What could possibly go wrong? Just look at the other recenlty built, and expensive, NFL stadiums throughout the country. I'm sure the promises of not costing the taxpayers money were made by those same supporters. Boy, were they ever wrong.

I have an idea, y dont u(taxpayerripoffs) come up with the $$$ and build the stadium yourself without asking for any assistance from the taxpayers & show us how its done??!! We(taxpayers) would all greatly appreciate it!!

I have an idea, y dont u(taxpayerripoffs) come up with the $$$ and build the stadium yourself without asking for any assistance from the taxpayers & show us how its done??!! We(taxpayers) would all greatly appreciate it!!

By the way, the $350 million that AEG is asking the city to pitch in is for the demolition & reconstruction of the west wing of the Los Angeles Convention Center! Technically, it has nothing to do with the stadium! Lost in all of this talk is how by adding(& improving) the convention center along with the addition of the stadium, los angeles would attract many more convention-related business that could potentially boost L.A to 2nd place behind las vegas in conventions....

Stop trying to give away my tax money to billionaires just so you'll have a football team to root for. This is what it's all about really. You don't care how bad a deal it is for taxpayers or what else we can do with the money. You don't even seem to care that there are millions of people in L.A. that don't even like football. You keep making up arguments that are ridiculous like hosting world cup games and boxing matches. What facts can you show to prove that L.A. has the potential to move to 2nd behind Las Vegas in conventions? Why does AEG, a company controlled by a billionaire, one that takes in hundreds of millions in revenues, need the help of a cash strapped city to float bonds (which means, essentially, to get a loan on the city's credit, with good rates)? With interest rates at an all time low, why does AEG need the city to float the bonds? With the fiscal crisis that the city is facing, why are they even contemplating backing municipal bonds? Just answer these questions by saying "I don't care how bad a deal it is, I want a team to root for!" That seems to be your only real argument.

Bravo Alan, bravisimo!!! Dont tell me, were u on councilman Joel Wachs' payroll back in the late 90's when he did everything he could to derail or stop the construction of Staples Center??!! It wouldnt have surprised me... Also, just out've curiosity, how do u know what i care about?? What is quite apparent though, is that yur an obstructionist who obviously dislikes#or hates# sports & how u can care less if all our sports teams would leave! Which is fine#to each is own#, but while u have the right to express yur opinion, so have i! Lastly, i really do hope that this project does come to fruition! Have a nice day....

Sound reasoning, bottomline. Actually the SF Giant's stadium was built with private funds, and that one seems to be working out. There are a few rare examples, but if you bother to look, they exist.
It's no different than any other business - if they have no investment and profit through state-subsidized taxes then they are going to do nothing BUT demand more and more when they have zero risk. Risking your own capital, and not taxpayer funds will be a better motivator to run the team and the organization with a profit and long-term plan.

Maybe you can explain why a private organization should get a sweetheart deal from public coffers when they wont disclose their own funds or share the profits from the investment?

I don't care if people enjoy watching pro-sports, but I do resent teams trying to reach into my pocket to subsidize themselves.

The mayor of Santa Clara and city manager recently wrote a pious letter to the the Governor Brown that eliminating RDAs would hurt the city's ability to provide below market housing.

When of course the "real" reason is that it would hurt the city's ability to shovel $$ at the Yorks (the city council is going to appoint themselves as the "stadium authority" on Feb 22).

It's interesting to see how much the song is the same in the southland...

To Tolly,
Really, SF Giants stadium was built solely with private funds??? Check again, the city of san francisco gave the giants a $10 million tax abatement and $80 million for "upgrades" to the local infrastructure!! U should try doing a little research yourself before commenting as well, nice try though....

Again, the Staples Center has nothing to do with this discussion so come up with an argument that holds water. Staples Center houses 3 teams and cost $58 million as opposed to 1 team and $350 million. You just can't wait to give away tax money for a poor investment that the city will see no return on. You have given no reason at all to build this stadium other than you miss the NFL.

