Chargers go AWAY wrote on Jun 11, 2007 9:12 PM:It is absolutely insane to think a massive stadium would not have devastating effects on our town- NO stadium makes money for the host city. Nope, nada, nothing. Anyone who says otherwise is manipulating data and relying on fantasy figures. Petco Park, a highly popular park that was built in the right place (Goat Hill is the WRONG place) costs the City of San Diego $5million a year from the general fund! $5MILLION a year from the general fund. I think this hormone infused dream needs to stop now, before another dime of taxpayer money is spent.

Do you really want this wrote on Jun 11, 2007 10:21 PM:Most studies show that ANY stadium deal ends up costing cities money, not adding revenue. Who in their right mind thinks that Oceanside is ready for a major league stadium? Where is the supporting infrastructure, the parking, the ingress and egress roads, the water/sewer/treament facilties. Is Oceanside so dysfunctional that they think they need a stadium like this to be a real town? Think twice Oceanside, thinktwice.

The Truth is the middle ground wrote on Jun 11, 2007 10:33 PM:okay, another article about a stadium in Oceanside, and the screaming hysterical letters start. Petco costs the city because that was the deal they negotiated. There is no reason why the city can not negotiate a zero cost deal. On the other hand the stadium is not the wonderful development the cheerleaders tout in their letters. The Truth is int he middle ground. The stadium would raise the profile of the city, and a high end business complex would be a huge benefit to the city. Let the proposals begin, and let the voters vote. We are smart enough to vote without having hysterical Fire Mountaion residents telling us how to vote.

Sanchez legacy to Oceanside wrote on Jun 11, 2007 11:17 PM:Esther Sanchez does not have much to show for her 6 years on the Council, but she is sure to be remembered as the person who invited the Chargers to town, stadium or no stadium.

Veritas wrote on Jun 12, 2007 1:21 AM:The council still has not consulted other cities who have stadiums. The "Dallas" example mentioned by Fabiani uses much more space. Chargers spent $200,000 for another city and NADA none for Oceanside. Why don't we just say no or actively explore the facts for a decision and ask the chargers for a good faith token of say $500,000? It is clear the public will say no. Is the council mimicking Bush with his don't bore me with the facts, it is my opinion that counts?

to The Truth wrote on Jun 12, 2007 5:53 AM:mine was neither screaming nor hysterical. If you go to ANY city, not just the bozos in San Diego, they end up losing money on the balance sheets. The owners of the Chargers are billionaire developers, why does any city need to help them? They bought the Chargers at bargain basement rates and now have a team worth hundreds of millions. There should be no need for ANY city to financially aid billionaires. I pity anyone who sees fiscal common sense as hysterical.

R.THOMAS wrote on Jun 12, 2007 6:45 AM:JUST BUILD IT BABY! A STADIUM IN O"SIDE WOULD BE THE BEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED HERE.THE MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS ALLREADY HAS TAKEN PLACE IS SPECTACULAR.COODOS TO YOU ESTER AND THANKS FOR THE GOOD WORK MAYOR WOOD.ALL YOU NEGATIVE PEOPLE THERE IS STILL SOME HOMES LEFT IN ESCONDIDO HINT HINT .I WANT THE BLIMP HANGING OVER THE PIER COME FEB SUPER BOWL.LISTENING TO MADEN AND MICHAELS PRAISE WHAT A WONDERFUL VENUE THE O'SIDE STADIUM IS .KEEP THE FAITH OCEANSIDE ITS'S GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!

GFN wrote on Jun 12, 2007 7:22 AM:Two points and two questions for now. 1. You ask the question, "Are our elected official and staff in over their heads, or can they squeeze a favorable deal for the city from the sharp suits with the San Diego Chargers?" They are in way over their heads; the San Diego city council was eaten alive with a minimum ticket guarantee that cost their City millions of dollars. Why? Because these deals are decided in the heat of the season. When is the vote for the stadium...November, during football season and you get the "affected at any cost" fans like R. Thomas from the 6:45 am post. 2. The site is too small. Qualcomm is 166 acres; Goat Hill would be 110 acres. Using an office park to help with parking is an example of how the Chargers will exploit the City. One of the problems with a stadium is that the City will have to spend tens of millions of dollars for ten days of use by the Chargers, however advocates say the stadium could be used for other things as well. OK, but then where does the parking come from? Do you tell the office people to go home early on a Tuesday because there is a concert...or a Thursday/Monday night game? Now the questions: 1. When the stadium becomes obsolete, or the Chargers move, who will own the property then? Will it revert to the City or will it still belong to the Spanos' family? 2. Will the city council get free tickets and/or a sky box? Personally, I believe this should never happen as the emotion of professional sports overwhelms common sense in most cases. As for disclosure, DEMAND that ALL negotiations are in public and that all questions, such as the ones I posed, are answered.

