The “Principles” of Astroturfing
- 12.31.09, 19:20
- 163 Comments
That group Stand for San Jose is at it again, choosing New Year’s Eve to write a letter to the City. In the letter, the group is demanding that the A’s guarantee revenues as defined in the September Economic Impact report. Nevermind that the A’s did not write nor commission the report; it was handled by the City. Have the San Jose Giants ever promised any kind of economic benefit for San Jose? I’m afraid not, yet they’re happy to go to the public trough and then have the temerity to attack the City after they’ve secured a ballpark deal of their own.
Regardless of what you or I think of the group’s machinations, the City has already set up guidelines for negotiating with the A’s if/when they get clearance to move to San Jose. While these are just the beginning and the devil will truly be in the details, the principles approved by the Mayor/Council (PDF) are a good start towards making sure everything’s on the up-and-up.
- The stadium development must generate a significant economic benefit to San Jose and have a positive impact on the City of San Jose’s General Fund.
- The Major League Baseball team, at no cost to the City of San Jose, will be responsible for financing and building the stadium structure and improvements on the approximate 14-acre designated stadium site.
- The Major League Baseball team will be responsible for financing all stadium operating costs related to its activities within the stadium site and surrounding area.
- The name of the Major League Baseball team must include San Jose.
- If the City or Redevelopment Agency recommend a contribution in the form of land or a financial contribution for any other ballpark specific items, a vote by the citizens of San Jose will be required on the stadium project.
Not known to mince words, Mayor Chuck Reed had a select few for Stand for San Jose:
“I think this front organization for the San Francisco Giants should go to San Francisco and talk to their puppet masters and tell them to get out of the way so we can negotiate some guarantees,” Reed said.
While City Attorney Rick Doyle called it “unrealistic” for any team to agree to such a money-back guarantee, he said reducing the city’s financial risk is “very do-able.” Doyle pointed to the 1990 deal between the city and the San Jose Sharks over funding the arena, now called HP Pavilion.
Furthermore, Roger Noll characterizes a revenue guarantee (beyond a direct lease payment) as “improbable.” And to end the article on an unintentionally humorous note, reporter Tracy Seipel notes that the letter asks for an “economic benefits report card,” similar to audits done by Phoenix and Washington, DC. Except that those two cities don’t do such report cards. The supposed “responsible government” in the District put together (thanks Robert Bobb) one of the most egregiously one-sided, publicly-financed ballpark deals in the last 20 years.
works for me Nav—aint’t no business owner that will choose to locate in Oakland if giving a free choice—just like Greg Papa said—Oakland doesn’t register as desirable any longer–
Free market isn’t free if there are territorial protections. Also, you keep failing to mention who and how Oakland would be able to handle a new NHL or MLS franchise, when it’s clear that neither of the existing Coliseum facilities are up to proper standards for either league. Oracle Arena would have terrible sightlines for hockey, while the Coliseum is 3 times the size of a MLS soccer specific stadium. In fact, you shouldn’t even bother bringing this up until you have some sense that the demand is actually there to complement the request.
Marine Layer, I thought i responded to everything in your post. I agree with you that we should get rid of ALL territorial restrictions concerning all pro sports. I don’t agree that neighboring cities should be able to cannibalize existing franchises from neighbors. This means that Oakland can’t take the Earthquakes or Sharks, and San Jose can’t take the A’s, Raiders, or Warriors from Oakland. The teams would have to make it or fail in their respective cities. If the team folds and reemerges as a different franchise in those same neighboring cities, then so be it. This would make playing musical chairs with local franchises that much tougher.
I should be bringing this up because Oakland has the right to protect its possibilities for pro sports in the future. It doesn’t matter if a franchise coming to Oakland is eminent or not. Oakland should have a right to protect itself against being shut out of future consideration for other major league sports by San Jose or by any other entity in the Bay Area. Let’s allow the market, not some out of context quote by Greg Papa, to determine if centrally located Oakland is a desirable location for sports franchises.
Can’t have it both ways. There is the free market and then there’s protectionism. What you want is protectionism for Oakland’s existing teams, free market in instances where it’s not already directly served. That’s not fair or free market.
