(11-08-2018 05:37 AM)bcat4311 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 02:00 PM)geef Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 11:19 AM)IamYourDad Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 10:52 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  add San Jose, South Dakota and North Dakota

kick out tulsa, uconn and UCF

Cincy would get kicked out long before UCF, and I’m not sure I’m taking Cincy ahead of UConn - They did win a national championship in basketball for our conference

I realize you're new around these parts, IamYourDad, so I'd advise you pay attention to Bearcats#1. If he's suggesting San Jose, South Dakota and North Dakota will replace Tulsa, UConn and UCF, his comment is likely coming from some direct knowledge of the situation.

(11-07-2018 04:42 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 04:35 PM)bcat4311 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 04:15 PM)rosewater Wrote:  If Panicstricken does not post anymore, Tulsa has to go!

Whatever happened to "panic"? Did he just disappear, move, go back to the institution? He was entertaining and often unbalanced. Somewhat like Bearcat#1 in his better moments.

He's still in my basement.

(11-07-2018 07:17 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 04:29 PM)bcat4311 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 03:35 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Let me know when they actually pay for that stadium. The rest is BS, they don't need the campus or dorm space, theyight develope the retail space but it's already crowdedin that immediate are for retail.

Until then this means nothing. They're still playing in a left over NFL stadium off campus.

The leftover NFL stadium is the one that is being torn down. it is a 167 acre space of which 135 acres will be given to SDSU for dorms, parking and a new stadium. The university will pay for the new stadium the rest will be paid by the state excepting for the unattached river park which will be paid for by the city and the university. Yes they do need the campus and especially dorm space.

That's a lovely plan, where are they getting all the money for that? My understanding is the state University system won't foot the bill because the new campus isn't just not necessary but they would only be at 50% or so if the campus is added to. The school has no current financing to tear down the stadium much less build one.

Here is an article from earlier in the year. Just so you know the soccer city people were right, it's smoke and mirrors for financing. The reference to Colorado's soon to be debacle of stadium financing is the model SDSU wanted to use. The state system is fighting the use of bonds so right now all that happened is the people of San Diego voted that SDSU doesn't have to pay rent. Till some financing appears that will continue.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sd-m...story.html

It's actually good news for the AAC though. The Holiday Bowl is put on by San Diego, it was already in trouble before this. With out the rent from SDSU (probably even with it) the city can't afford to keep putting it on. That will open up 2 p5 teams for match ups unless they want to move the entire operation to another city.

The Union Tribune has long been an opponent of ANY expansion for land locked SDSU. Their even handedness is highly suspect. Also several facts in the article are false. 1. They suggest that both SDSU and the MLS can use the same stadium. We in Cincinnati know this is not true based on the events of this past summer. The Union Tribune in other articles suggested taxes would be raised to pay for the land and the research buildings. This is also incorrect. The city will pay for a large part of the River Park which is detached from the university expansion project. However they were going to do so anyway.

Here is a bit of election quasi propaganda which shows many of the endorsements and objectives of the SDSU West plan.

https://sdsuwest.org/

I understand that you have your opinion and a right to hold them but the weight of evidence and the massive favorable vote on the part of San Diego voters indicates support within the community in favor and a willingness to make it work. And by the way the SDUT was in the MLS/soccer groups pocket all the time.

It's not an opinion. They have 0 dollars to do anything. The university literally said they would follow the CSU model. The California State system has told them they will not use bonds because they don't need the extra campus space to start with. The current "land locked" campus has room for 20-25k new students and the extension of the Campus is not necessary and won't be for 10-20 years.

They have no money. All the vote did was tell the City of San Diego they have to give the land and stadium to SDSU. The plan was for SDSU to pay for all the changes, so there is no money assigned from the tax payer. SDSU was going to do it through naming rights and bonds.

They have no sponsor lined up for naming and the last bid for a naming rights was 500,000.

The state system is telling them they won't approve the bonds for sale.

Let me know when they actually start tearing it down. Or even have a design for their new stadium. He'll let me know when they announce the size of this new stadium.

The city just got swinndled out of of a stadium by a broke school with big dreams, who in a decade still won't have a campus on the stadium or a new stadium on the site. This really just means SDSU doesn't pay rent after 2020.

(11-07-2018 10:48 AM)bcat4311 Wrote:  Let's invite SDSU immediately or sooner.

Yesterday SDSU convinced the voters of San Diego to give them 135 acres of land where the old Qualcomm NFL stadium was located. They will build a new 35K to 40K college football stadium, parking and student residences as well as co build a nearby river park area for the university students and others. This will boost their football program as well as the university in general.

Yes they are a long way away but once you get there you are at an outstanding destination city. Not Tulsa. Of course they would have to be FO.

GREAT FOR SDSU.

THEY MAKE A GREAT MEMEMBER IN THE MWC.

NO AAC EXPANSION.

