San Diego voters overwhelmingly reject Chargers stadium plan
SAN DIEGO — The future of professional football in this city has been cast into doubt after San Diego voters overwhelmingly defeated a new downtown stadium plan for the San Diego Chargers in Tuesday’s election.
The team’s ballot measure failed, 57% to 43%, after all city precincts were counted, according to unofficial results released early Wednesday by the Registrar of Voters in San Diego County. Nearly 169,000 residents voted against it, and 127,000 voted for it, with provisional ballots still to be counted.
Under current California law, the measure needed two-thirds of voters to approve it because it’s a tax hike for a specific purpose.
Where do Chargers go if voters reject stadium bid?
Team owner Dean Spanos now has until Jan. 15 to make a decision: Should he move the franchise to Los Angeles to share a lucrative new stadium with the Los Angeles Rams?
NFL DRAFT HUB: Latest NFL Draft mock drafts, news, live picks, grades and analysis.
Or should he try for another stadium solution in San Diego even though there’s no clear or certain path to get one? The Chargers have played in San Diego since 1961.
"In terms of what comes next for the Chargers, it’s just too early to give you an answer," Spanos said in a letter to fans released early Wednesday. "We are going to diligently explore and weigh our options, and do what is needed to maintain our options, but no decision will be announced until after the football season concludes and no decision will be made in haste."
He thanked those who supported the measure and issued another statement Wednesday afternoon that said he would put aside any discussion on his next possible options until after the season.
"Over the coming weeks you may hear news about steps that we must take to preserve all of our options," Spanos said. "But please know that I don’t intend to make any decisions until after the regular season ends and that, in the meantime, I hope to enjoy with you one great Chargers game after another."
But after not getting more than 50% of the vote in Tuesday's election, he doesn't have much leverage in San Diego.
“If it’s under 50%, it’s probably a sign to look elsewhere,” said Andrew Brandt, a former executive with the Green Bay Packers and current director of the Moorad Center for the Study of Sports Law at Villanova. “If it’s over 50%, it’s a different discussion. Then you’ve got the L.A option sitting there, but it seems like that’s something no one really wants.”
Spanos just might not have a better choice from a risk and business standpoint. In early January, he felt much the same way when he applied to relocate his team to the L.A. suburb of Carson – a move that was rejected by the NFL in favor of a competing stadium project proposed by the Rams.
Ballot Measure C in San Diego asked voters whether they wanted to effectively increase the city’s hotel room tax rate from 12.5% to 16.5%, with the proceeds helping fund a new $1.8 billion stadium and convention center. The tax increase was to repay $1.15 billion in bonds, leaving the Chargers and NFL to pay the remaining $650 million.
Travelers beware: The NFL and other leagues are taxing you
If Spanos doesn’t take the L.A. option, the Oakland Raiders would get the chance to move in with the Rams instead. That would take away the Chargers’ leverage to get a new stadium in San Diego while also possibly adding a third franchise in Southern California, just 120 miles up the road from San Diego.
Spanos doesn’t want that. Fortunately for him, the Raiders recently have been targeting a new stadium in Las Vegas instead, possibly giving the Chargers more time to sort out a solution between San Diego and Los Angeles.
But the Raiders’ plans for Vegas are not guaranteed and could fall apart with the stadium developer there. The Raiders also would need 24 of the NFL’s 32 owners to approve the team’s relocation to Las Vegas.
In the meantime, the Chargers already have been approved to relocate to Los Angeles. In January, after his Carson plan was rejected, Spanos also agreed to an optional deal with the Rams to share the new $2.6 billion stadium being built in Inglewood.
“The worst deal in Los Angeles is better than his best deal here,” Spanos advisor Fred Maas told USA TODAY Sports last month, describing the difference in money-making potential between the two cities.
Besides L.A., the Chargers' options are limited or riddled with uncertainty:
-- Spanos can keep his team in San Diego’s Qualcomm Stadium, one of the oldest and worst stadiums in the league. For more than a decade, the team has been trying to get a more modern and lucrative stadium to replace this one, which opened in 1967. The team’s lease to play in this city-owned facility expires after the 2020 season.
“The longer he stays in Qualcomm, the longer other markets pass him by in revenue generation,” Brandt told USA TODAY Sports. “It’s a tough way to go.”
-- Spanos can search for other solutions in San Diego, but it’s unclear where the Chargers would obtain funding for a new San Diego stadium after being denied public funding in this election. The team has said it needs some public funding to build a new stadium here, unlike in L.A. where it’s not necessary because of the bigger size and corporate wealth of the market.
-- One potential fallback plan for the team in San Diego also was rejected at the ballot box Tuesday, according to unofficial results from all city precincts. Measure D asked for a slightly lower hotel tax increase, up to 15.5%. It would have authorized a new NFL stadium but didn’t require one or pay for one, leading to questions about how the team would pay for it if it was approved. That measure failed by nearly the same margin: 60% to 40%. It has been disputed whether this measure needed two-thirds approval or only a simple majority.
-- The California Supreme Court eventually could remove the two-thirds approval threshold for tax hikes proposed by citizens’ initiatives similar to Measures C. The court is considering a pending, unrelated case that could end up lowering the threshold to a simple majority, but there’s no guarantee of that. The ruling also might not come for another year or two. Even with a favorable ruling, it wouldn't apply to Measure C after it failed to get a simple majority. The most help it might be able to give Spanos is a lower approval threshold for a future stadium ballot measure, if he chose to pursue one.
Tuesday's election defeat still doesn't automatically mean the Chargers will leave San Diego. It just makes a move more likely now that voters have spoken.
"The outpouring of support from friends like you, and so many others, has been heartwarming throughout the campaign and I will continue to be mindful of that in the weeks ahead," Spanos said in his letter to fans early Wednesday. "Thank you, again, for believing in the Chargers. Everyone on the team and in my family appreciates your loyal support and continued patience, and we look forward to an exciting rest of the season."
Follow sports reporter Brent Schrotenboer on Twitter @Schrotenboer. E-mail: bschrotenb@usatoday.com