Pacifico,
I don’t buy that at all. Oakland city officials over the years have spent much more money and time in getting a ballpark built in Oakland than either Lew Wolff or Steve Schott before him. Do you remember the 250,000 dollars spent by the City of Oakland on the HOK studies and architectural drawings? How much has Lew Wolff spent on attempting to get a ballpark built in Oakland? How many times has Lew Wolff met with the Oakland City Council compared to the times he’s met with the Fremont City Council and politicians in San Jose. Pacifico, Lew Wolff has done very little and spent very little money attempting to build a ballpark in Oakland. Lew Wolff has spent more time attempting to discourage and pacify Oakland politicians than anything else. He told Dellumns, “Don’t break your pick on this one, you have other priorities.” I suppose Mayor Chuck Reed of San Jose doesn’t have “other priorities” like a huge budget deficit to deal with. I suppose Larry Stone doesn’t have “other priorities” like reassessing the hundreds of thousands of properties in Santa Clara Counties which have lost value in recent years. All cities have much greater priorities than sports. This is the toy department. The fact remains that the Oakland A’s are already in Oakland and have established their fan base in Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco counties.
Wow–Nav for you not to hold the Oakland politicians accountable shows a lack of grasp of reality—that is a point that is not even debated by most–Oakland has and continues to have zero leadership—for you to try and argue otherwise lowers your credibility even further-
We’re gaining a fanbase (including a corporate base) that can support the premium seat purchases necessary to support an MLB team in the modern era. We’re expanding the market for MLB in the Bay Area by giving EVERYONE convenient access to a team, as opposed to giving East Bay folks two teams within twenty minutes and leaving South Bay folks sitting at home rather than enduring a hellish two hour rush slog for a weeknight game.
In other words, we’re ensuring fair return on ownership’s investment in a privately funded park and assuring the viability of two MLB teams in the Bay Area. Great news for everyone,.
See what I mean? Lew, Lew, Lew, Lew… It never ends.
This is everyone’s fault but Oakland’s.
So Oakland should be free to steal OTHER market’s teams, but the law should force those poor, financially failing teams desperate to escape this obviously non-viable “geographically central market” to remain (without compensation for their losses, no less).
You really are a selfish A’hole.
tps wrote:
As far as we know, market penetration aside, the Giants have more actual fans in Santa Clara County than anywhere else on earth. That makes it their #1 market.
.
So tell me, if you were in business, which of these places would you consider to be a better market:
A: a territory of 496 square miles that contained 33.5% of your customers,
or
B: a territory of 1291square miles that contained 18.4% of your customers?
A no-brainer, right?
You’d go with the place that has 82% more customers in 62% less area.
.
Your “anywhere else on earth” remark is based on a fuzzy definition of “anywhere” (the Giants have far more fans in California than in Santa Clara county), specifically the artificial construct of county boundaries, which have little to do with the way that business is done, and which are arbitrary lines on paper, drawn about 160 years ago when hardly anyone lived in California, reflecting gold-rush settlement patterns, and which produced a huge disparity of geographic sizes (500 to 1 at the extremes) among counties. (That’s the longest sentence of 2010 — sorry.)
.
The compact territory A, with many more customers located much closer to your main place of business, is the San Francisco peninsula, made up of San Francisco and San Mateo counties. The much larger territory B, with many fewer customers located further from your main place of business, is Santa Clara county.
.
If SC county were really the Giants’ #1 market, then they would have been utter fools to build their ballpark 50 miles away from it.
.
tps, are you navigator’s alternate handle, and vice versa?
The sf giants certainly think the voters of San Jose will vote yes on an A’s ballpark. Their PR firm has been secretly polling San Jose voters to determine what language to use to fight the ballpark measure.
.
http://watchdogsiliconvalley.blogspot.com/2010/01/giants-survey-says.html
That is astounding.
Yeah yeah yeah, that’s all pretty obvious. I was only wisecracking to the incredulousness of some, over how the #1 county on the list might be considered the #1 county. Uh, k?
.
But let’s run with your viewpoint for a sec.
.
The A’s get 51% of their fans from the immediate two counties near their park, well served by rapid transit, neither of which is in any danger of falling into the hands of a relocating team. Simple. They’re hunkered down and really only need to get their market penetration of those two nearby counties up in the 160 percent range, the same way the Giants did it: by building a better facility and a better media presence.
.