(11-08-2018 09:45 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 05:37 AM)bcat4311 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 02:00 PM)geef Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 11:19 AM)IamYourDad Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 10:52 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  add San Jose, South Dakota and North Dakota

kick out tulsa, uconn and UCF

Cincy would get kicked out long before UCF, and I’m not sure I’m taking Cincy ahead of UConn - They did win a national championship in basketball for our conference

I realize you're new around these parts, IamYourDad, so I'd advise you pay attention to Bearcats#1. If he's suggesting San Jose, South Dakota and North Dakota will replace Tulsa, UConn and UCF, his comment is likely coming from some direct knowledge of the situation.

(11-07-2018 04:42 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 04:35 PM)bcat4311 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 04:15 PM)rosewater Wrote:  If Panicstricken does not post anymore, Tulsa has to go!

Whatever happened to "panic"? Did he just disappear, move, go back to the institution? He was entertaining and often unbalanced. Somewhat like Bearcat#1 in his better moments.

He's still in my basement.

(11-07-2018 07:17 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 04:29 PM)bcat4311 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 03:35 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Let me know when they actually pay for that stadium. The rest is BS, they don't need the campus or dorm space, theyight develope the retail space but it's already crowdedin that immediate are for retail.

Until then this means nothing. They're still playing in a left over NFL stadium off campus.

The leftover NFL stadium is the one that is being torn down. it is a 167 acre space of which 135 acres will be given to SDSU for dorms, parking and a new stadium. The university will pay for the new stadium the rest will be paid by the state excepting for the unattached river park which will be paid for by the city and the university. Yes they do need the campus and especially dorm space.

That's a lovely plan, where are they getting all the money for that? My understanding is the state University system won't foot the bill because the new campus isn't just not necessary but they would only be at 50% or so if the campus is added to. The school has no current financing to tear down the stadium much less build one.

Here is an article from earlier in the year. Just so you know the soccer city people were right, it's smoke and mirrors for financing. The reference to Colorado's soon to be debacle of stadium financing is the model SDSU wanted to use. The state system is fighting the use of bonds so right now all that happened is the people of San Diego voted that SDSU doesn't have to pay rent. Till some financing appears that will continue.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sd-m...story.html

It's actually good news for the AAC though. The Holiday Bowl is put on by San Diego, it was already in trouble before this. With out the rent from SDSU (probably even with it) the city can't afford to keep putting it on. That will open up 2 p5 teams for match ups unless they want to move the entire operation to another city.

The Union Tribune has long been an opponent of ANY expansion for land locked SDSU. Their even handedness is highly suspect. Also several facts in the article are false. 1. They suggest that both SDSU and the MLS can use the same stadium. We in Cincinnati know this is not true based on the events of this past summer. The Union Tribune in other articles suggested taxes would be raised to pay for the land and the research buildings. This is also incorrect. The city will pay for a large part of the River Park which is detached from the university expansion project. However they were going to do so anyway.

Here is a bit of election quasi propaganda which shows many of the endorsements and objectives of the SDSU West plan.

https://sdsuwest.org/

I understand that you have your opinion and a right to hold them but the weight of evidence and the massive favorable vote on the part of San Diego voters indicates support within the community in favor and a willingness to make it work. And by the way the SDUT was in the MLS/soccer groups pocket all the time.

It's not an opinion. They have 0 dollars to do anything. The university literally said they would follow the CSU model. The California State system has told them they will not use bonds because they don't need the extra campus space to start with. The current "land locked" campus has room for 20-25k new students and the extension of the Campus is not necessary and won't be for 10-20 years.

They have no money. All the vote did was tell the City of San Diego they have to give the land and stadium to SDSU. The plan was for SDSU to pay for all the changes, so there is no money assigned from the tax payer. SDSU was going to do it through naming rights and bonds.

They have no sponsor lined up for naming and the last bid for a naming rights was 500,000.

The state system is telling them they won't approve the bonds for sale.

Let me know when they actually start tearing it down. Or even have a design for their new stadium. He'll let me know when they announce the size of this new stadium.

The city just got swinndled out of of a stadium by a broke school with big dreams, who in a decade still won't have a campus on the stadium or a new stadium on the site. This really just means SDSU doesn't pay rent after 2020.

Your opinions are extremely premature. Fundraising and sponsors are not available? Yeah, it just got voted on two days ago. Your seeming unfamiliarity with PPP results in a hot take of the scenario. Cal State endorsed this plan, wants SDSU to complete the Master Plan revision and EIR to submit to the CSU, and then they are able to use revenue Bonds. If you can provide the link to where Cal State is shutting the door on what I just wrote, that would be helpful. The concerns moving forward is going to be litigation, and fundraising (obviously). But your analysis seems to come more from hearsay and opposition talking points than from gathered information and reports.

And this line:
"All the vote did was tell the City of San Diego they have to give the land and stadium to SDSU. The plan was for SDSU to pay for all the changes, so there is no money assigned from the tax payer. "

Is an outright lie. And you know it. If you don't know it, then you are not versed enough in this situation to speak on it.


And no, AAC has no reason to invite SDSU. And SDSU has no reason to want to go to AAC. Moot topic.

The state has concluded that there in no need expand the CSU system. There currently exists sufficient capacity to accommodate future student needs with no construction of new facilities and more than sufficient capacity for growth within existing plans.

