Chargers Choose? wrote on Jun 8, 2007 12:32 AM:What about the folks, the ballot box, etc? "Oh, we're sorry, the Chargers have chosen Goat Hill, so sorry.", ..and if they choose it, and the election fails? Go Chargers! Go! ... all the way to Chula Vista!

Stephan wrote on Jun 8, 2007 7:39 AM:Even if the team decides to re-locate here, leave it to the Oceanside city government and they will chase the Chargers out of town. Every major coporate entity that has tried to bring business to Oceanside has been jerked around so much that they finally give up and go away. IF these current city council members blow this deal, we need to chase them all out of town on a rail. Look at the numbers... Carlsbad 37 sq. ft. of office space per resident. San Marcos has 10 and Escondido 6 now look at Oceanside and we have a meager 4.3. That tells the whole story. Remember when Car Country was in Oceanside. Remember when the mall property was part of the city. Every chance our city has had to improve it's tax base and upgrade the city, the council has blown it big time. Yet as they sit in their "ivory tower" (their 100 million dollar City Hall complex) the rest of the city founders and is 20 years behind the rest of North County. Get it right this time, PEOPLE!!!! My 3 cents (I like to give more than 2 cents)

soO wrote on Jun 8, 2007 7:42 AM:if you incorporate a new state of the art animal shelter in your plans..maybe within the stadium where people can visit you have my vote and support..think about it.

False Ideas wrote on Jun 8, 2007 8:42 AM:The idea that 'projected' revenues from office buildings will support a stadium are absolutely false and Fabiani and the Chargers know that. Plus buying more land in Oceanside for what? Parking lots? Who wants a massive stadium and 8-10 high rise office buildings in their front yard? Yep. That's right. No One! Chargers Go Away with your false ideas and phoney studies. We already know what this one will show- just what you paid your consultants to do.

20 more acres of land? wrote on Jun 8, 2007 8:54 AM:Are the Chargers looking to buy part of El Corazon? And for what? Office buildings? Parking lots? I'm sorry boys but you can't have any of our parkland. This belongs to the people, not a rich football team owner who is the only one who will profit from the 'deal'.

O' Pirate wrote on Jun 8, 2007 9:17 AM:Stadiums NEVER make money for the cities they are in, only line the pockets of the rich owners.

Tough Negotiations wrote on Jun 8, 2007 10:06 AM:The Chargers' attendance would be so much higher in Oceanside than Chula Vista. Don't give away the farm when you've already bagged the deal.

Loud and proud wrote on Jun 8, 2007 10:19 AM:O'side all the way!

either way wrote on Jun 8, 2007 10:24 AM:Stadiums can absolutely make money for a city, but more importantly bring in jobs, improve development, and generally revitalize a dormant area. Look at Pac Bell Park in SF. That said, Oceanside must be well represented if a deal is put on the table, considering there are some very legitimate issues. But overall I think it could be a great thing for this city...

Rick K says 20 additional acres wrote on Jun 8, 2007 10:29 AM:The give away is in the making. Before it was just the 70 acre Goat Hill golf course. Now lets throw in the baseball fields, the Senior Center, the Boys Club, the Country Club Apts.(the city just paid 10 million to supposedly renovate), the municipal pool and all the parking(which is built on landfill), the Halfway House on Barnes and Maybe even the Cape Cod Village Senior Apts the city just purhcased also. The city needs to come clean with all their closed door secrets with Fabianin and the Chargers. We demand it now and not after an election.

GFN wrote on Jun 8, 2007 10:56 AM:After using eminent domain to force citizens from their property, the usable land for a stadium in O'side will only be 110 acres. The Qualcomm site currently has 166 acres, fully 50% larger than the proposed O'side site. Qualcomm holds 70,000 fans; O'side's stadium would hold at least 80,000, and there is not nearly enough parking now at Qualcomm for 17,000 cars. The Chargers claim the rail lines could help, but who will pay for the extensive work that would need to be done to make this feasible? The NCTD is subsidized by taxpayer money to the tune of about 70%. This whole deal sounds like a ploy to make Chula Vista ante up even more than they are now. One question: The City of Oceanside will be giving the Chargers 110 acres of land; when the Chargers do leave, and the history of the NFL is that teams leave when it is economically feasible, does the land revert back to the City? No one has answered that yet.

Longtime Oside Resident wrote on Jun 8, 2007 12:20 PM:You're right, stadiums NEVER make money for the city. It's the functions & activities you put in them that do. Oside will definitely not be worse off with a stadium at Goat Hill. If not there, then in the valley along side the river where the "airport" and old drive is. Those four big, falling-apart screens are an eyesore. Bring on the bulldozers!

