As the Chargers suit up for their home opener today against Baltimore, they're also battling a new opponent, albeit one without a football team: Sacramento.
On Sept. 10, the California State Assembly passed ABX3 81, which exempted from compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act a football stadium complex currently in development in the City of Industry, which lies about 15 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.
For several years, Majestic Realty Co., headed by billionaire Ed Roski Jr., has worked to bring a football team back to the L.A. area, whether through National Football League expansion or by luring away an out-of-town team. In April, Roski unveiled his $800 million, 75,000-seat stadium project that, pending permit approval, would be completed by 2012.
According to ABX3 81, a new stadium complex in Industry would generate more than $760 million in annual economic activity and $21 million in yearly tax revenue while creating 18,000 jobs.
But environmental regulations and litigation from neighboring communities have slowed the project's progress. Thus, the bill recites that the environmental act would not apply "to any activity or approval, necessary for or incidental to, the development, planning, design, site acquisition, subdivision, financing, leasing, construction, operation, or maintenance of a stadium complex and associated development" in the City of Industry.
Good for local development, right? So what's the problem?
The NFL, already swollen with 32 teams, has no expansion plans on the horizon, so for the foreseeable future, the only way pro football could come to Industry is via relocation of an existing team. And one of the teams most likely to jump ship, unfortunately, is the Chargers, who for years have been looking to upgrade from creaky Qualcomm Stadium.
The bill cleared the Assembly by a bipartisan 54-18 vote. Of the eight assemblymembers representing San Diego County, only two (Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, whose district includes parts of Orange County, and Kevin Jeffries, R-Lake Elsinore, whose district stretches into Riverside County) supported the measure, suggesting a geographical rather than a partisan split.
But this legislation, which has stalled in the state Senate while further negotiations progress, is deeply problematic, as it threatens to rob Peter to pay Paul.
To be sure, California's current parlous economic situation warrants easing draconian state and federal environmental regulations. For instance, with the parched Central Valley shedding arable farmland by the day, and with some towns suffering unemployment near 40 percent, something must be done to pry open the Sacramento River Delta sluices, notwithstanding speculative damage to the smelt population.
But selectively relaxing green standards to favor particular groups at the expense of others is tawdry politics. As even state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, acknowledged, it's "relatively rare for the Legislature to pass such exemptions ... (and) rarer still when the legislation affects a project that is the subject of ongoing litigation."
In this case, ABX3 81 could simply pave the way for a California-based team to move to the City of Industry. In addition to the Chargers, the San Francisco 49ers have been unable to secure a replacement for windy, crumbling Candlestick Park, and Al Davis's Oakland Raiders constantly seem poised to break their fans' hearts (once again) by deserting the aging Coliseum.
The departure of any of these teams from their respective Golden State homes would leave an economic and social hole commensurate to any gains the L.A. area would recognize. It's more or less a zero-sum game, notwithstanding the unspecified assurances by backers of the Industry stadium that they won't woo Golden State teams.
A spokesperson for state Sen. Mark Wyland, R-Carlsbad, confirmed that he's "adamantly opposed to this measure or any measure that would pave the way for a California city to 'steal' something from another California city."
Until the bill was put on hold, Wyland was "prepared to offer amendments that would have prohibited the stadium from luring any professional sports team located elsewhere in California from relocating to the new stadium."
Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, R-San Diego, whose district encompasses Poway and parts of Escondido, brought just such an amendment on the Assembly floor, but it was narrowly defeated, 29-22. Like Wyland, Fletcher argued "it's not right to give one city a competitive advantage to take another city's team."
Maybe this amendment will gain better traction in the Senate, where the Bay Area delegation, afraid to lose the 49ers or Raiders, may join with the San Diegans to protect existing California teams.
Alternatively, our local state Senate coterie could push for a broader bill that would grant stadium exemptions to the environmental act to cities currently mulling plans to welcome teams open to relocating locally, like Oceanside and Escondido are doing with the Chargers.
Ultimately, if San Diegans want to ensure that the Chargers remain in the county, team representatives and local officials must work together to craft a workable package. But if ABX3 81 is revived, Baltimore won't be the only city San Diego has to worry about.
MICHAEL M. ROSEN, an attorney in Carmel Valley, is the secretary of the San Diego County Republican Party. The views expressed are his own. Contact him at michaelmrosen@yahoo.com.
