Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
GLORIA PENNER (Host): Qualcomm Stadium is costing the city $10.8 million annually.
We wanted to know if that was the best use of city money,
so we put San Diego City Councilwoman Donna Frye, whose district includes Qualcomm Stadium,
on the record and here is what she had to say.
DONNA FRYE (6th District): There's debt service that has to be paid, we don't have any choice.
That was when they did the stadium renovation.
And then in 2004 there was the very very very bad decision
to get rid of the "ticket guarantee".
The cost to do that was extremely high, and in fact now what you're seeing is
that the general fund is essentially having to help subsidize the Chargers.
So it's a bad deal all the way around, but we're stuck with it right now.
Until the Chargers make a decision on what they want to do, if they want to stay in the stadium
or not, I think it's going to be very difficult to really come up with a final solution.
PENNER: John, why should the city continue to pay $10 million to keep Qualcomm Stadium going?
JOHN WARREN (San Diego Voice & Viewpoint): Well that's a good question.
The amount of money that we've already lost in terms of making a bad deal,
you would think we would probably back in court trying to get some modification.
We don't ever seem to want to get to "why," we raise questions when we dealt with pensions,
we went after people who made bad decisions, but for some reason when it comes
to Qualcomm everyone is insulated.
And so we're not talking about correcting it we're still letting the Chargers call the shots
in terms of what they want to do, and I think with this budget crisis that we're
in people are going to become even more concerned about this money they might push
to cut it off, and then there's the question of what will happen here
if the city moves towards no longer doing the debt service or making up the difference.
PENNER: But the question is whether Qualcomm sort of brings to the City
of San Diego some added value, maybe a value we can't point our fingers too.
MICHAL SMOLENS (San Diego Union-Tribune): Well, I think it does, people love the Chargers,
but that's a separate issue than all of this financial structuring that did not go well.
It's interesting to hear Councilwoman Frye talk about the ticket guarantee,
that was so vilified, that's why they got rid of it, and it turns out that was a better deal
than what they're dealing with now.
It might not have been a good deal, but it's costing the city a lot more money so I think
that people have to step back on the hot button issue and take a look at the finances sometime.
But overall, it's hard to argue with what she's saying.
The city's stuck there are certain things done, particularly the debt service you can't change
that a whole lot unless there's some sort of restructuring.
So they're in a pickle and you know, at the time the city can use every penny.
PENNER: Yeah, but on the other hand you have to think, "what's the best use of that property?"
What's the best plan that the city might come up with for the stadium?
WARREN: Well, you know some people suggested we might sell the property,
tear it down, redevelop it, whatever.
Let's not forget that when the decision was made to move the Padres to Petco Park and built
that property, that took revenue away from Qualcomm.
That should have been a point of which we should have been discussing,
"How are we going to make up the difference?"
I think now the city is saying, "Let's get a financial plan,
let's get a plan that shows what we're going to do to offset the losses."
And short of that plan including the selling of the property or the leveling and reconstructing
of something there, we're going to have a problem for quite some time.
PENNER: Well, thank you very much John Warren, thank you Michael Smolens.