No they don't wrote on Jun 8, 2007 1:18 PM:Stadiums NEVER make money for the cities they are located it. Every city subsidizes these things one way or another- whether it by free or very low cost leases, infrastructure costs including the massive amount of traffic improvements needed and safety personnel needs, etc. Get your 'facts' straight. Fabiani and the Spanos's will NEVER come to any city where they aren't the ones making the profits. Follow the money. And remember, even Petco is $5M in debt from the general fund EVERY year. These sports stadiums are NOT money makers. No way, no how!

Freeman wrote on Jun 8, 2007 1:28 PM:"IF THE CHARGERS CHOOSE OCEANSIDE"??? I hate to tell you NC Times, but OCEANSIDE would need to choose the CHARGERS, not the other way around. It will never pass a public vote.

Hmm wrote on Jun 8, 2007 1:37 PM:I'm all for the stadium in O'side. I just don't want to see more traffic. So, if they can get a handle on the traffic I'm fine. Also, they better keep parking free for those that ride the rail out of the area. Right now, we all park in the transportation structure and the lot adjacent to the rail. If they start charging, I'm sure it will upset many who are trying to do good.

Poor use of Free Media? wrote on Jun 8, 2007 1:38 PM:The manipulatin of the press is sickening- where is the counter-balance to this story? The Chargers are outsiders and you have not interviewed ANYONE else who may have an opposing viewpoint? Knock up the pro-Chargers press- it is sickening and there are other viewpoints to consider. For instance, the neighborhoods and citizens of Oceanside who will be devastated by any stadium deal!

O'Side Resident wrote on Jun 8, 2007 5:37 PM:The comments after this article make me sick. You people complain about lack of office space compared to surrounding cities, yet when an opportunity for a stadium, which could add HUGE amounts of office space is proposed, you people shut it down for "more land". I'm sorry, but there is PLENTY of land in oceanside. I don't think giving up that much for more jobs for the people of this town will hurt anything.

nonono wrote on Jun 8, 2007 5:54 PM:Fools. A stadium in Oceanside is the last thing standing between North County San Diego becoming Orange County. This is what you want??? Really? What is the goal here?

Oh brother! wrote on Jun 8, 2007 6:02 PM:What is all the hype about? The Chargers are just using the City of Oceanside to sweeten the pot for San Diego or Chula Vista or some other town. Until the Economic Development Council signs an MOU agreeing to pay a percentage of the costs to float this stadium and its cost overruns it will NEVER be built in Oceanside. Never.

The Spin Doctor wrote on Jun 8, 2007 6:03 PM:Isn't everyone aware that Mark Fabiani used to work in the Clinton White House? He knows how to spin the truth and this is no different. Trying to jam a stadium on Goat Hill is a joke. Sort of like saying Monica was just Bill's intern!

To Spin Doctor wrote on Jun 8, 2007 6:06 PM:So the guy worked for Clinton. What's the big deal. I'm more concerned that he worked for Al Gore, the inventor of the Internet and the guy who says there is global warming. Can Fabiani actually believe a word he says to the media?

Uh Oh Oside Resident wrote on Jun 8, 2007 7:41 PM:So people are willing to give away open space for sky scraper office buildings? None of the neighbors area so who are you? No one is complaining about the lack of office space except the Chargers. Look around..there are tons of vacancies out there and throughout San Diego County. This is just another manufactured fantasy argument.

Carter: wrote on Jun 8, 2007 9:57 PM:The Chargers will not move form San Diego. They do this every year and put San diego in a vise.

No wrote on Jun 9, 2007 8:34 AM:The stadium is a bad idea. Ugly, too much traffic, rowdy and drunk fans, etc., etc. The financial ramifications are highly uncertain. The entire project would be a drain on city hall. Consultants would need be hired constantly to study one issue after another. Let it go and start entertaining more desirable proposals which would enjoy much more community support.

More No wrote on Jun 9, 2007 8:50 AM:Plus, imagine the noise that place would create on Sundays and other game days! The public address system will be heard for miles around! And the crowd would be the same. Just think about the range of crowd noise: from hysteric cheering to unanimous booing to chanting nicknames like LT, LT, LT, all rolling throughout our properties on what would otherwise be a nice Sunday. No No No. I want my home to be quiet on weekends. This will NOT increase property values.