"SDSU West" is NOT part of any existing plan. Here is the state study.

https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2017/3532/uc-...011917.pdf

Quote:New CSU Campus Not Warranted at This Time.
As with UC, our analysis indicates CSU has ample capacity to accommodate its projected enrollment growth of 15,000 additional students between now and 2024-25. If they used their existing facilities during the fall and spring terms according to legislative guidelines, they could accommodate an additional 31,000 students. If CSU campuses used their existing facilities during the summer term according to legislative guidelines, CSU could accommodate another 61,000 additional students. Such results indicate CSU has considerable existing capacity even without building out existing campuses to their planned capacities. Were CSU to begin adding new facilities according to those long-range plans, it could accommodate another 139,000 students. Between reaching current capacity and building out to planned capacity, CSU could serve a total of more than 200,000 additional students. Given the magnitude of these results, various assumptions could be changed (such as assuming higher demographically driven enrollment growth or expanding eligibility policies) and CSU still likely would have ample physical capacity. Even using a different set of regions does not dramatically alter these results (as discussed in the box on the next page).

Quote:CONCLUSION
Under current state policy, UC and CSU are projected to experience modest enrollment growth over the next decade. The state has many options to accommodate this growth at existing campuses, including by increasing the use of existing facilities and constructing new facilities. Because these options can accommodate all projected growth, we believe a new campus is not warranted at this time.

Further the CFO of SDSU wrote an email in 2016 about the soccer city proposal stating that SDSU did not need more dorms or expansion. In 2017 a VP of SDSU said they had a plan for a stadium soon, but wouldn't need the whole parcel of land for 30-50 years and then walked it back.

Then a year later all of a sudden they did need everything they said they didn't and now the state system says they don't.

Quote:The university remains coy or perhaps just uncertain about how and when it would actually transform the site.

Quote:“The university is behaving like a private buyer of this real estate,” Kratzer said.

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/g...west-plan/

How the stadium is losing money and the sweet heart rent deal SDSU had and the changes:

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/busi...story.html

Story on the lawsuit and city's position of what SDSU's proposal does:

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/busi...4821760609

Succient summary by the city attorney of what this does:

Quote:"The Soccer City and SDSU West initiatives essentially force the lease or sale of City assets on terms set by the proponents,” Elliott said in a statement.

We will see if it survives the Cal State approval.

Then if it survives legal challenges.

Then if they can get the money.

As I said this just means they won't be paying rent. The school will gain possession of the stadium and land. They'll end up sitting on it and doing nothing. It already has a workable stadium and they don't have the cash.

What this will factually do it give the old Q to SDSU for pennies.

By the way how's the mwc board fanhood?

Crying UCF doesn't have a quality loss like Utah State and Fresno?

(11-08-2018 04:28 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  The state has concluded that there in no need expand the CSU system. There currently exists sufficient capacity to accommodate future student needs with no construction of new facilities and more than sufficient capacity for growth within existing plans.

"SDSU West" is NOT part of any existing plan. Here is the state study.

https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2017/3532/uc-...011917.pdf

Quote:New CSU Campus Not Warranted at This Time.
As with UC, our analysis indicates CSU has ample capacity to accommodate its projected enrollment growth of 15,000 additional students between now and 2024-25. If they used their existing facilities during the fall and spring terms according to legislative guidelines, they could accommodate an additional 31,000 students. If CSU campuses used their existing facilities during the summer term according to legislative guidelines, CSU could accommodate another 61,000 additional students. Such results indicate CSU has considerable existing capacity even without building out existing campuses to their planned capacities. Were CSU to begin adding new facilities according to those long-range plans, it could accommodate another 139,000 students. Between reaching current capacity and building out to planned capacity, CSU could serve a total of more than 200,000 additional students. Given the magnitude of these results, various assumptions could be changed (such as assuming higher demographically driven enrollment growth or expanding eligibility policies) and CSU still likely would have ample physical capacity. Even using a different set of regions does not dramatically alter these results (as discussed in the box on the next page).

Quote:CONCLUSION
Under current state policy, UC and CSU are projected to experience modest enrollment growth over the next decade. The state has many options to accommodate this growth at existing campuses, including by increasing the use of existing facilities and constructing new facilities. Because these options can accommodate all projected growth, we believe a new campus is not warranted at this time.

SDSU West expansion not being a part of a campus master plan in the findings of a near two-year old report is not making your case, since as I explicitly wrote, Cal State wants SDSU to submit the master plan REVISION along with the EIR, so then SDSU West would be a part of the master plan. Again, the vote happened two days ago, and Cal State endorsed it in July of 2018. Using a January 2017 report to develop your opinion is strange.

Further the CFO of SDSU wrote an email in 2016 about the soccer city proposal stating that SDSU did not need more dorms or expansion. In 2017 a VP of SDSU said they had a plan for a stadium soon, but wouldn't need the whole parcel of land for 30-50 years and then walked it back.

Then a year later all of a sudden they did need everything they said they didn't and now the state system says they don't.

Quote:The university remains coy or perhaps just uncertain about how and when it would actually transform the site.