Why should we finance a secretive private party to build what we already have? Thousands of public employees are losing their jobs in teaching, fire fighting, policing, and in almost every department. So what are we doing, we are thinking about creating jobs for them to sell peanuts and hot dogs to the rich in a shrunkin gladiator pit the general public can't afford or fit into.

The 600 million budget short fall in education alone is a disaster. So we should run up debt of 350 million dollars on a convention center we still owe 445 million dollars on? and give the land to these bozos for a buck a year or even a small fraction of the net profits? We are the worlds super bowl capital! and if the NFL wanted too they have two 90,000 plus seat super bowl stadiums in LA to go to. The power and money in professional sports is out of control, and needs to be regulated. Commercial interests should not out-weigh that of the public.

I do not believe there is anyone who could manage a Football Stadium better than Phil Anschutz & Tim Leiweke, but the City of Los Angeles has no business being involved with this deal. This is a City that just publicly confirmed that it can not even run a parking lot. A City with a miserable track record of poorly managing everything from the Kodak Theater to the Convention Center. If LA is involved in this deal it will only end bad. Why should our City give up all tax revenue to pay back the cost for this childish toy? If Phil and Tim want it so bad, they should just buy the whole Convention Center, build their own stadium and Convention Center, pay the taxes and really help our City. This way we also get to charge them property taxes. But we need to sell the whole Convention Center for enough to cover the current loan.

Actually, the development of Staples Center has everything to do with what we're talking about!! These r the same developers who r proposing this project and they're basically fallowing the same blueprint as the Staples Center development. Albeit, a bigger project that would require a bigger investment.

Yeah exactly the same. Oh it just costs $300 million more dollars and hosts, at best, 100 less events per year. Just because they're they same developers does not matter. You still have given no reason to do this project besides missing the NFL. Another of your points is that the Staples Center improved the area. Well the stadium would be in the already improved area, so that's not even a new benefit. Do you work for AEG?

Yes, it would cost more. But how do u know how many events they would host?? R u privy to information the rest of us dont know, or is it a guesstimate on yur behalf?? Also, how do u know they're only going to have 1 team play there? Has it ever dawned on u that perhaps they may have 2 teams play there(like both new york teams)?? Look, its quite apparent yur not in favor of this proposed development, which is fine, yur entitled to yur opinion. But the fact remains that we dont know all the details yet! In fact, if im not mistaken, AEG is negotiating with the city of L.A right now so instead of condemning something that u dont know everything about, y not wait until everything is divulged? Or does that make too much sense to u??!

Oh you are hilarious. A football team plays 10 games a year. Sure I'll give you the outside chance of another team, now you're up to 20. Boxing matches are a dream, world cup games are a dream, that even if realized would only move economic activity over from Pasadena, that's not new activity. A Final Four once or twice a decade is not significant. You have still not given even one good reason to build this stadium even though I have asked you to several times. Even your own argument refutes your own claims. You're right, we don't have all the details. In fact, they will barely give us any details, that's how these things tend to work. So if we do not have any details why aren't you more skeptical of this plan? How come you want to promote something that you admit you know very little about? Just tell me you miss the NFL so much that you don't care about yours or anybody's tax money and then we can at least agree to disagree. For the record, I do love sports, but just because the NFL has gotten 25 cities to bend over backwards already doesn't mean we should do the same. No matter how much I wish we had a team to root for, if they want to line their pockets with my tax money they can take a flying leap. If this is a good deal for taxpayers then they should be able to show it in black and white. Until they do that I will not support this deal no matter how much I miss the NFL. As you say, why not wait until everything is divulged before you support this deal? Or does that make to little sense to you? I'm starting to get the distinct impression that you work for AEG since you didn't answer that question previously and by the way you support this no matter what. Full disclosure is appropriate.

Congratulations alan, yur absolutely right! How dare I try to be optimistic about a development proposal that might do the community some good! Not to mention possibly bringing in more convention center-related business! I dont know what I was thinking, perhaps I was brainwashed into thinking that these were all potentially positive things that could transpire for our community... I dont know what came over me, please forgive me. Oh, by the way, I heard thru the grapevine that the Los Angeles Unified School District is thinking about putting in a proposition on the ballot come election time whereby they're going to request taxpayer assistance to keep teachers and upgrade existing schools! God forbid that happen, quick, go sabotage that as well!