jbolt wrote on Jun 9, 2007 9:44 PM:Let's put this to vote and get it over with. The money and time being spent on both sides to potentially build / block a stadium deal is a complete waste of resources. Let the residents of Oceanside and Chula Vista decide this issue when it's put to vote. Let's face it.....San Diego has way more pressing issues than the stadium. The felons who ran (and continue to run) the city got us into this financial debacle and it has nothing to do with the Chargers. This whole thing has become a political lightning rod for both sides. The reality is the people who've been running this city are either incompetent or corrupt (or both). The Chargers are being used as a scapegoat to create a diversion by the very same people who created the mess we're currently in. Why aren't people asking where all the money's gone? Revenue and resources wise, we should be flush with cash. Where's all our property tax revenue gone? Property values have increased 150% in the last 9 years and local taxes continue to rise!! That's the real issue. Personally, I'd love to see a new stadium in San Diego. I've been a Charger fan for 30 years. People say they want more parks and libraries, but have you been to a park or library lately? I have. I have three young kids and over the past 5 years I've visited numerous parks. Well guess what.....they're not exactly cram packed with people. More often than not there's only 1 or 2 families there at a time. What's the cost to maintain a park or library? I don't know, but I guarantee they're not money makers. At least a stadium will provide some revenue to the city or county (and private jobs, not beaurocratic wasteful jobs). Just because you're not be a football fan doesn't give you the right to dictate where my taxes should go. I hate the fact that the majority of my tax dollars go to fund this stupid war and line the pockets of corporations like Bechtel and Haliburton. I also resent having to pay benefits for those who are here illegaly or are on welfare. If 2% of my tax dollars go to fund a new stadium in Oceanside at the cost of making some deadbeat go back to work or eliminate a couple of underutilized parks, then I say let's build the best stadium in the NFL!

boltfan wrote on Jun 10, 2007 11:06 PM:I don't understand how 9 home games a year will ruin the neighborhood. Look at Petco park and the 80 games a year. The entire region around the stadium is booming. Even if the Stadium doesn't bring money to the city directly, the redevelopment will do wonder. Oceanside has lagged behind Carlsbad and Encinitas long enough, bring in a mere 110 acres of development and the entire city benefits 365 days a year!

To Boltfan wrote on Jun 11, 2007 6:27 AM:If you're limiting your opinion to the impact of 9 home games a year then you are not considering the entire impact of this project. It's not just home games. It's practices. It's play offs. It's every other ludicrious event that fills the stadium with the Chargers aren't using it. It's the noise. It's the traffic. It's the drunk fans that will be driving through our neighborhoods after the events. It's the eminent domain that will be used to throw people out of their homes & businesses to accmmodate the additional 40 acres wanted beyond Goat Hill. And so on and so on. Petco has helped regenerated the area it's in because it was already a dilapidated warehouse district not the long established residential that surrounds Goat Hill. There is no comparison and no reason to throw this in the middle of neighborhoods.

Longtime Oside Resident wrote on Jun 11, 2007 11:03 AM:I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is. People complaining about possible traffic issues - but don't consider the team is willing to pay for traffic improvements. Complaints about office space that just might decrease the unemployment in the area. Complaints about park land - parks which are mostly frequented by bumbs and druggies. And lastly, not all football fans are drunks or drunk drivers. it's unfortunate that people don't sufficiently inform themselves in order to make a more educated commentss on the idea. If the city/tax payers don't have to dip into their pockets for a stadium to be built but, does get to share in the revenues the development produces then it can't be that bad an idea. it's not all about football or the Chargers!

To Longtime Resident wrote on Jun 11, 2007 4:35 PM:You're right. It's not all about football or the Chargers. It's about the diminished quality of life for the long established residential neighborhoods already in place. It's about the decline in property values that is sure to occur here like it does everywhere else that has a stadium once the new shine wears off. It's about the unrealistic infrastructure upgrades that would need to be done to accommodate the additional traffic. It's about the eminent domain that will be used to take private property for private purposes so the Charges can have the 110 acres they want (and the site will still be too small after that). Office space is fine, but if we needed it so badly the last major office development wouldn't have been rezoned for residential use at the last minute. Goat Hill is certainly in need of some type of development, but the stadium just doesn't fit. At least not where they think they want to put it.

To Longtime Oside Resident wrote on Jun 11, 2007 5:57 PM:I too feel it's unfortunate that people don't succiciently inform themselves in order to make a more educated comment on the idea. I feel it's unfortunate that people really seem to think this is only a 8-10 homes games a year issue. I feel it's unfortunate that peopl who don't live in the area seem to think it's ok to trample over the lives of others simply for a fantasy of recognition. I agree that not all fans are drunks or drunk drivers ... but when was the last time you were at a game. I remember well the last game I was at and there were people urinating in the parking lot because the lines inside were too long. I'd rather not have that same behavior on my lawn before they leave for their trip home. On top of that, if you really think that no city/tax payer money would be used in this disaster then you really need to pull your head out of the sand for a serious reality check. It always looks good on paper, but 1-2 years into development costs will increase and budgest will be overrun. They will run out of money and need our help ... and we will be stuck. Taxpayers will lose. Property owners will lose. Add both of those together and that means the city will also ultimately lose.