Quote:“The university is behaving like a private buyer of this real estate,” Kratzer said.

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/g...west-plan/

There is not a current need for housing at its current rate. The funny thing is that SDSU is telling us that. Your spin be damned, the President has stated that this will be a long-term expansion. That is why private development is leasing the land for the private development. Then when the growth does take place, and the lease is up, it converts to the University need. They are doing it right now with a new private-owned student housing unit using revenue bonds (those things you said Cal State isn't issuing). Completed in August.

The difference is that the State taxpayer isn't on the hook for up to $13M/acre plus any development costs that the other initiative called for. Do you not agree this is a positive, not a negative?

(11-08-2018 04:42 PM)Negative Optimist Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 04:28 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  The state has concluded that there in no need expand the CSU system. There currently exists sufficient capacity to accommodate future student needs with no construction of new facilities and more than sufficient capacity for growth within existing plans.

"SDSU West" is NOT part of any existing plan. Here is the state study.

https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2017/3532/uc-...011917.pdf

Quote:New CSU Campus Not Warranted at This Time.
As with UC, our analysis indicates CSU has ample capacity to accommodate its projected enrollment growth of 15,000 additional students between now and 2024-25. If they used their existing facilities during the fall and spring terms according to legislative guidelines, they could accommodate an additional 31,000 students. If CSU campuses used their existing facilities during the summer term according to legislative guidelines, CSU could accommodate another 61,000 additional students. Such results indicate CSU has considerable existing capacity even without building out existing campuses to their planned capacities. Were CSU to begin adding new facilities according to those long-range plans, it could accommodate another 139,000 students. Between reaching current capacity and building out to planned capacity, CSU could serve a total of more than 200,000 additional students. Given the magnitude of these results, various assumptions could be changed (such as assuming higher demographically driven enrollment growth or expanding eligibility policies) and CSU still likely would have ample physical capacity. Even using a different set of regions does not dramatically alter these results (as discussed in the box on the next page).

Quote:CONCLUSION
Under current state policy, UC and CSU are projected to experience modest enrollment growth over the next decade. The state has many options to accommodate this growth at existing campuses, including by increasing the use of existing facilities and constructing new facilities. Because these options can accommodate all projected growth, we believe a new campus is not warranted at this time.

SDSU West expansion not being a part of a campus master plan in the findings of a near two-year old report is not making your case, since as I explicitly wrote, Cal State wants SDSU to submit the master plan REVISION along with the EIR, so then SDSU West would be a part of the master plan. Again, the vote happened two days ago, and Cal State endorsed it in July of 2018. Using a January 2017 report to develop your opinion is strange.

Further the CFO of SDSU wrote an email in 2016 about the soccer city proposal stating that SDSU did not need more dorms or expansion. In 2017 a VP of SDSU said they had a plan for a stadium soon, but wouldn't need the whole parcel of land for 30-50 years and then walked it back.

Then a year later all of a sudden they did need everything they said they didn't and now the state system says they don't.

Quote:The university remains coy or perhaps just uncertain about how and when it would actually transform the site.

Quote:“The university is behaving like a private buyer of this real estate,” Kratzer said.

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/g...west-plan/

There is not a current need for housing at its current rate. The funny thing is that SDSU is telling us that. Your spin be damned, the President has stated that this will be a long-term expansion. That is why private development is leasing the land for the private development. Then when the growth does take place, and the lease is up, it converts to the University need. They are doing it right now with a new private-owned student housing unit using revenue bonds (those things you said Cal State isn't issuing). Completed in August.

The difference is that the State taxpayer isn't on the hook for up to $13M/acre plus any development costs that the other initiative called for. Do you not agree this is a positive, not a negative?

A positive would be neither side getting a sweetheart deal and robbing taxpayers blind.

Your own people have said 30-50 years in the future, meaning it may possibly, could happen at some distant date.

The only thing this amounts to is SDSU conning the voters into telling the school thank you for stealing from them. The court system is likely to stomp all over this and SDSU will get stuck with out a home because they thought they were slick and the city will have to really sell the field. It probably also ends up costing the city the Holiday bowl an economic driver.

(11-08-2018 04:50 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 04:42 PM)Negative Optimist Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 04:28 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  The state has concluded that there in no need expand the CSU system. There currently exists sufficient capacity to accommodate future student needs with no construction of new facilities and more than sufficient capacity for growth within existing plans.

"SDSU West" is NOT part of any existing plan. Here is the state study.

https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2017/3532/uc-...011917.pdf

Quote:New CSU Campus Not Warranted at This Time.
As with UC, our analysis indicates CSU has ample capacity to accommodate its projected enrollment growth of 15,000 additional students between now and 2024-25. If they used their existing facilities during the fall and spring terms according to legislative guidelines, they could accommodate an additional 31,000 students. If CSU campuses used their existing facilities during the summer term according to legislative guidelines, CSU could accommodate another 61,000 additional students. Such results indicate CSU has considerable existing capacity even without building out existing campuses to their planned capacities. Were CSU to begin adding new facilities according to those long-range plans, it could accommodate another 139,000 students. Between reaching current capacity and building out to planned capacity, CSU could serve a total of more than 200,000 additional students. Given the magnitude of these results, various assumptions could be changed (such as assuming higher demographically driven enrollment growth or expanding eligibility policies) and CSU still likely would have ample physical capacity. Even using a different set of regions does not dramatically alter these results (as discussed in the box on the next page).

