego potentially make from their investment? If the Chargers and the NFL are the only ones making out, then its a poor investment for the city. If the City can get our/their investment back plus some, its a good investment for our tax dollars. Nobody seems to want to talk about those numbers or a time frame.

  • Dean A

    Michael has it right. The city need to look at a new stadium as a revenue inhancement.
    I would invest in a new stadium fund and I am sure thousand of San Diego residents would do the same if there was a stadium fund we could invest our money into and it paid a return. The Dallas stadium has numerous events continously scheduled and the economic impact to San Diego with a new stadium would be monsterous not only to a City owned stadium but to the city businesses. In conjunction with the convention center numerous new events could be brought to downtown San Diego. Promoters would be lining up to have their events in the 70 degree sunshine of San Diego. The politicians of San Diego seem only interested in their reelection and lifetime politicians don’t have the expertise to invest in profitable ventures. The politicians build municipal building where there is no economic impact but only a cost to taxpayers. Projects like new jails, city offices, librarys or a park around the county offices are more to their likening and great photo opp’s for their re election. Municipal building have their use but if politicians had any idea how to manage city funds, cut costs and increaseing city revenue through investing in ventures that increase the number of large events hosted in San Diego the city wouldn’t be deeply in debt struggling to repair the crumbling infrastructure. The revenue from new stadium events would help to repair the roads and utilities that are so in need of repairs. If the stadium were owned by the city and properly managed by knowledable individuals there would be no cost to the taxpayers. Look at the impact Comic Con brings to San Diego. Can you imagine the economic impact 10 to 20 large events every year. The city tax revenue alone would be astronomical. Time for San Diego to get behind a new stadium.

  • Buy Safe cheap authentic Nets jerseys free shipping Center Reviews