Poll: Chargers stadium measure is way, way behind

San Diego Union Tribune ^ | 10/7/16 | David Garrick

[wizkid]

Exactly!

People vote for taxing visitors not themselves. I was visiting my sister in the city that I grew up in ten years ago and rented a car. The “visitor” tax on the rental was more expensive than the car. The visitor tax was implemented to pay for the pro stadiums.

I finally had my sister rent it after getting into an argument with rental agent who seemed to think her main job function was visitor tax, tax collection. Residents were exempt and the agent was refusing to rent the car to my sister because they wanted me to pay the tax.

What the no nothings who voted for it did not consider is the fact that visitors do not like being cheated. I resent being taken to the cleaners to pay for pro football palaces. It is one reason that I have never gone back to visit.

The place already had a perfectly fine football stadium that was shared with the university but that was not good enough for the pro team. The university stadium did not bother me as much because one can an argue that it generated revenue for the university. Even better, the pro football fans/team helped subsidize the university stadium not the general tax payer.

I also lived in San Diego. Jack Murphy stadium is perfectly fine. It just does not have the luxury boxes that only rich corporations can afford. I am not against rich corporations. Just against using tax dollars to pay for luxury boxes for their executives that are only used a handful of days each year. Yes, it is one of those old multi purpose stadiums that used to be shared with the Padres but so what.

[hanamizu]

If it’s any comfort, the taxpayers of Missouri also get to help pay for the Chief’s stadium—as well as the one in St. Louis that the Rams left. At least we aren’t on the hook (yet) for a new stadium in St. Louis.

[jeannineinsd]

Doesn’t San Diego already have high taxes on visitors (like hotel taxes)? It’s kind of a pricey destination.

Yes, it does.