OHS Graduate wrote on Jun 12, 2007 7:32 AM:As the previous posters have stated, (Point #1) *NO* stadium for any sport in these United States ever pays its own way. The host cities involved end up paying for *annual* fixed costs. . . and these costs never go away. Think, voters, think! (Point #2) The location is wrong. Shoehorning a stadium onto the site of Oside Muni is poor thinking. Either the site is of the proper size or it is not. It doesn't matter that it's right by the freeway or transit. Proper size of the site has to be given top consideration. A much better location would be in the vicinity of State Route 76 and Interstate 15. (Point #3) Esther Sanchez. Need I say more?

Chuck wrote on Jun 12, 2007 7:37 AM:As much as I love football and the Chargers, I love my neighborhood tranquility more. The noise and traffic are enough to kill it for me and I'll be voting no on this in 2008.

To The Truth wrote on Jun 12, 2007 7:50 AM:You shouldn't need a Fire Mountain resident to tell you how insane trying to fit a stadium on Goat Hill is. You shouldn't need a Fire Mountain resident to tell you that you can't fit something that currently sits on more and 120 acres on a 70 acre site inside residential neighborhoods. You shouldn't need a Fire Moutain resident to tell you that the use of eminent domain to serve private purposes is simply wrong at best. You also shouldn't need a Fire Mountain resident to tell you that eminent domain is exactly what will be used to obtain the additional 40 acres Fabiani discussed in his last statements. There are so many things to consider that they all can't possibly be listed here. All of which are common sense that you should be able to see for yourself ... without the assistance of a Fire Mountain resident ... or any other resident. There is no middle here ... Someone is going to take it in the shorts and I guarantee you it won't be the billionaire developers who will be getting our land for free.

to R Thomas wrote on Jun 12, 2007 8:16 AM:Obviously you don't live here and you have no class. Everyone who has to write in all capital letters is protesting too much. Plus you 'cain't' spell.Do you even own a home in town or value your quality of life here?

Reardon wrote on Jun 12, 2007 9:05 AM:They are not the San Diego Chargers, and will never be the Oceanside Chargers -- they are the Alex Spanos Chargers. San Diego never had a say in the team, the Coach, or anything else -- Spanos makes all of the decisions -- and Oceanside will have exactly as much say as did San Diego. None! (Except for the masochistic pleasure of being out maneuvered by Charger's attorneys, and getting to give the Chargers what little remains of Ocensides’ treasure and reputation, of course. If the Chargers were as good on the field as are its negotiators, the Chargers would have retired the Super Bowl Trophy.)

Worried Neighbor wrote on Jun 12, 2007 9:05 AM:I live in Encinitas, and I'm very concerned about the traffic mess any stadium on the Coast is gonna cause. Right now we're blocked in to the south because of the fair traffic. Are we going to be trapped between the fair and a future Chargers stadium? I'd think that inland North County or more towards Riverside County would be closer to the fan base. And I agree with those who have voiced their concerns about the costs of a stadium to Oceanside.

Fantasy Income wrote on Jun 12, 2007 9:23 AM:To pretend that income from office buildings will support the stadium is absurd. One must NEVER build a stadium based on 'anticipated' earnings from another real estate venture. Look downtown in San Diego. All the redevelopment promises have never come through. Besides, we can barely afford the cops and services we have now. How can we ever pretend that we could even afford staffing the games with safety personnel let alone other events? Ridiculous fanasty that can be very dangerous to the taxpayers in town.

Hilarous! wrote on Jun 12, 2007 9:25 AM:Let's just turn over our paychecks to Alex Spanos and his club now- he's the ONLY ONE who will turn a profit on any deal in Oceanside. C'mon folks. Wake up to reality. He screwed the City of san Diego and he'll do it here. He is the guy you DON'T want your daughter to marry and our city should shut him down now.