Congratulations alan, yur absolutely right! How dare I try to be optimistic about a development proposal that might do the community some good! Not to mention possibly bringing in more convention center-related business! I dont know what I was thinking, perhaps I was brainwashed into thinking that these were all potentially positive things that could transpire for our community... I dont know what came over me, please forgive me. Oh, by the way, I heard thru the grapevine that the Los Angeles Unified School District is thinking about putting in a proposition on the ballot come election time whereby they're going to request taxpayer assistance to keep teachers and upgrade existing schools! God forbid that happen, quick, go sabotage that as well!

bottomline:I really don't have a problem with providing taxpayer abatement if its reasonable. However, $350 million has to repaid and there's no guarantee a new convention center wing will provide sufficient revenues to repay that amount of debt. That value is a huge difference when compared with $10 million which isn't debt relative. Also, I believe the infrastructure improvements around AT&T Park in San Francisco services the entire neighborhood, and not just the Giants.

Ohhhh, i see.... So because "u" dont have a problem with it, that makes it ok???!! Also, for your information, the upgrades(infrastructure improvements) that were done around AT&T Park were paid for by the city!! Which makes the $80 million the Giants received, a gift! Im almost positive it($) came out've of the city's general fund. Do u not have a problem with that as well??

Property tax abatement and issuing long-term public debt obligations are two entirely different concepts. Also, I believe the improvements around AT&T park are accessible for the entire public to use. In fact, I don't believe that money was exclusively for the Giants benefit. A public waterfront walkway, and transportation amenities for light-rail, were part of the expenditures. As a result, there exists a thriving new urban community located near that ballpark. Can this occur in Los Angeles? I doubt it. Who the hell wants to live near downtown Los Angeles? The area around LA Live is pathetic. What great benefit will the people of Los Angeles receive from the $350 million which is required for a new football stadium? What is the payback to the taxpayers? Do you have a schedule which supports the positive revenues LA taxpayers will receive?

Where the hell have u been?? For your information, downtown L.A has grown from less than 10,000 people a decade ago to more than 50,000 people now!! A direct quote from Carol Schatz, president of the Central City Association of Los Angeles,"We expect to see more businesses moving into downtown because as the center of the city has more & more life, and because rents & property values are slightly lower than they are , say on the Westside, its a huge value for the money." Coincidentally, all this urban downtown L.A revival started shortly after Staples Center & L.A Live were built!! As far as your sorry opinion about the area around L.A Live being pathetic, thats yur frickin problem! Over 40,000 people(and counting) disagree with u, including me!

Wait, let me guess, yur from(or live in) the bay area??! It shows....

Actually, bottomline, I live in La Mirada and I'm a Dodger season ticket holder. I've been to a few games up in SF. There is no comparing the area around the Giants stadium with what exists at the LA Live, Staples Center and Convention Center complex. The SF location is much cleaner, pleasant and safer. If you walk a few short blocks from LA Live, you're in the ghetto. That's a fact. Its irrelevant what Carol Schatz stated. Unless there are proven results, your point is moot. I read where many new biotechnology companies are moving into the area around AT&T Park. What new thriving companies have located in & around Staples Center?

Gensler Architecture, Baxter BioScience, Lucky Brand, Mission Foods International, & Thomas Properties r just a few businesses that r either moving their headquarters or branching into downtown L.A. So yes, there r businesses moving into Los Angeles.... As far as the outskirts of L.A being ghetto, what elses' new??!! The point is that whole area of downtown L.A has been experiencing a huge revival#residential & commercial# ever since both Staples Center & L.A Live were developed, whether u like it or not! Also, how can u try to compare L.A with San Francisco??!! Its totally rediculous. They r both completely different cities! From a population standpoint alone, yur talking about a city with over 3.8#L.A#people to one with 815,000#SF#people! Of course theres going to be more crime & pollution here, thats common sense...