The Giants are setup very differently though, more evenly distributed throughout the region. Not so hunkered down with about a million fewer people in their two best counties than the A’s. They happen to get about 51% of their fans from the three counties stretching along Caltrain down the peninsula–the _largest_ of which IS in danger of falling into the hands of a relocating team. The original point I was making, that created the stir, was that this is a _clear_ problem for them in their fanbase distribution. It sets up the musical chairs scenario I have mentioned in the past that Tony D refuses to believe is even possible. I guess some people expect them to say, “Ah, what the heck that 33.5% is nearly twice the 18.4%, any big dent in our presence down there is no big deal…” But I don’t think the Giants see it that way. I’m only pointing out WHY no one be shocked at how serious they are about stopping the A’s move. Market penetration aside.
Bartleby,
Great news for Lew Wolff’s “investment,” bad news for Oakland Athletic fans, the City of Oakland, and the potential to use that 500 million dollar infusion of capital to help Oakland’s economy along with giving the team a state-of the-art waterfront destination ballpark which would compete aesthetically with AT&T Park in SF. So Oakland Athletic fans will still have convenient access to “a team” to go see near them? You’re referring to the San Francisco Giants of course. This relocation would “ensure fair return on ownership’s investment?” This relocation ensures that the team is restricted to a corner of the Bay Area while the San Francisco Giants will have access to the all 7.6 million Bay Area residents. This relocation ensures that the Oakland Athletics will no longer exist. I’m glad that you think Lew Wolff and John Fisher will get a “fair return on their investment.” There’s no reason that couldn’t be the case in a ballpark near Jack London Square in the heart of the Bay Area and at the center of their fanbase. Also, I didn’t realize that when we go to the ballpark and shout “Let’s Go Oakland,” that we we really cheering for Lew Wolff’s investment and rate of return. So this is what being an Oakland Athletics fan is all about? We’re suppose to see our team abolished, so that people in San Jose can have “a team” near them and increase the possibility of a good return on Lew Wolff’s investment? Let’s Go Lew Wolff’s Investments. Will the “San Jose Investments” have a $ sign on their caps?
Let’s Get Real, You’re extremely rude and obviously have anger management issues, but I’ll do my best to remain civil with you. First off, when sports franchises take on the name of a community, they take that name to endear themselves to said community as a source of civic pride. In turn, the fans in said community establish a since of loyalty and pride in their hometown team. Teams shouldn’t be allowed to pit one community against another. They need to live or die in that same community. If they fail, then they fold. As I’ve said previously, Oakland wouldn’t be allowed to touch the San Jose Sharks or San Jose Earthquakes but Oakland would be a free territory for anyone who wants to start a franchise in Oakland in any sport. Lew Wolff and MLB would have no right to keep baseball out of Oakland. Lew Wolff would have to sign off on territorial rights to Oakland for MLB ,and also for MLS.
TPS,
First of all, the A’s may currently be “hunkered down” in two counties, but that’s not a necessary or desirable posture. Part of the point is to broaden their appeal.
Second, your analyses (and Navigator’s rants) seem to assume all attendance is equal. But drawing those $2 Wednesday night bargain customers and drawing $3000 suite buyers is not the same thing.
I happen to work as an attorney for a large South Bay company. I work closely with our senior management, basically your target demographic for premium seat sales. In my opinion, you’re never going to draw enough of those guys to a new ballpark in Oakland no matter where it’s located or how nice it is. It will still be a longer and more painful trip to get to Oakland than to China Basin, and it will be still be a less glamorous destination than SF for entertaining clients. Fair or not, you’re still up against a perception that Oakland is crime ridden and unsafe. These guys are currently going to AT&T park, and a new yard in Oakland gives them little reason to change their attendance pattern. A new yard in San Jose is a totally different story.
I agree if the A’s move to San Jose that there will be attendance shifting, and that it may be a push as far as overall attendance. But the mix will change, and the Giants premium seat sales may well suffer because the East Bay does not have enough corporate base to make up this part of the shift.
This is the sole reason the Giants oppose the move. Currently, you have one dominant team and one struggling team. If this move occurs, you’ll have two strong teams. This is good for MLB, good for the A’s, good for most Bay Area baseball fans. It’s not good for the Giants, but they’ll still be wildly successful. Their ballpark is nearly paid off, and they’ll still be one of the more profitable teams in baseball.