Quote:CONCLUSION
Under current state policy, UC and CSU are projected to experience modest enrollment growth over the next decade. The state has many options to accommodate this growth at existing campuses, including by increasing the use of existing facilities and constructing new facilities. Because these options can accommodate all projected growth, we believe a new campus is not warranted at this time.

SDSU West expansion not being a part of a campus master plan in the findings of a near two-year old report is not making your case, since as I explicitly wrote, Cal State wants SDSU to submit the master plan REVISION along with the EIR, so then SDSU West would be a part of the master plan. Again, the vote happened two days ago, and Cal State endorsed it in July of 2018. Using a January 2017 report to develop your opinion is strange.

Further the CFO of SDSU wrote an email in 2016 about the soccer city proposal stating that SDSU did not need more dorms or expansion. In 2017 a VP of SDSU said they had a plan for a stadium soon, but wouldn't need the whole parcel of land for 30-50 years and then walked it back.

Then a year later all of a sudden they did need everything they said they didn't and now the state system says they don't.

Quote:The university remains coy or perhaps just uncertain about how and when it would actually transform the site.

Quote:“The university is behaving like a private buyer of this real estate,” Kratzer said.

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/g...west-plan/

There is not a current need for housing at its current rate. The funny thing is that SDSU is telling us that. Your spin be damned, the President has stated that this will be a long-term expansion. That is why private development is leasing the land for the private development. Then when the growth does take place, and the lease is up, it converts to the University need. They are doing it right now with a new private-owned student housing unit using revenue bonds (those things you said Cal State isn't issuing). Completed in August.

The difference is that the State taxpayer isn't on the hook for up to $13M/acre plus any development costs that the other initiative called for. Do you not agree this is a positive, not a negative?

A positive would be neither side getting a sweetheart deal and robbing taxpayers blind.

Your own people have said 30-50 years in the future, meaning it may possibly, could happen at some distant date.

The only thing this amounts to is SDSU conning the voters into telling the school thank you for stealing from them. The court system is likely to stomp all over this and SDSU will get stuck with out a home because they thought they were slick and the city will have to really sell the field. It probably also ends up costing the city the Holiday bowl an economic driver.

Again, you are projecting unfound opinion. The city council determines the value of the site. What is stealing? Your contempt is misplaced. The citizens voted, they chose SDSU. The public now participate and can have their voice heard. Your 30-50 year "possibly, could happen" snarkiness leaves out the simple fact that private industry gets to develop there, so even in your apocalyptic theory, activity is still happening there. The notions that you have started with in this thread have proven to boil down to an illogical opinion of disaster, and an underlying tone to want failure. I knew I would hear it from the soccer boys "who just wanted something done in SD", but to hear this fact-less take on an east coast conferences forum is surprising.

But thank you for your interest in San Diego, and San Diego State University.

(11-08-2018 05:03 PM)Negative Optimist Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 04:50 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 04:42 PM)Negative Optimist Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 04:28 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  The state has concluded that there in no need expand the CSU system. There currently exists sufficient capacity to accommodate future student needs with no construction of new facilities and more than sufficient capacity for growth within existing plans.

"SDSU West" is NOT part of any existing plan. Here is the state study.

https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2017/3532/uc-...011917.pdf

Quote:New CSU Campus Not Warranted at This Time.
As with UC, our analysis indicates CSU has ample capacity to accommodate its projected enrollment growth of 15,000 additional students between now and 2024-25. If they used their existing facilities during the fall and spring terms according to legislative guidelines, they could accommodate an additional 31,000 students. If CSU campuses used their existing facilities during the summer term according to legislative guidelines, CSU could accommodate another 61,000 additional students. Such results indicate CSU has considerable existing capacity even without building out existing campuses to their planned capacities. Were CSU to begin adding new facilities according to those long-range plans, it could accommodate another 139,000 students. Between reaching current capacity and building out to planned capacity, CSU could serve a total of more than 200,000 additional students. Given the magnitude of these results, various assumptions could be changed (such as assuming higher demographically driven enrollment growth or expanding eligibility policies) and CSU still likely would have ample physical capacity. Even using a different set of regions does not dramatically alter these results (as discussed in the box on the next page).

Quote:CONCLUSION
Under current state policy, UC and CSU are projected to experience modest enrollment growth over the next decade. The state has many options to accommodate this growth at existing campuses, including by increasing the use of existing facilities and constructing new facilities. Because these options can accommodate all projected growth, we believe a new campus is not warranted at this time.

SDSU West expansion not being a part of a campus master plan in the findings of a near two-year old report is not making your case, since as I explicitly wrote, Cal State wants SDSU to submit the master plan REVISION along with the EIR, so then SDSU West would be a part of the master plan. Again, the vote happened two days ago, and Cal State endorsed it in July of 2018. Using a January 2017 report to develop your opinion is strange.

