Padres Puppets?
Editor:
Your article about the work stoppage on the Padres ballpark detailed some of the work already done, including the 1,243 precast concrete piles for the stadium foundation, that 20 percent of the concrete has been poured and 29 percent of the steel has been erected.
I thought the city had advanced funds to be used only for infrastructure work that would be required whether the ballpark was built or not. This charade is obviously part of the attempt to get the project far enough along to create additional pressure to force the city to continue the work. Apparently the Padres don’t care what happens with the lawsuits, Councilwoman Stallings’ criminal investigation or the existing financial shortfalls; it’s just full-speed ahead.
An issue you neglected to mention was Mayor Susan Golding’s recent comments in which she acknowledged that current interest rates exceed the rates specified in the memorandum of understanding. The MOU allows the city to walk away from this project if certain things happen (higher interest rates, unforeseen costs) or don’t happen (timely development of the hotels to pay for the bonds).
There are many very clear reasons to terminate this deal. It’s time the City Council starts acting like the responsible representatives they are supposed to be, rather than the Padres puppets they are in deed.
Michael Williams
San Diego
Ticket Guarantee
Recent newspaper stories about the record high costs of the Chargers ticket guarantee keep referring to revenue the team “pays” the city and the money the city pays the Chargers by buying tickets , claiming that only a relatively minor net cost results to the city. But one reporter conveniently omitted the annual $5.4 million stadium bond cost , the reason the ticket guarantee was established in the first place!
Alex Spanos wanted the stadium expanded for the 10 annual Chargers games, adding 10,000 seats that would almost never be used for any other event. The city issued $66 million worth of “revenue bonds” to pay for the renovation, with a $5.4 million annual payment.
They avoided a public vote as required by the city charter by running the bonds through a bogus agency controlled by the city, with the city treasury guaranteeing the bonds. As part of the deal, the ticket guarantee was tossed in, much to the surprise and delight of the Spanos family.
The mayor and City Council confidently claimed these “revenue bonds” would be paid for by perpetual sellouts of the new 72,000-seat stadium, with zero cost to the taxpayers. However, Bob Brandenberg and Richard Rider presented a detailed analysis showing that the ticket guarantee, coupled with the bond interest, would cost the city millions every year. They pointed out that the risk was without limits, since Spanos had total control over ticket prices, with the city required to buy the unsold seats at any price (Spanos raised ticket prices 10 percent this year). For their protestations, such opponents were vilified and scorned by the politicians and the media.
Now it turns out that the bonds are being totally paid for by the taxpayers, with not a dime coming from football game revenue. Yet the media leaves this annual $5.4 million cost out of its stories, pretending that this year net cost to the taxpayers is only two or three million. This year the real cost will easily exceed $8 million.
Is this just sloppy reporting, or a cover-up to downplay the scandal-plagued ballpark costs that are now spiraling out of control?
Steven Currie