Good points TPS. Also, to tie in to one of your points regarding the relative distribution of Giant fans through out the Bay Area and the relative concentration of Oakland A’s fans in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, it obviously comes down to the fact that the Giants have always had a much stronger radio signal than the the A’s with mega watt KNBR as their flag ship station. You can listen to the Giants all over Northern California and even in LA at night. By contrast, the Oakland A’s radio signal has alway been limited to a more concentrated geographic area. The Oakland Athletics under Steve Schott and now Lew Wolff, have never wanted Oakland and the East Bay. You can’t fully exploit the potential of the area when your heart has always been in the South Bay. The market penetration of the East Bay is much lower than it should be. The Oakland Athletics don’t promote in Oakland. I have a nephew in school in the Montclair District of Oakland, who says that the Giants visit his school on a regular basis. He’s never seen the Oakland Athletics anywhere. He was raised an Oakland Athletic fan by my sister and I’d take him to Oakland A’s games all the time along with my kids. He loved the Oakland A’s. I can see that he no longer feels the same way. My kids no longer care either. Lew Wolff has managed to alienate a generation of potential Oakland Athletic fans in the East Bay, while the San Francisco Giants are penetrating the market.
Barlleby,
You’re really implying that your clients are extremely shallow individuals. If that’s the case, how will a land locked ballpark in downtown San Jose “out glamor” San Francisco? Heck, a ballpark on the waterfront near Jack London Square is more “glamorous” than a land locked ballpark in downtown San Jose. Also, the shallowness of this particular clientèle tells me that they are pre disposed at going with the “in thing” at the time. If the Oakland Athletics become the “in thing” in their new waterfront ballpark in Oakland, and are winning on the field while the SF Giants become yesterday’s news, you can bet that your pretentious high powered South Bay friends will be the first ones in line in Oakland. Nice try with the crime scare tactics, however, downtown Oakland and Jack London Square are safer than At&T Park where two homicides have already occurred. I’m sure that your wealthy pretentious corporate friends aren’t also devoid of critical thinking skills.
All other things aside… a landlocked stadium in a downtown area that is 45 miles away from San Francisco doesn’t have to “outglam” AT&T Park as much as a waterfront replica that can be seen from AT&T Park would.
One reason why I think JLS West/North would be very cool is because it can be differentiated form AT&T Park with a skyline view. Victory Court, I think is more doable than JLS West/North because of the fewer landowners etc. But either way… the question is “How does this site attract more fans to games?”
I’m absolutely aware that attendance is not equal and that is part of the point that I’ve been making about the _clear_ disruption of the fanbases. It’s funny that we largely agree, but when I say things like “if the A’s move to San Jose that there will be attendance shifting” I get “schooled” for posting “crap” by your friends in San Jose.
.
Now, I don’t think you adequately consider how many wealthy people there are in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Many of the executives from the SF Financial District live in Oakland, Berkeley, Kensington, Piedmont, Orinda, Lafayette, Alameda, Danville, Blackhawk, and so forth. I work with these people as a management consultant. There are a lot of doctors, lawayers and executives in Oakland. They are nearly as loathe to go the Coliseum as their counterparts in the South Bay, for the obvious reasons. And while I’m sure some South Bay execs might have a problem with Oakland, it can’t be that important. There are executives in SF/Oakland that have a problem with San Jose. Instead of the ghetto, it’s going to the barrio, or else down to North LA. Some people can be fixed, some can’t.. And you can’t make a case for there actually being more wealthy people in the South Bay, because there aren’t. There may not be quite double the number of wealthy people in Alameda, Contra Costa, SF, and Marin as there are in Santa Clara County, but there are many more. For instance, the per capita income of Contra Costa County, with over a million in population, is $38,259 vs. $40,420 for Santa Clara County. Both SF and Marin have higher per capita income than Santa Clara County, and the wealthiest communities in Alameda County are near downtown Oakland. This is hardly the sort of income disparity people like you continue to try and portray.
…how will a land locked ballpark in downtown San Jose “out glamor” San Francisco? Heck, a ballpark on the waterfront near Jack London Square is more “glamorous” than a land locked ballpark in downtown San Jose.
.