Further the CFO of SDSU wrote an email in 2016 about the soccer city proposal stating that SDSU did not need more dorms or expansion. In 2017 a VP of SDSU said they had a plan for a stadium soon, but wouldn't need the whole parcel of land for 30-50 years and then walked it back.

Then a year later all of a sudden they did need everything they said they didn't and now the state system says they don't.

Quote:The university remains coy or perhaps just uncertain about how and when it would actually transform the site.

Quote:“The university is behaving like a private buyer of this real estate,” Kratzer said.

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/g...west-plan/

There is not a current need for housing at its current rate. The funny thing is that SDSU is telling us that. Your spin be damned, the President has stated that this will be a long-term expansion. That is why private development is leasing the land for the private development. Then when the growth does take place, and the lease is up, it converts to the University need. They are doing it right now with a new private-owned student housing unit using revenue bonds (those things you said Cal State isn't issuing). Completed in August.

The difference is that the State taxpayer isn't on the hook for up to $13M/acre plus any development costs that the other initiative called for. Do you not agree this is a positive, not a negative?

A positive would be neither side getting a sweetheart deal and robbing taxpayers blind.

Your own people have said 30-50 years in the future, meaning it may possibly, could happen at some distant date.

The only thing this amounts to is SDSU conning the voters into telling the school thank you for stealing from them. The court system is likely to stomp all over this and SDSU will get stuck with out a home because they thought they were slick and the city will have to really sell the field. It probably also ends up costing the city the Holiday bowl an economic driver.

Again, you are projecting unfound opinion. The city council determines the value of the site. What is stealing? Your contempt is misplaced. The citizens voted, they chose SDSU. The public now participate and can have their voice heard. Your 30-50 year "possibly, could happen" snarkiness leaves out the simple fact that private industry gets to develop there, so even in your apocalyptic theory, activity is still happening there. The notions that you have started with in this thread have proven to boil down to an illogical opinion of disaster, and an underlying tone to want failure. I knew I would hear it from the soccer boys "who just wanted something done in SD", but to hear this fact-less take on an east coast conferences forum is surprising.

But thank you for your interest in San Diego, and San Diego State University.

So what your saying is you have no idea what their plan is either and it's ok because SDSU got it approved by the voters even though they lied? Ok.

As I said, when they actually have a plan (right now it's barely an idea) I'll pay attention. When they actually break ground I'll believe the SDSU pipe dream.

(11-07-2018 12:58 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Since we are talking ridiculous expansion scenarios again, try this one on for size: Kick out Tulsa, Tulane, and ECU and add Army (FB only), Air Force, San Diego State, BYU, Boise State and Gonzaga.

West:

San Diego State
BYU
Boise State
Air Force
Navy
Houston
SMU
Gonzaga (olympic sports only)

East:

Cincinnati
UConn
Temple
UCF
USF
Memphis
Army
Wichita State (olympic sports only)

Non service academies play 6 division games + 2 crossover games. Air Force and Navy play 6 division games + 1 crossover game + 1 protected game against Army. And Army plans 6 division games + 2 protected games against Navy and Air Force, allowing them to maintain their rivals and pad their non-conference schedule to get to bowl eligibility since they seem to struggle the most in FBS among the service academies. Split the TV contract among at least 3 networks to get maximum dollars. It would kind of suck for SMU and Houston as they would lose two opponents within driving distance in Tulsane, but whatever. That's a $10 million + conference easily.

I'm all in for this conference. Plus, I can do what I want all Saturday and start watching Coogin' it Football at 9:00

(11-08-2018 05:15 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 05:03 PM)Negative Optimist Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 04:50 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 04:42 PM)Negative Optimist Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 04:28 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  The state has concluded that there in no need expand the CSU system. There currently exists sufficient capacity to accommodate future student needs with no construction of new facilities and more than sufficient capacity for growth within existing plans.

"SDSU West" is NOT part of any existing plan. Here is the state study.

https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2017/3532/uc-...011917.pdf







SDSU West expansion not being a part of a campus master plan in the findings of a near two-year old report is not making your case, since as I explicitly wrote, Cal State wants SDSU to submit the master plan REVISION along with the EIR, so then SDSU West would be a part of the master plan. Again, the vote happened two days ago, and Cal State endorsed it in July of 2018. Using a January 2017 report to develop your opinion is strange.

Further the CFO of SDSU wrote an email in 2016 about the soccer city proposal stating that SDSU did not need more dorms or expansion. In 2017 a VP of SDSU said they had a plan for a stadium soon, but wouldn't need the whole parcel of land for 30-50 years and then walked it back.

Then a year later all of a sudden they did need everything they said they didn't and now the state system says they don't.



https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/g...west-plan/

There is not a current need for housing at its current rate. The funny thing is that SDSU is telling us that. Your spin be damned, the President has stated that this will be a long-term expansion. That is why private development is leasing the land for the private development. Then when the growth does take place, and the lease is up, it converts to the University need. They are doing it right now with a new private-owned student housing unit using revenue bonds (those things you said Cal State isn't issuing). Completed in August.

