Measure G, the SDSU West proposal

User Forum Topic
Submitted by phaster on October 28, 2018 - 5:34pm


Fool Me Twice: Don't Trust the Architect of San Diego's Last Bad Stadium Deal

The driver behind SDSU West is a former San Diego city manager who made a bad stadium deal once before. If Measure G passes, he’ll be sitting on both sides of the table making the decisions again.

If someone sold you on a couple of bad deals in the past that cost you hundreds of millions of dollars, you certainly wouldn’t do business with them a third time, right?

This exact scenario is playing out right now with Measure G and the man behind the curtains pulling the strings, Jack McGrory.

Remember him?


Submitted by FlyerInHi on October 30, 2018 - 5:00pm.

I no longer vote in San Diego, but I’m telling my relatives to vote NO.
I don’t see why SDSU needs to expand and sprawl out. They have plenty of land as it is now. Why not build taller buildings?

Some other high density development can go to the stadium site.

Submitted by spdrun on October 30, 2018 - 6:41pm.

Down the hill from SDSU, there appears to be some empty land between the 8 freeway and Adobe Falls Road. Can SDSU expand into this undeveloped land on the other side of the 8, or is there a reason why it's undeveloped? (Protected habitat, floodplain, etc).

SDSU West/Qualcomm seems just far enough to be inconvenient from the main SDSU campus while being near enough to not serve a different "market" of commuter students. What's the point?

Edit: apparently there have been proposals to develop this land, but have been tied up by NIMBYs. Will Qualcomm really be much better in this respect, especially since there may be fuel oil contamination on the land from the nearby tank farm?

Submitted by FlyerInHi on October 31, 2018 - 12:11am.

I don’t see how a western campus would benefit SDSU. It would disconnect the students from the atmosphere of the main campus. Just tear down some old buildings and build taller to accommodate growth.

The stadium site could be used for other development that would generate more economic output and increase the tax base. I imagine Mission Valley with tall buildings and a fast light rail zipping around. Yeah, in my dreams only, haha

Submitted by phaster on November 3, 2018 - 9:14am.

IMHO a separate campus could benefit the san diego area IF it were setup to emphasize sciences and teaching, IOW consider how the buildings at MIT are set up,... basically there are numbered according to an order of importance with math being numbered one, physics two,... and if I recall economics in the 200's range, way down the line

we have a problem in that 90+% of teachers and politicians having no fucking clue about critical thinking,... hence GIGO (garbage in garbage out) in the system,... and we are where we are

so if I were king I'd set up a brand new research/teaching college on the stadium site and leave politics and social studies on the old campus, metaphorically this would put in the pipe line individuals who have a good grounding in understand math and science and an ability of passing on the mindset to future generations (i.e. "teachers"),... as it stands much of higher education seems is geared toward teaching pride of different cultures,... so we have white guys pissed off at blacks and other guys of color (and vise versa)

Submitted by SK in CV on November 3, 2018 - 8:02pm.

spdrun wrote:

Edit: apparently there have been proposals to develop this land, but have been tied up by NIMBYs. Will Qualcomm really be much better in this respect, especially since there may be fuel oil contamination on the land from the nearby tank farm?

I grew up right above that Adobe Falls land, possibly in the house closest to the falls. My mother lived there for 50 years. While there rumors every few years of possible development for the property, it never got as far as a request for input from the land owners around the property. I have a vague recollection of the army corp of engineers, which has some authority over wetlands, killing a few proposals.

Submitted by Hatfield on November 4, 2018 - 10:42pm.

I voted no on both stadium propositions. SDSU is pretty landlocked and it would be great if they could use part of the stadium site for a west campus. I don't see how else the campus can expand, but both proposals just stink of slimy developer giveaways. Real estate developers run this town anyway, so I'm highly suspicious of both of these proposals. And I could give two shits about Aztek football. NCAA Division I is a corrupting influence as it is. I don't see how a megamillion dollar football stadium does anything for academics. And I give even fewer shits about a professional soccer team whose games nobody will attend anyway.

For as long as I've lived in this town, developers have had a hard-on for building new sports facilities with public money. Anyone remember the incessant calls for a new sports arena downtown in the late 80s and early 90s? We seem to have lived alright without that. Oh, sorry, I forgot, they build a new baseball park that we're still paying for.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.