Rick K wrote on Jun 12, 2007 10:52 AM:For you citizens in Rancho Del Oro, Downtown ,South Oceanside and the Valley who think this Charger stadium is going to be such a plus for Oceanside you should really think this out. Rancho Del Oro residents against the offramp coming through thier neighboods because of increased traffic. The Charger Stadium will pretty much guarantee you will get that off ramp because it will be another traffic route from 78 to Oceanside Blvd. Downtown and South Oceanside residents your property values may go up some because you will have created places for stadium users to rent your homes. But I would forget about a quality of life for those of you who bought the new row homes and the South Osiders who enjoy you laid back existence. Your areas will be inundated with tourists and you probably won't even want to go to the beaches because of the crowds not to mention the traffic associated with game days and other events. Just look at Vista Way now and the traffic. Lastly you Valley People you don't get off so easy either. Don't forget people coming from Riverside County they will only compound the problems on 76. It is a lose, lose situation for most areas of Oceanside.

R Thomas Football player wrote on Jun 12, 2007 10:57 AM:Mr. Thomas before you write your childish babble. Please use spell check because you sure can't spell.

near O-sighted wrote on Jun 12, 2007 11:40 AM:Oceanside's so pitiful. Nah, those Super Bowls the NFL would more than love to through in our city wouldn't bring any money. Nah. Ziltch. Nada. 60,000 people working their way through town for 10 Sundays a year plus a couple of possible extra playoff games wouldn't bring us any money or create jobs. Nah. Giving land at a horrible, unkept golf course in exchange for the Spanos' financing the structure themselves would send Oside into bankruptcy. HEY CARLSBAD! SAVE THE CHARGERS!

Rico Mars wrote on Jun 12, 2007 11:45 AM:build another taco shop. that's obviously the only kind of construction people in this city don't whine and moan about. FYI - OSIDE HASN'T BEEN A SLEEPY BEACH COMMUNITY IN 30 YEARS. We refuse to grow as a city, and that's why we become increasingly ghetto as the years go by. We're San Diego County's third or fourth largest city, and we turn into some backwater town when it comes to getting things done because of all the petty bickering and posturing.

to: To R. Thomas wrote on Jun 12, 2007 11:47 AM:not too many Harvard grads posting on this board, including yourself. Don't resort to personal attacks on other bloggers to prove whatever point you're trying to make.

YOU CAN`T STOP IT wrote on Jun 12, 2007 11:55 AM:To the naysayers. once the O-side stadium is built will you boycott it or will you just say what the heck & go have some fun w/friends & family? GO O-SIDE BOLTS !!

To near O-Sighted wrote on Jun 12, 2007 12:01 PM:You're talking about projected hypotheticals. You cannot justify destroying neighborhoods based on projected hyptheticals. What you can do, however, is find a more suitable location for a stadium ... such as where the old drive in is. Then maybe it could have an effect similar to Petco. The only problem with that is I don't think the city owns it so the Spanos crew would actually have to pay for the land. Lord knows we can't allow the billionaire developer to pay for the land he wants to develop now can we?

To Rico Mars wrote on Jun 12, 2007 12:02 PM:Bulldozing over at least 3 pre-existing neighborhoods is no way to help the city grow.

Rick K wrote on Jun 12, 2007 12:06 PM:Rico Mars. The only reason we get taco shops, check cashing places, barbershops and low-income related businesses is because people sit back in their comfortable chairs trusting our city government. That is the problem. We need voices to say enough junk. The whole Charger Stadium idea is to try to salvage a city that has been poorly(stress Poor)planned for years. We don't need a stadium to solve all our problems in fact it will make more than we have now. The problem is for neighborhoods and people like yourself to get off the sofa and get involved in the planning process. No more junk. Oceanside City government has created a third world city of a beach town that should be ranked up their with Newport Beach.

I am Arthur, King of the Britons... wrote on Jun 12, 2007 12:12 PM:There are far more effective ways to revitalize Oceanside -- without the massive costs and traffic impacts associated with building a gigantic sports arena. Liberalize the zoning, improve the buisiness climate, allow mixed use development, streamline permitting and environmental review, and increase the height restrictions on building. That's the way revitalize Oceanside -- rather than building a massive white elephant project with taxpayer subsidies that will forever hold the city hostage.