The difference is that the State taxpayer isn't on the hook for up to $13M/acre plus any development costs that the other initiative called for. Do you not agree this is a positive, not a negative?

A positive would be neither side getting a sweetheart deal and robbing taxpayers blind.

Your own people have said 30-50 years in the future, meaning it may possibly, could happen at some distant date.

The only thing this amounts to is SDSU conning the voters into telling the school thank you for stealing from them. The court system is likely to stomp all over this and SDSU will get stuck with out a home because they thought they were slick and the city will have to really sell the field. It probably also ends up costing the city the Holiday bowl an economic driver.

Again, you are projecting unfound opinion. The city council determines the value of the site. What is stealing? Your contempt is misplaced. The citizens voted, they chose SDSU. The public now participate and can have their voice heard. Your 30-50 year "possibly, could happen" snarkiness leaves out the simple fact that private industry gets to develop there, so even in your apocalyptic theory, activity is still happening there. The notions that you have started with in this thread have proven to boil down to an illogical opinion of disaster, and an underlying tone to want failure. I knew I would hear it from the soccer boys "who just wanted something done in SD", but to hear this fact-less take on an east coast conferences forum is surprising.

But thank you for your interest in San Diego, and San Diego State University.

So what your saying is you have no idea what their plan is either and it's ok because SDSU got it approved by the voters even though they lied? Ok.

As I said, when they actually have a plan (right now it's barely an idea) I'll pay attention. When they actually break ground I'll believe the SDSU pipe dream.

The plan is available at the website: http://advancement.sdsu.edu/missionValle...index.html
As for the EIR, and how that will shape things such as traffic and the greenspace, that is the shaping that the public can now be a part of. You are advocating that it needs to be designed and rigid, that would eliminate the public process. I don't know why you would be against that. Do you not want the public's interest in the design? You are being purposefully negative, without any rationale as to why.

And that is coming from someone named "Negative Optimist"

This thread is like ass cancer for your eyes.

(11-08-2018 05:23 PM)UHRedcat96 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 12:58 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Since we are talking ridiculous expansion scenarios again, try this one on for size: Kick out Tulsa, Tulane, and ECU and add Army (FB only), Air Force, San Diego State, BYU, Boise State and Gonzaga.

West:

San Diego State
BYU
Boise State
Air Force
Navy
Houston
SMU
Gonzaga (olympic sports only)

East:

Cincinnati
UConn
Temple
UCF
USF
Memphis
Army
Wichita State (olympic sports only)

Non service academies play 6 division games + 2 crossover games. Air Force and Navy play 6 division games + 1 crossover game + 1 protected game against Army. And Army plans 6 division games + 2 protected games against Navy and Air Force, allowing them to maintain their rivals and pad their non-conference schedule to get to bowl eligibility since they seem to struggle the most in FBS among the service academies. Split the TV contract among at least 3 networks to get maximum dollars. It would kind of suck for SMU and Houston as they would lose two opponents within driving distance in Tulsane, but whatever. That's a $10 million + conference easily.

I'm all in for this conference. Plus, I can do what I want all Saturday and start watching Coogin' it Football at 9:00

The travel times for those teams would be brutal


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(11-08-2018 05:42 PM)Negative Optimist Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 05:15 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 05:03 PM)Negative Optimist Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 04:50 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 04:42 PM)Negative Optimist Wrote:  There is not a current need for housing at its current rate. The funny thing is that SDSU is telling us that. Your spin be damned, the President has stated that this will be a long-term expansion. That is why private development is leasing the land for the private development. Then when the growth does take place, and the lease is up, it converts to the University need. They are doing it right now with a new private-owned student housing unit using revenue bonds (those things you said Cal State isn't issuing). Completed in August.

The difference is that the State taxpayer isn't on the hook for up to $13M/acre plus any development costs that the other initiative called for. Do you not agree this is a positive, not a negative?

A positive would be neither side getting a sweetheart deal and robbing taxpayers blind.

Your own people have said 30-50 years in the future, meaning it may possibly, could happen at some distant date.

The only thing this amounts to is SDSU conning the voters into telling the school thank you for stealing from them. The court system is likely to stomp all over this and SDSU will get stuck with out a home because they thought they were slick and the city will have to really sell the field. It probably also ends up costing the city the Holiday bowl an economic driver.

Again, you are projecting unfound opinion. The city council determines the value of the site. What is stealing? Your contempt is misplaced. The citizens voted, they chose SDSU. The public now participate and can have their voice heard. Your 30-50 year "possibly, could happen" snarkiness leaves out the simple fact that private industry gets to develop there, so even in your apocalyptic theory, activity is still happening there. The notions that you have started with in this thread have proven to boil down to an illogical opinion of disaster, and an underlying tone to want failure. I knew I would hear it from the soccer boys "who just wanted something done in SD", but to hear this fact-less take on an east coast conferences forum is surprising.

But thank you for your interest in San Diego, and San Diego State University.

So what your saying is you have no idea what their plan is either and it's ok because SDSU got it approved by the voters even though they lied? Ok.

