My Friends

Arrow Up

Arrow Up
Arrow Down
  • Wed
  • Thu
  • Fri
  • Sat
  • Sun
  • Mon
  • Tue
Axline Lecture: Alfredo Jaar Apr 23, 2014 The San Diego Museum of Art and MCASD present the 14th annual Axline Lecture featuring Chilean-born artist Alfredo Jaar, whose work, Muxima, a looping video installation featuring multiple iterations of a popular Angolan folk song, is on view at SDMA. 60 other events on Wednesday, April 23
Canvassed | Art & culture
A tale of near-death, bloody steaks and unprecedented opulence
Why the city can’t maintain enough emergency trucks
Meet ‘Jackie,’ one of the many faces of sex-trafficking
Documentary about ill-fated project leads our rundown of movies screening around town
Ten bucks an hour just ain’t enough


Log in to use your Facebook account with
San Diego CityBeat

Login With Facebook Account

Recent Activity on San Diego CityBeat
Home / Articles / Opinion / Letters /  Letters: A proposition
. . . .
Wednesday, Dec 18, 2013

Letters: A proposition

Our readers tell us what they think

A proposition

Your Dec. 4 “U-T nutters are at it again” editorial once again mentioned the quest for a new stadium by Doug Manchester. While I don’t want to buy a new stadium for the Chargers, I do enjoy watching them, and I want them to stay in San Diego. Also note that the city of San Diego currently loses money on the stadium each month.

As such, I have a reasonable business proposition for billionaire Chargers owner Alex Spanos to build a new stadium on the same site. The city can give Spanos the stadium and the land, along with reasonable zoning rights for additional structures. Once this asset is transferred, Spanos will be responsible for maintaining the stadium. This will save the city money immediately.

Give him five years to build a new stadium on the property, along with a property-tax deferment for five years. Once the stadium is completed, San Diego should become a 10-percent partner of the Chargers forever—even if they decide to leave San Diego. If the new stadium is not completed at the end of five years, fine Spanos $50,000 per month until it’s completed.

Provide tax-exempt status for the stadium as long as the Chargers remain in San Diego. Any other structures that Spanos or anyone else builds on the original stadium property should not be tax-exempt.

I’m sure that someone will mention that the NFL will not allow a city to become part owner of a football franchise. This argument is in line with those who voted not to free slaves and not to allow women to vote. It’s bullshit. Business is business, whether it relates to the private sector or the public sector.

While there are many details to be ironed out in the above proposal, the real point is that it represents an example of a business agreement that will benefit the Chargers and the residents of San Diego.

If Doug Manchester and gang are able to talk people into forking over $500 million with no direct benefit to the residents of San Diego, it will be a travesty. This will put us on the path to becoming the next Detroit— bankrupt with a nice stadium.

Ron Harris, Scripps Ranch

Let them pay for it

Excellent commentary on U-T San Diego [“Editorial,” Dec. 4]. I had been a 20-plus-year subscriber to the U-T and canceled it shortly after Manchester bought it. Many of my neighbors did likewise.

If Manchester wants a new stadium, let him and Spanos partner and build it. Oh, and let them provide the maintenance funding, too.

We taxpayers want our streets, water and sewer lines maintained, along with restoring library and rec-center hours as the top priority.

Jarvis Ross, Point Loma

North / south

Regarding your Dec. 4 editorial about U-T San Diego: Does Doug Manchester own water interests in Northern California? Why would he want the south to depend on the north? The split is not at all in our interests but would be a grand gift to the northerners. It was good in the Civil War, but not in Paradise.

Saul Gritz, Hillcrest

Send letters to