Stop...Think wrote on Jun 12, 2007 1:12 PM:No neighborhood would like a stadium to cover over its open space or parkland. Please consider those of us by Goat Hill. The noise, traffic and crime problems would basically mean our neighborhoods are ruined. Want a stadium at MLK Park, El Camino HS, at Eternal Hills, at El Corazon, at the corner of El Camino Real and Mesa? I could go on. No one wants this in their front or their back yard. Please think with some compassion.

To Rico Mars wrote on Jun 12, 2007 1:16 PM:Obviously you haven't been watching the progress downtown, aren't aware of plans to build a new upscale shopping center at the old drive in, and a million other classy projects. You don't kill your town by wanting to be Los Angeles but that's exactly what you're proposing. Yet again another person who doesn't own a home or have a real stake in quality of life of Oceanside.

Always the big Project wrote on Jun 12, 2007 1:38 PM:Oceanside always tries to turn our image around with the "Big Project". Remember the Queen Mary. How about the Manchester and let us not forget paving over our harbor beach for an aquarium. We have enough "big projects" downtown now to turn around the downtown area. Oceanside's bad image comes from some of the crime plagued, gang-infested areas now. Lets fix those problems and forget the stadium idea. It will ruin Oceanside. Isn't it odd that the city wants to revitalize a fairly stable neighorhood like Loma Alta. If any area needs to be revitalized it is Eastside and many parts of the valley. City officials leave our neighborhoods alone here in Loma Alta. We know how to fix the problems just listen to us.

Rico Mars wrote on Jun 12, 2007 1:48 PM:Rick K: please reference my petty bickering/posturing line from my original post. In light of that, the stadium, its accompanying commercial development, and the removal of crime-laden neighborhoods that are in complete disrepair would go a long way towards revitilizing this town and its lazy, disintersted citizenry. Civic pride must start somewhere.

To Rico Mars wrote on Jun 12, 2007 3:22 PM:If you want to remove crime-laden neighborhoods there are far worse examples than Loma Alta. That aside ... I'd like to hear how you think that something that currently resides on more than 160 acres is going to fit on a site that is 70 acres of hills (110 acres once they use eminent domain to steal private property for private use to accommodate Fabiani's latest request). Bring the stadium sure ... but put it in a more practical location.

To You Can't Stop It wrote on Jun 12, 2007 3:29 PM:I won't boycott the stadium because I won't be around long enough to bother. There will be having no fun with friends & family because the traffic will be so bad you won't be able to get anywhere to have fun. If it's built on Goat Hill I will immediately put my house on the market and leave town.

Crime-Laden Neighborhoods? wrote on Jun 12, 2007 3:37 PM:I agree that Loma Alta is somewhat dated, but it is far from ghetto & crime-laden. And Fire Mountain? You have got to be joking! You want to remove crime-laden neighborhoods you need to look farther north and east!

Rick K wrote on Jun 12, 2007 5:44 PM:Rico Mars. I don't know where you live but trust me there are not that many great neighborhoods in Oceanside that don't have some sort of problem unless you live in a gated community, seniors only area, or a fairly new development. Oceanside is an older city that was improperly developed focusing on housing for lower income levels. I would not say my area near Goat Hill Golf Course is crime laden. But I would say the Center Division area and Eastside have some major problems. We only have too many older apartments that are poorly managed. So why destroy our neighborhood.

Andrew wrote on Jun 12, 2007 9:30 PM:Petco park revitalized a blighted area of San Diego's downtown, causing a giant economic boom. People are moving TOWARDS a place that hosts 80 games a year not just 9-10. How can a Stadium be bad, if the owners are promising to bring office developments (i.e. Jobs) to your fair city. This can only help increase tax revenue and bring Oceanside the Success that Carlsbad and Encinitas currently have. Remember everyone thought Legoland and Petco were going to be disasters, they were the opposite.

Be Heard wrote on Jun 12, 2007 10:29 PM:I agree with Rick K. The time is now for the residents of Oceanside to wake up and start caring about what it going on around them. The younger generations of this city need to take the reigns and change the management style of this town from bovine to progressive and educated. Every land use decision should be reviewed to make sure it increases the attractiveness and desirability of the surrounding neighborhood. Every single one. It is shocking that our city planners and government have frequently not followed this standard in making their decisions. Get involved!