As I said, when they actually have a plan (right now it's barely an idea) I'll pay attention. When they actually break ground I'll believe the SDSU pipe dream.

The plan is available at the website: http://advancement.sdsu.edu/missionValle...index.html
As for the EIR, and how that will shape things such as traffic and the greenspace, that is the shaping that the public can now be a part of. You are advocating that it needs to be designed and rigid, that would eliminate the public process. I don't know why you would be against that. Do you not want the public's interest in the design? You are being purposefully negative, without any rationale as to why.

And that is coming from someone named "Negative Optimist"

You can call **** a rose it doesn't change the smell.

I know Baghdad Bob is your whole stick, but come on . . .



By the way, that link is a we have a plan don't worry. No actual plan though just vague assurances it won't cost the tax payers money.

When you can show me the financial lay out SDSU has a new stadium. Till then this is just blowing smoke.

I'm all for SDSU, Boise, BYU, Col St and Airforce in some combination (along with Army) but most of them would need to be FB only. I don't see it working out from both sides.

(11-09-2018 08:53 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I'm all for SDSU, Boise, BYU, Col St and Airforce in some combination (along with Army) but most of them would need to be FB only. I don't see it working out from both sides.

Add Gonzaga to the mix and include Olympic sports - to make it work for the football invitees.

A western grouping of SDSU, Boise, BYU, CSU, AFA, and Gonzaga would work.

There would be little change to Cincinnati's football and basketball schedules, but a huge shot in the arm to the conference. The revised schedules might look like this:

Football: at UConn, Tulane, at Temple, at Colorado St., Navy, USF, at UCF, ECU

Switch out the SMU road game for at Colorado St.

Basketball: Tulane, @ECU, @Tulsa, UConn, USF, @Wichita, Gonzaga, @Temple, SMU, @Memphis, @BYU, Wichita, UCF, @UConn, @SMU, Memphis, @UCF, Houston

Switch out the home game against Tulsa and road game at Houston for a home game against Gonzaga and road game at BYU. The newbies would play the majority of their conference schedules amongst each other, but provide solid strength to the image, perception, and rankings for the conference.

(11-09-2018 01:15 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(11-09-2018 08:53 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I'm all for SDSU, Boise, BYU, Col St and Airforce in some combination (along with Army) but most of them would need to be FB only. I don't see it working out from both sides.

Add Gonzaga to the mix and include Olympic sports - to make it work for the football invitees.

A western grouping of SDSU, Boise, BYU, CSU, AFA, and Gonzaga would work.

There would be little change to Cincinnati's football and basketball schedules, but a huge shot in the arm to the conference. The revised schedules might look like this:

Football: at UConn, Tulane, at Temple, at Colorado St., Navy, USF, at UCF, ECU

Switch out the SMU road game for at Colorado St.

Basketball: Tulane, @ECU, @Tulsa, UConn, USF, @Wichita, Gonzaga, @Temple, SMU, @Memphis, @BYU, Wichita, UCF, @UConn, @SMU, Memphis, @UCF, Houston

Switch out the home game against Tulsa and road game at Houston for a home game against Gonzaga and road game at BYU. The newbies would play the majority of their conference schedules amongst each other, but provide solid strength to the image, perception, and rankings for the conference.

Hey if it worked out, I'd be all for this. As a football fan, I think home games with BYU and Boise in particular are attractive and SDSU, AF, Col St, etc. are not far behind imo.

(11-09-2018 01:19 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(11-09-2018 01:15 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(11-09-2018 08:53 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I'm all for SDSU, Boise, BYU, Col St and Airforce in some combination (along with Army) but most of them would need to be FB only. I don't see it working out from both sides.

Add Gonzaga to the mix and include Olympic sports - to make it work for the football invitees.

A western grouping of SDSU, Boise, BYU, CSU, AFA, and Gonzaga would work.

There would be little change to Cincinnati's football and basketball schedules, but a huge shot in the arm to the conference. The revised schedules might look like this:

Football: at UConn, Tulane, at Temple, at Colorado St., Navy, USF, at UCF, ECU

Switch out the SMU road game for at Colorado St.

Basketball: Tulane, @ECU, @Tulsa, UConn, USF, @Wichita, Gonzaga, @Temple, SMU, @Memphis, @BYU, Wichita, UCF, @UConn, @SMU, Memphis, @UCF, Houston

Switch out the home game against Tulsa and road game at Houston for a home game against Gonzaga and road game at BYU. The newbies would play the majority of their conference schedules amongst each other, but provide solid strength to the image, perception, and rankings for the conference.

Hey if it worked out, I'd be all for this. As a football fan, I think home games with BYU and Boise in particular are attractive and SDSU, AF, Col St, etc. are not far behind imo.

Unfortunately, for it to work, you would likely need deregulation of the conference championship game. Too many teams and too difficult to have 8 or 9 team divisions - where divisional round-robin play is required to have the CCG.

If the CCG was deregulated, you could have some fun schedules...and really make a nice American brand play with all three academies.

Why go that far west ??
Bring in Toledo and Buffalo ... In state rival for Cincy, and UB with very good basketball could get a nice thing going against Temple/UConn...