Friends of SDSU Release Poll - Voters Not Convinced
On July 24th, the Friends of SDSU announced that new polling numbers indicated support for SoccerCity is waning, whilst enthusiasm for their own SDSU West plan is on the rise.
“Support for the SoccerCity initiative is in freefall as voters recognize this scam for what it really is – a blank check for wealthy investors at the expense of taxpayers, the City and SDSU,” said Laura Fink, spokesperson for the No on SoccerCity campaign.
“These poll results clearly show that voters mistrust an initiative designed without public input or accountability. Support plummets when voters find out that this initiative ties the City’s hands and give wealthy investors a blank check at the expense of San Diego taxpayers. The facts are clear: voters agree that SoccerCity is a lose-lose for San Diego.”
According to the Times of San Diego, the poll was conducted by phone and found that 62 percent favored the SDSU West plan for the Mission Valley stadium site, versus 40 percent for the competing SoccerCity initiative.
“San Diegans recognize that SDSU West is the only initiative that will create an opportunity for San Diego State University to expand its campus and benefit our regional economy for generations to come through an open and transparent process,” said Leo Morales, former president of the SDSU Alumni board of advisors.
Despite the bullish language of the SDSU West proponents, individual voters remain skeptical about the validity of the SDSU West plan, particularly with respect to the funding mechanisms the plan will employ.
The full survey results can be found here.
I would love to vote for SDSU West, but still have no idea how SDSU will pay for it all.— Eric Stephens (@EricStephens619) July 24, 2018
Site just says public/private for commercial, retail, and housing. Doesn't explain for classrooms, dorms, and stadium. Guess Bonds? Which it's a state school so tax payers and paid back over time? Or higher student fees like the student union building? SDSU needs to explain more— Eric Stephens (@EricStephens619) July 24, 2018
Yes but bonds are paid back double what is barrowed by tax payers due to their high interest rates. Would love to see a private developer partner up to take care of the costs, but SDSU's leadership right now is not explaining their plans to the public.— Eric Stephens (@EricStephens619) July 24, 2018
As this Twitter user points out, the university has a responsibility to divulge the specifics of how it means to complete this plan proposed on its behalf by third party developers. That responsibility has yet to be met.
This news comes on the heels of reporting by the Voice of San Diego that the City of San Diego has agreed a deal in principle to extend the existing lease with San Diego State University for the SDCCU Stadium where the school's football team currently plays its home games.
"The Agreement for Use and Occupancy of Qualcomm Stadium between the City of San Diego (“City”) and San Diego State University (“SDSU”) for use of the facility now known as SDCCU Stadium requires an amendment to extend the term of the agreement for two years, through December 31, 2020."
"This amendment also increases the annual lease revenue from a $1 per ticket facility surcharge, which totaled generated approximately $90,000 per year, to a fixed annual rent of $1.1 million per year and entitles the City to retain all concessions revenue and parking revenue, which was retained by SDSU under the original agreement that was approved by resolution R305139."
The conclusion reached by VOSD is that while the increase in rent is huge, "the city is now significantly subsidizing SDSU football."
How do you feel about this issue? Leave a comment or send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org with any questions or concerns.