We have an opportunity here that requires the type of fortitude and forward thinking that many think San Diego’s leaders and even its citizens don’t have in them.

We can be a football town and a futbol town. We just have to determine how that will happen. And quickly.

Very soon, the same citizens who decided the Chargers’ downtown stadium and convention center initiative belonged on the ballot will be given the opportunity to tell City Hall that we’re ready (or not) for a different direction.

Let’s get to it.


This is not a kneejerk reaction, it is merely a call to action. It is not small-time thinking to consider an MLS stadium; there is simply a small window of time to consider whether we want an MLS team and appropriate stadium for San Diego State’s football program to play.

The larger question the folks pushing this will ask San Diego to consider:

Is it worth it to provide at “fair market value” the city’s vast (and last) piece of valuable land in Mission Valley for the purpose of a privately financed development that would include the aforementioned smallish stadium, significant park area, retail and housing projects plus 16 acres set aside for an NFL stadium (should one become necessary in the next several years)?

“Fair market value” in this case is a price determined by a third-party appraisal to be the as-is value of the land minus the services those acquiring the land would provide — i.e., development of park space, demolition of Qualcomm Stadium and the inherent eradication of the city’s stadium maintenance obligation.


Basically, is a land swap that relieves burden on the city and generates tax dollars a good deal?

The mayor and other members of San Diego’s city government have been pondering this basic question for months.

Those officials’ in-progress supposition seems to be that it is at least worth more consideration. Enough of them appear to even be leaning toward endorsing a project they believe would generate significant tax revenue in addition to taking some obligations of the books.

It’s difficult to believe Mayor Kevin Faulconer wasn’t envisioning this proposal when he spoke of the need for more middle-income housing in his State of the City address on Jan. 12. Last week’s timing of the city saying it is considering shuttering Qualcomm Stadium after 2018 is also likely not coincidence.


We need more affordable housing and can’t afford to keep the stadium open. Aha! Here’s an idea!

There is urgency involved in deciding what to do with Qualcomm Stadium and the surrounding land. (Union-Tribune )

Perhaps dealing with Dean Spanos and the NFL has ratcheted up the cynicism herein, but there seems to be a fairly straight line to be drawn between many dots here.

Still, this has to be something the people want.


More details will be known Monday when the plan is unveiled for the media.

That will be the official start of a public vetting process.

The group seeking to pull of this futbol/football solution, led by La Jolla investor Mike Stone, must file for MLS expansion by the end of the month.

At a point soon after that, a citizens’ initiative will be launched. You remember that procedure? Upwards of 66,000 signatures are required to advance the initiative to the city council.


Where this initiative will differ from last year’s Chargers proposal is that the final say will lie with the council — without a public vote.

Our leaders have in the past passed the duty of “yay” or “nay” on such weighty matters to voters. But with MLS set to announce its decision on two expansion cities by late summer or early fall, there is no time for a ballot measure.

Will a successful signature-gathering effort be sufficient for elected officials to determine the will of their constituency?

It might depend on what SDSU wants in terms of student and faculty housing. There is reluctance by many in city government to donate land to a state entity, making whatever is built on that parcel non-taxable. That seems like a small obstacle. You’d think as part of the agreement, developers could agree to keep a portion of the planned housing affordable for students and faculty.


The city also has to find out how much that land is worth.

One of the few things city officials and the Chargers came close to agreeing on is that the parcel, as it is now, is worth nowhere near the $3 million per acre that has been thrown around. All we know is that some pretty rich people (the kind who actually made their money) want the land and are willing to invest upwards of $500 million toward bringing in an MLS team and building a stadium. They must think there is some return on that investment.

From the perspective of a sports columnist and sports fans, there are a couple things to consider.

First, the most attractive part of this proposal is that it helps SDSU football (and the local bowl games) survive and possibly sets it up to thrive.


The stadium size is about right. Possible expansion from the starting capacity of 30,000 for football is part of the proposal. However, we need assurances on how the MLS model of central ownership provides for revenue sharing with a co-tenant. The basic idea here is that SDSU will reap what it sows, eat what it kills, profit from what it invests, then that is a major plus. San Diego State needs to be in charge of significant revenue streams. It can’t get into bed with another selfish partner.

As we ponder good partners to SDSU, here’s a thought: The Aztecs could play at Petco Park.

Not now, but with some strokes of a pen and some jackhammering.

It is actually far more complicated and expensive than that, but considering that Padres executive chairman Ron Fowler has donated untold millions to SDSU and is above all civic minded, it is safe to postulate that he would move heaven and earth — or at least the required seats, as well as work to alter the ballpark’s lease — to allow football to be played in his team’s ballpark. (Also consider the Holiday Bowl needs a larger capacity than what the MLS group’s plan offers.)


The Padres aren’t ready to address their place in this as they respectfully wait for the Chargers’ body to cool.

But to fully gauge what is best for San Diego we will need some input from Fowler and Padres lead investor Peter Seidler sooner than later. This MLS group isn’t slowing down.

The other thing to know is that tearing down Qualcomm Stadium and building a smaller venue does not mean the NFL isn’t coming back.

Mission Valley is not the only place a stadium can be built. Neither is downtown the only other site. There are some familiar with Dean Spanos’ countywide search for a stadium site that felt a spot in Escondido was best. And that’s just to name one.


We’ve got time to explore those options.

Hey, showing the Chargers and the NFL that we can get a massive project done is not a reason to do it. But it would be a small ancillary benefit. Like getting in shape after a girlfriend dumps you isn’t done for spite. But it’s nice when her jaw drops the next time she sees you and she wonders if maybe she wasn’t a little imprudent.

We could wait.

But the MLS and this local investment group are ready to go. There is a reason MLS Commissioner Don Garber will be in town a week from now that goes beyond the friendly match to be played at The Q.


San Diego has some needs this proposal fills.

Waiting hasn’t gotten much done around here. It’s time for a decision and some action.

RELATED

kevin.acee@sduniontribune.com

UPDATES:


2:45 p.m.: This story has been updated with additional details.