The reality is Los Angeles isn't a comparable metropolis such as New York City or San Francisco. Downtown Los Angeles has experienced what huge revival? All I've seen are new condos which were part of the real estate buildup of the past decade. How many of those condos are either abandoned or in foreclosure? If LA's population is so expansive, why aren't there more companies setting up shop in the city? If you factor in the size of Los Angeles, then, in order to make an effective comparison, you'd have to take every region in San Francisco, from the city itself to the brink of Silicon Valley. If you factor in how many Fortune 500's are located in the vicinity, it far outpaces what Los Angeles has done. However, let's stay on subject. The reality is a Los Angeles NFL stadium makes financia sense if ALL costs pertaining to its development are undertaken by private developers. Taxpayers shouldn't have to shoulder the burden for any part of the project which doesn't provide an immediate, public benefit. The infrastructure around AT&T park in SF is used by the residents of that city without limitations. Let's see AEG provide a similar concept.

So r u saying there is no difference in downtown L.A between a decade ago & now??!! Wow.... With all due respect, thats just plain ignorant! Theres no point in continueing this(nor any other) conversation with someone like u! Anyone with decent vision can see the changes in downtown L.A from a decade ago to now. The fact that u dont recognize it(or are oblivious to it) speaks volumes about yur bias against the area. Also, what is your fascination with trying to prove that the SF region is superior to the L.A area? Better, cleaner, safer?? What does that have to do with anything? Whether it is or it isnt, it has nothing to do with this topic! U r the one saying that the project that AEG is proposing is a rip-off to taxpayers, while also saying that AT&T Park wasnt, because it was built "SOLELY" with private funds. Well, i've already proven that theory wrong by pointing out that the city of SF gave the Giants a $10 million tax abatement + an $80 million "infrastructure" gift! Lastly, the one thing that puzzles me is, for someone who clearly prefers the way things r in northern california, y havent u moved??! For the record, its none of my business(nor do i care), just wondering... Have a nice day!

Okay, that's enough, everybody. This has been veering into personal attacks for a while now, and I let it go on longer than it should, really.

Everyone take a deep breath, please, and only post if you have something to add to this conversation.

bottomline: Downtown Los Angeles is slightly better than what it was a few years ago. However, I wouldn't place it at the top of anyone's "I gotta live there" lists. I don't have a fascination with SF. I've used that city as a comparison piece. However, you're wrong in thinking the infrastructure improvements around AT&T Park were for the sole benefit of the Giants. Take a trip up there and see it for yourself. There are plenty of non-baseball usages for the public, in utilizing light rail and public waterfront walkways, which were paid for with that money. As I previously stated, I have no problems with tax abatements, so long as they're reasonable. We know that won't be the case for the proposed AEG stadium. The reality is the proposed $350 million in public debt, which is needed to dismantle, and replace, one wing of the convention center, will have to be repaid. Quantify how it will be repaid without any taxpayer assistance.
BTW, my home is in Southern California and I do love it here. But don't expect me to support any taxpayer funding of an NFL stadium. I'd oppose the practice no matter where its located.

This will be my last post on this topic. Can u please show me where i said that the infrastructure improvements around AT&T Park were for the sole benefit of the Giants?! I cant help it if u misunderstood what i said. Also, i have been to AT&T Park and am well aware of the surrounding area. Lastly, i would never expect someone like u to support anything(heaven forbid an NFL stadium) that could potentially do the community some good. Enjoy your pessimism.

bottomline: You stated, "Also, for your information, the upgrades(infrastructure improvements) that were done around AT&T Park were paid for by the city!! Which makes the $80 million the Giants received, a gift."

If you're not stating the $80 million wasn't for the Giants benefit, then what were you stating?

I support public funding of projects if its for the betterment of the entire community. NFL stadiums primarily benefit one community;NFL team owners. By offering corporate welfare of such a concept, the only thing the public community inherits is more debt.