We can stop with the bogus arguments against SoccerCity.

Or at least the public can judge the reality of what FS Investors is proposing while the opposition finds new ways to tear down a project that meets an awful lot of needs for an awful lot of people.

Because now we know for sure FS Investors won’t be paying a mere $10,000 for the Qualcomm Stadium land, would provide for San Diego State’s expansion and would be building a stadium that holds 33,500 spectators right away.

The group looking to build a stadium as part of a mixed-use development in Mission Valley on Thursday revealed terms of its agreement with San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer.


The terms, outlined in a letter sent to Faulconer, would be built into the lease and be legally binding should SoccerCity be approved by voters in a November special election.

The letter, a copy of which was viewed by the Union-Tribune. states terms of the lease should be made public before the election.

“My goal with this is to protect the City’s interests and make sure the public gets a fair deal,” Faulconer said in a statement. “This gives San Diegans additional clarity and answers key questions about what the finances of this project would look like. These concessions ensure the City will receive fair market value through the duration of the lease, provide options for SDSU to grow in Mission Valley, require additional community input and guarantee the proponents build and pay for a world-class river park for the public to enjoy.”

With the concessions from FS Investors in hand, the mayor is expected to endorse the project.


The letter stipulates that fair market value for the Mission Valley property will be determined by a third-party appraisal. That will be the established value for the land that forms the basis for their stream of annual payments, which will be equal to 10 percent of the fair market value. (The letter states this is consistent with the city council-approved Brown Field lease.)

The letter also specifies the lease would be voided and the property would remain with the city if FS Investors did not secure an MLS expansion franchise.

If San Diego State agrees to a binding stadium joint venture by Dec. 1, FS Investors will contribute half the cost to build a stadium that holds 33,500 for football (32,500 seated, 1,000 standing) and “will be designed to accommodate expansion to 40,000 seats in a manner that balances cost and revenue for those new seats.”

As for campus expansion, FS Investors pledged in the letter to provide SDSU up to 47 acres at the site in one of three ways, provided the university agrees to the stadium commitment by Dec. 1.


Should it agree, SDSU would get the 12 acres under the stadium plus five acres adjacent to the stadium at no cost and have the ability to acquire more land via one of three options:

SDSU can purchase 10 contiguous acres for university purposes as long as it partners in the development costs.

Or FS Investors will build to suit 2,000 housing units and 200,000 square feet of scientific research facilities “for delivery no later than 2024.”

Or SDSU can acquire 30 acres of developed land “at fair market value 30 years out, consistent with SDSU’s articulated starting point for its long-term needs.” (San Diego State has said it needs 35 acres in addition to the 12-acre stadium site.)

Additionally, FS Investors pledges in the letter to build and maintain 60 acres of park land “that will be designed consistent with the current adopted goals and objectives of the San Diego River Park Foundation and using the input of members of the Mission Valley community.”

San Diego State on Tuesday declared it will not engage further with FS Investors. The school’s proclamation came after nearly a year of talks with FS Investors that broke down in early 2017 and after Faulconer and others tried to reignite recently.

Now that we know the details from FS Investors, can we at least ask for some from SDSU? And can we ask the university to be a willing partner with the city, its police and fire and public works departments, its schools and residents who need affordable housing?


San Diego faces an $81 million budget deficit in the coming year and a shortfall around $60 million the following year. The lease payments, $2.8 billion annual economic activity and $1.4 billion of tax value generated by SoccerCity, as estimated by independent studies, is a pretty compelling argument.

San Diego State is an important entity in this city. One of the most important.

However, it is not the only entity.

Cut through the protestations about FS Investors getting a head start and the too-easy argument that education is important, and you see SoccerCity is a good deal for all of San Diego.


Education is important. Education is an economic driver. To make that the central tenet of the opposition is not only falsely implying that SoccerCity doesn’t provide for SDSU but it insults our intelligence.

Certainly, this is about so much more than football or soccer. However, the long-term viability of its football program is a part of SDSU’s interest.

That Aztecs football could be homeless in two or three years due to the expected closing of Qualcomm Stadium is not reason enough for the university to settle for partnering in a bad plan.

But this isn’t a bad plan.


It is possible SDSU has another option already lined up. There are seemingly credible rumors floating around town that at least one could be made public soon. But the school’s confidence it will be OK is matched only by its coyness about the specifics of how it will get a stadium built.

How long are we going to accept a shrug and vague assurances before we call bull?

It is infinitely easier easy to tear down the only proposal on the table than it is to come up with a better plan.

Should SDSU and other interests succeed in defeating SoccerCity, any other plan will need to provide adequate funding for construction of a river park, a stadium and surrounding development while providing for university expansion and paying the city several million dollars annually.


As has been said here numerous times, if that proposal exists, let’s hear it.

One of the beauties of the SoccerCity plan is its ability to adequately satisfy so many constituencies. Not perfectly. But perfect doesn’t exist, except evidently in SDSU’s mind.

kevin.acee@sduniontribune.com