Two stories, one statewide and one local, are about to intersect.

The statewide one is the now familiar scheming and debate over what sorts of tax-related initiatives and measures should go on the November 2016 ballot. One way or another, California voters are going to be asked whether they want to raise and reform various kinds of taxes.

The local issue is about football. The San Diego Chargers last week announced plans to build a stadium jointly with the Oakland Raiders in L.A. County. That’s put new focus on hot-and-cold efforts by San Diego to find a way to build a stadium and keep the team.

A new stadium is a tough sell, particularly when it would involve public money and requires a two-thirds vote locally. In this case, San Diego’s mayor has a task force that could come forward with a stadium plan that could include tax increases on the November 2016 ballot.

That timing, of course, would put the stadium tax on the same ballot as competing statewide tax proposals. It says here that the stadium tax, a longshot in any context, has zero chance in such a circumstance.

In this way, the statewide tax measures could cost San Diego the Chargers. Of course, the good news is that even a privately financed stadium, like the one the Chargers and Raiders have announced in Carson, may not work. One of the great things about living in L.A. is that we don’t have a pro football team (for reasons I previously explained here, and it won’t be easy to get anything done given the public reluctance. Plus, the Rams seem to be further along with a competing plan in Inglewood.

Fearless prediction: Either the Chargers or Raiders or both will leave the state – San Antonio and Mexico City both make a ton of sense. And given the high costs of stadiums and pro football, California may well be richer for their departures.