To Andrew wrote on Jun 13, 2007 6:16 AM:But what you're not considering is that Petco was built in the middle of an already dilapidated WAREHOUSE DISTRICT. Not in the middle of already existing RESIDENTIAL. The Petco area had nowhere to go but up while building the same thing in the middle of neighborhoods would have destroyed them the same was putting a stadium at Goat Hill will. It's all about location and Goat Hill just isn't the right place for a project like this.

Longtime Oside Resident wrote on Jun 13, 2007 10:18 AM:Wow! This is definitely what we need...communication! It seems alot of people are actually paying attention now. I think everyone so far has brought up legitimate concerns. It IS about time that the people of Oside get involved in this whole idea so that we DON'T get screwed. I still believe a stadium in Oside will bring some much needed "clout" to a city that has been getting run down more and more every year. I agree with Rick K's post - Oside should be ranked up there w/Newport. I hear alot of talk about traffic...that's why we all need to get involved, so that traffic solutions are part of the deal. Also, we don't need 166 acres for a stadium. Look at Petco. There's not much parking around there so, people have to use public transportation. Which means that much less traffic around the stadium. This means people will have to park at offsite locations and take the Sprinter, Coaster or buses. This is great, lets keep all the intelligent conversation going. It would be bad if people only had good things to say about getting this stadium built.

Don't Compare To Petco wrote on Jun 13, 2007 10:54 AM:Comparing Petco to Goat Hill is like comparing apples to oranges. Petco was built in a run-down warehouse district that had no where to go but up. Goat Hill is surrounded by residential neighborhoods that only stand to be destroyed with a stadium there. Goat Hill is certainly in need of some type of development and I'm also for bringing the stadium to OSide, but the stadium will not only not fit on Goat Hill ... it's also the wrong type of development to put at the center of a residential area. Pick a better spot or go somewhere else.

Boltman666 wrote on Jun 13, 2007 2:18 PM:Hey GOAWAY: For the last time, you and all the other MISINFORMATION propagandists need to realize that the Chargers are funding ALL STUDIES being done on a new stadium. NO TAXPAYER MONEY is being wasted. I am going to scream if one more ignorant comment is made on this point!AGAIN: NO TAXPAYER MONEY IS BEING SPENT! What the Bolts are proposing is the 1st ever PRIVATELY FUNDED STADIUM. Can you understand this or do we need a refresher?

Hey Boltmann666 wrote on Jun 13, 2007 4:15 PM:Maybe you need to use a little common sense and realize your statement "NO TAXPAYER MONEY IS BEING SPENT!" would be more complete if it had a YET at the end of it!!!!

Boltman666 wrote on Jun 14, 2007 12:37 PM:..... Again, no taxpayer money is being spent yet! If the study paid for by the Chargers ultimately proves this can be done, then there is nothing to bleat about. But how take a position against something that has not been proven? At most, the Bolts will only ask for land, not money! The city would get off easy since no stadium has ever been constructed sans taxpayer money anywhere! To their credit, the Chargers will keep trying despite the zealots and misinformation! GO Bolts!

To Boltman666 wrote on Jun 14, 2007 12:50 PM:"At most, the Bolts will only ask for land, not money!" ... Land is money. Land has value that will be lost if it's just given away. But that's not even the biggest problem. The biggest problem is the destruction of at least 3 long established neighborhoods to serve private interests. Bring the Charges to OSide for sure ... but find a more appropriate and suitable location.

Bolts Ryan wrote on Jun 14, 2007 3:51 PM:Not in my backyard is the ultimate feeling it seems. I honestly think the stadium should be at the Qualcomm location, or in somewhere in Orange County. No one is going to want a giant stadium in their backyard, and clearly the city of San Diego doesent want to help at all. It is tough to be the San Diego Chargers when the city doesent care at all. The Southern California Chargers is fine with me. Same team, 30 minute further drive than Oceanside. Oceanside and Chula Vista are two second-rate locations for the Chargers they wont be happy with in 5-10 years. I know we are desperate for a new Stadium, but we need to shoot high rather than trying to make bad sites into good ones.

