A lot of big numbers with dollar signs are attached to the proposed new stadium for the Chargers in Mission Valley.
The mayor’s advisory group recommends that city and county taxpayers invest some $640 million, just over half the needed construction spending.
Skeptics whose priority list isn’t topped by keeping an NFL franchise in San Diego – and NBC 7 has been hearing from many, via social media -- have been hypothesizing about what else that money could buy.
But is it really fair to predicate the civic and psychic returns on a $1.15 billion dollar price tag within the framework of raw economics.
The $640 million public investment would cover more than a third of the city of San Diego's escalating, $1.7 billion infrastructure deficit -- long-delayed repairs and upgrades to aging buildings, water and sewer mains, parks and roads.
With that as a benchmark, local residents offered a variety of mixed feelings Thursday in interviews around town.
"Of course our roads are bad here -- but it didn't just happen overnight,” said Chula Vista resident Rick Chavez. “ It took years of neglect. I don't think we can just put one with the other at the same time. We're a big city. We need to act like a big city."
Local
San Diego is the nation’s eighth most populous city with a world-wide tourist attraction known as Balboa Park -- where century-old facilities are falling apart to the tune of a $300 million-plus infrastructure deficit.
Unlike a new stadium, no "personal licenses" are needed to buy good tickets there.
An Ocean Beach resident who identified himself only as Nykon told NBC 7 he doesn’t see a new stadium as a high priority: “I think there’s more stuff that could happen.”
The Chargers, he added need to win more.
“They’ve got to earn that stadium,” he declared, with a laugh.
Have the Padres ‘earned’ Petco Park?
Nearly $130 million dollars in construction bonds plus interest are yet to be paid off on the project.
That debt could be covered with the recommended public investment targeted for Mission Valley, while the leftover money almost could have bankrolled the $550 million cost of replacing the 50-year-old downtown county courthouse at 220 W. Broadway with a high-tech criminal courts building just to the north.
And, several years ago, the cost of a new city hall was projected at around $400 million.
Even with inflation, $640M could probably cover replacing the half-century-old, asbestos-filled relic at 202 C Street.
However, argues Chula Vista resident Mike Padilla, “"Anywhere there's a stadium, it's going to bring a lot of people, a lot of attention, a lot of positives to that city."
His wife Gloria agreed: "We still want the small town feel. But we want to be relevant. And I think it keeps relevance to our city."
Would San Diego really be irrelevant without the Chargers?
Has Los Angeles become irrelevant in the 20 seasons since the Raiders and Rams left the area?
"Most people in San Diego are into sports, which is great,” said Spring Valley resident Melissa Marsh. “I love the Chargers, but to me, the money should be going elsewhere."
So can you really put a price on a venture that would speaks volumes to a larger, nationwide audience -- hosting 200 events a year as well as professional and college football games, regular and post-season?
Robin, a Mira Mesa resident who declined to give her last name, answered that question with a question of her own: "How's that a priority when the city's sinking? It's just a game. It may be an American pastime, but it's still just a game."
But to put this in broader perspective for all the naysayers, that $640 million breaks down to $207 per resident of San Diego County.
Spread over 30 years, that's $6.89.
The cost of a vente latte and a scone.
But perhaps our elected officials could look at infrastructure spending in just such terms.
