Skip to content

What people said about the First Craft Beer Debate

September 15, 2012

A few of the people who came have sent some very thoughtful feedback (and, blessedly, data links) after the event.  Sam Ollinger of Bike San Diego said she “appreciated the civility” of the event.  The goal isn’t to change minds, but to inform in a fun, civil way.  And to enrich the discussion with new perspectives.  The following comments came from people who attended the first craft beer debate.

Nancy Graham sent the following:

“I asked the pro-stadium side if their proposal was really economically viable based on the fact the redevelopment agencies are no longer a source for financing, and the two sites they want to sell have significant constraints including an underground fuel plume and height restrictions.

End of redevelopment article  – Fuel plume under Qualcomm stadium article – Background on the coastal zone height limit that applies at the Sports Arena site

I asked the anti-stadium side if redeveloping the Qualcomm site would be a good way to solve some of our other challenges in the community, such as using it to alleviate the existing pressure on SDSU.

Article on Possible reuse of existing Qualcomm site by SDSU”

Also, Lee Pacheco sent this nice and helpful note:

From: “Lee Pacheco” <>
Date: Thu, Sep 13, 2012 12:47 pm
Subject: Follow Up from Craft Brew Debate
Omar,   

I wanted to follow up and thank you for your work putting the debate together.  I think Greg was great and the panel did a good job to present points.  I definitely pondered both sides and where a lot of their shortcomings were.  It routinely saddens me that there is so much emphasis on fighting over getting the most for yourself instead of figuring out something that will help everyone.  Roughly 12MM sq ft (270acres to sq ft calculated on Google) are available with the old Q and Sports Arena (which is nasty, a colleague recently found mold on seats when visiting for a concert.)   12MM sq ft seems like quite a bit of material to generate more revenue to close the gap.  Anyway, thanks again, Lee

And this follow up note: The acreage was mentioned before, but http://www.sandiego.gov/qualcomm/about/factguide.shtml shows the Q at 166 acres.  I can’t find a citation for the Sports Arena, but the size used in the debate was 100 acres.   1 acre to 43,560sq ft,  266* 43,560=11,586,960acres (number lower than 12MM based in 166acres instead of 170acres)  I’m not in real estate but $30/sq ft for land (located in the middle of desired and developed areas) should be doable…   Seems like the $400mm from the NFL/Chargers, plus naming rights/advertising dollars, and repurposing/selling this land should leave a relatively minor shortfall. 

Very good information, thank you for sending!

Advertisements

From → Chargers Stadium

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: