Here we go again, lol. I don't think that there necessarily has to be a positive ROI on city investments. As long as the citizens are using it (5 million attended a charger game over the last 10 years) then the city did their job. But think about the millions of people that attended since its construction in 1967. 50 years ago today people were having the exact same discussion we are now. They agreed to take a $27 Million bond to finance a stadium and make this city big time. I would put the stadium in the same category as balboa park or our beachfronts. Yes the city may not earn a return on capital invested but so what. Qualcomm stadium has been home to three super bowls, two world series, and thousands of other sporting events. I think we got our monies worth.

Of course I care about the chargers, but it isn't about that. To me it is whats best for the city and the taxpayers. If this local sporting institution is held so deeply by so many san diegans then why the continual rebuttal? Especially since there would be no tax increases? I feel like the opponents to this project think that something is being taken from them when it's not.

Having a stadium fosters an incredible amount of civic pride, one that in honestly incomparable to anything else. Again, difficult to put a price on it but I can go anywhere in this city and have an indepth conversation about the team with the garbage man or the CEO, they both would understand and it brings people together. It makes you care more about the city your're from and what it represents. I know these feelings don't really matter from the standpoint of a spreadsheet and taxes but I thought I offer different standpoint.