Boltman666 wrote on Jun 15, 2007 9:26 AM:Look. Up interstate 5 in Anaheim there is a huge stadium occupied by the Angels with a vibrant area surrounding them: restaurants, retail,offices, and brand new housing. A mixed development can work without destroying the area. Mind you, everywhere you look in Anaheim--whether it is the Pond or even the new Disneyland, the mixed developments work withut ruining the area. Oceanside will benefit from the tax revenues flowing from these sites. The Chargers have said: It is Chula Vista or Oceanside. There is lack of suitable land in SD County. If this doesn't work, they'll leave. It seems that there will always be people against projects which bring progress to an area....

To Boltman666 wrote on Jun 15, 2007 11:36 AM:It's not about opposing progress, In fact, I think the stadium would be a wonderful addition to OSide. And you're right, mixed development can work and is exactly what Goat Hill needs. However, a project of this scope is simply too big for the area being discussed. The Anaheim stadium is not the best example to use when discussing the potential impact of the Goat Hill area. The reason for this is because the Anaheim stadium sits on a site that totals approximately 140 acres of previous farmland that measured closer to 150 acres. It wasn't shoehorned into a 70 acre space surrounded by existing residences. If it had been, the area in Anaheim would not likely be as 'vibrant' as it is now. I'm very confident that the Chargers 'evaluation' will determine that Goat Hill is a viable option. Theoretical Physics can tell you how an elephant can hang over a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy too. Common sense doesn't support either one. The city should be more interested in determining the best possible use for the land rather than clamoring to give it and at least 3 neighborhoods away. If a stadium was on a short list of other options then fine, discuss it, but the fact that this seems to be the only option being explored is just plain wrong and not in the city's best interest.

Boltman666 wrote on Jun 18, 2007 9:21 AM:I disagree. I have been to Cincinnati to see the Bengals' new stadium. It is sandwiched a what seems to be a tiny area. They managed to do a stadium with a high quality mix of development. Let's see the plans...I am sure that the architects can come up with a viable solution to everyone's concerns. Make that almost everyone.....

The Truth Sets U Free wrote on Jun 19, 2007 9:23 AM:Boltman you are absolutely right. The incendiary comments being whipped up by anti-growth people are outrageous. O-side will never be a little hamlet again. As for the chargers, I too see no problem with the stadium plans as long as they stick to their promise of no taxpayer funds being used. I'll sign on to that deal.

To Boltman666 wrote on Jun 21, 2007 7:09 AM:I did some looking into the Bengal's stadium and, while it does seem the size would fit, the main fixtures around it are high rise condos, asphalt & concrete. That may work for you, but I'll pass. If that's what I wanted to live in/next to I would have moved farther south in the county.

The Truth Sets U Free wrote on Jun 22, 2007 9:26 AM:To: Looks like you might need the moving vans

To The Truth wrote on Jun 22, 2007 2:20 PM:Don't think that hasn't been considered. I'm not against the Chargers coming to OSide ... they just need to pick a more suitable (more dominantly commercial) area to put it in. If that concrete monstrosity is approved for Goat Hill I will immediately put my house on the market and move my family and two businesses out of Oceanside. Not sure where to yet, but I've started researching just in case.

The Truth Sets U Free wrote on Jun 25, 2007 10:49 AM:For each business you move, 2 will replace you with a new stadium!

Greg wrote on Jun 26, 2007 12:16 PM:It seems to me that football fans are for the O'side stadium while non-fans aren't. It is possible to build the stadium without taxpayer money if the city powers that be play it smart. If the project goes forward I believe the entire community will benefit in a number of ways regardless of whether one is a fan or not. I believe this so much that I recently bought a condo in O'side so I can vote on the issue and be in on the fantastic future should the stadium be built. If it doesn't pan out I'll still have a nice beach home and I'll still be a Chargers fan knowing that the Chargers tried to remain in San Diego.

To The Truth wrote on Jun 26, 2007 12:49 PM:Maybe so, but it's a very hard way to move forward if all you're doing is trading out.

Boltman666 wrote on Jun 26, 2007 3:10 PM:Greg: you are wise. Yes the O-side community will benefit as a whole. Sure there might be displacement of certain individuals and/or businesses. However, Oceanside (as a whole) will benefit when one does a rational cost/benefit analysis. As a season ticket holder, I can't tell you how much money we have spent in the Mission Valley area in various businesses that we would not have spent were it not for the Bolts home games we attend. Even though my family's economic impact is a tiny microcosm of the big picture, I have to imagine the economic transformation of Oceanside would be tremendous. In sum, if you can be neighbors with a marine base, I am sure you can tolerate a stadium.