Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Citizens victors over NFL greed
San Diego expects a different Chargers deal
Image of proposed San Diego convadium
On November 7, 57 percent of voters rejected the downtown stadium Measure C, and only 43 percent approved the construction of a combined football stadium/convention center.
But local media are not asking the right questions. A group called No on C, which had done a very good job opposing the convadium scam, got quotes from city leaders, including council members. All but one talked about a future deal with the Chargers, almost surely with a fat subsidy from San Diegans. This makes no sense. San Diego is the leader among U.S. cities in overwhelmingly rejecting a subsidy for billionaire owners. This is a breakthrough, and San Diego can be proud.
The vote must be viewed in context. Statistics show that the National Football League's grip on the public is weakening. TV audiences for the NFL are down 11 percent thus far this year. Ratings have declined in 27 or 28 prime-time games this year. TV-viewing of Monday-night games is down 20 percent; for Sunday evening, down 18.5 percent. The NFL is overexposed. There may be widespread revulsion about injuries, particularly concussions.
The Chargers' numbers are bleak. The team has filled only 78.5 percent of seats in home games this years — by far the worst in the league. Yet San Diego leaders can't wait to set up a deal with the Chargers.
The truth is that San Diego voters have displayed wisdom. The magnitude of the "no" vote will become a national story. San Diego is sometimes — wrongly — considered an intellectual backwater. Now San Diego vaults to "enlightened city" status. San Francisco used to be considered the intellectual center of the West Coast. But its new stadium in Santa Clara is beginning to look like a flop. Los Angeles is building a new stadium without government subsidies.
The Chargers say they have an "option" to move to Los Angeles. I doubt that very much. I suspect that all the Chargers have is permission of NFL owners to move to L.A. if they plunk $250 million into the owners' pot; the owners won't have to vote again. But we have no idea what kind of a deal the developers of the new L.A. stadium will offer the Chargers — probably not anything significant.
Here's something you might be interested in.
Citizens victors over NFL greed
San Diego expects a different Chargers deal
Citizens victors over NFL greed
San Diego expects a different Chargers deal
Image of proposed San Diego convadium
On November 7, 57 percent of voters rejected the downtown stadium Measure C, and only 43 percent approved the construction of a combined football stadium/convention center.
But local media are not asking the right questions. A group called No on C, which had done a very good job opposing the convadium scam, got quotes from city leaders, including council members. All but one talked about a future deal with the Chargers, almost surely with a fat subsidy from San Diegans. This makes no sense. San Diego is the leader among U.S. cities in overwhelmingly rejecting a subsidy for billionaire owners. This is a breakthrough, and San Diego can be proud.
The vote must be viewed in context. Statistics show that the National Football League's grip on the public is weakening. TV audiences for the NFL are down 11 percent thus far this year. Ratings have declined in 27 or 28 prime-time games this year. TV-viewing of Monday-night games is down 20 percent; for Sunday evening, down 18.5 percent. The NFL is overexposed. There may be widespread revulsion about injuries, particularly concussions.
The Chargers' numbers are bleak. The team has filled only 78.5 percent of seats in home games this years — by far the worst in the league. Yet San Diego leaders can't wait to set up a deal with the Chargers.
The truth is that San Diego voters have displayed wisdom. The magnitude of the "no" vote will become a national story. San Diego is sometimes — wrongly — considered an intellectual backwater. Now San Diego vaults to "enlightened city" status. San Francisco used to be considered the intellectual center of the West Coast. But its new stadium in Santa Clara is beginning to look like a flop. Los Angeles is building a new stadium without government subsidies.
The Chargers say they have an "option" to move to Los Angeles. I doubt that very much. I suspect that all the Chargers have is permission of NFL owners to move to L.A. if they plunk $250 million into the owners' pot; the owners won't have to vote again. But we have no idea what kind of a deal the developers of the new L.A. stadium will offer the Chargers — probably not anything significant.
Comments