I’m with you 100% on this one, nav, because all great ballparks are on or near water bodies — you can look it up!
On or near major water –Camden Yards, Yankee Stadium, Wrigley Field, AT&T Park, PNC Park, Safeco Field, Citi Field, the Polo Grounds, whatever they call the thing in St. Louis, etc.
Nowhere near major water — the thing in Phoenix, Arlington, Coors, the old thing in Houston, the new thing in Houston, the other thing in inland North Miami, Turner Field, US Cellular, etc.
Leave it to a navigator to realize that you need major water for a glamorous ballpark.
.
Which is why I’ve been badgering Lew Wolff, Chuck Reed, and the SJ Redevelopment Agency to shift gears and locate the ballpark in Alviso, which has a marina, a yacht club, and a very nice waterfront park/wildlife refuge, and plenty of space for development, including skyscrapers much taller than anything allowed under downtown SJ’s strict height limit..
.
It’s just north of the prestigious North First Street government and technology corridor, and VTA could easily run a short light rail spur from the Tasman station. The ACE traiins run right by, and a new ballaprk station could be easily built on the route. The site is well served by the 237 freeway, which in turn connects with the 101 and 880 freeways. Ferry service could easily be provided to every point on the bay — including tourist attractions such as the Presiidio, the SF marina, Ghirardelli Square, The Cannery, Pier 39, Fisherman’s Wharf, the Ferry Building, Alcatraz, Sausalito, Richmond, Berkeley, Howard Terminal, Jack London Square, AT&T Park, Redwood Shores, East Palo Alto/IKEA, and dozens of other places that I could easily name.
.
BTW, Alviso is closer to Oakland than Diridon Station is, and it’s closer to the population center of the Bay Area. Plus, in any alphabetical listing of MLB teams, the Alviso A’s would be first, ahead of Anaheim and Atlanta, not to mention Baltimore and Boston or Chicago, Cincinnati, or Cleveland.
.
I’m hoping that I can get some solid support and enthusiasm for an Alviso site on this blog. To start with, I particularly need assistance from someone who knows how to set up a Facebook page, and who can teach me how to tweet and twitter, and who knows how to install a PayPal button.
.
Let’s go ALVI$O A’s!
Good to hear from you Connie Mack. I’m glad that you were able to keep your New Year’s resolution for six days. I agree, Alviso would be an improvement over the current downtown site in San Jose. However, it’s not nearly as good as a central Jack London Square location near the waterfront in the heart of the Oakland Athletics’s fanbase. Also, a ballpark in Oakland would allow the Oakland Athletics to remain the Oakland Athletics. This is very important to many Oakland Athletic fans, including the 30,000 on Facebook.
Jeffrey, I’m not sure I understand your logic. Are you saying that If San Jose A’s fans cant see AT&T Park from downtown San Jose, then this means that AT&T Park doesn’t exist? Also, Victory Court while near both the Oakland Estuary and Lake Merritt, would be completely different in many ways to At&T Park.
No… But you knew my point. I am not a fan of the “waterfront park as panacea” stuff people post.
My point was that if you have two nearly identical experiences within in plain view of one another and one is San Francisco and one is Oakland… The casual fan is not going to Oakland. Before you say “quit bashing Oakland” you should know from all of the things I have posted here and at other A’s websites that I am a fan of the City of Oakland and spend a lot of time there. More time than I do in San Francisco. The truth is I prefer the Chabot Space and Science Center to the Academy of Sciences, but I am in a small minority.
Another way to look at this is to say Jack London Square v. Fisherman’s Wharf. I prefer avoiding Fisherman’s Wharf like the plague, but many, many people spend a lot of time tooling around that area. San Francisco is a world class city. People like to go there more than Oakland.
It is pretty hilarious to me that you make the argument that San Jose is not part of the Bay Area, as in it is removed from San Francisco, but then can’t admit that a stadium in San Jose wouldn’t have to compete as directly with AT&T Park as a comparable stadium in Oakland would have to.
Tell me this… how would Victory Court
I was typing, How would Victory Court compare favorably to AT&T Park?
for the love of all that is human would you please stop with the facebook drivel. There are many, many people on there who are not 100% behind “Oakland Only.”
Serious question- Why would you use per capita income rather than median income?
I am not a marketer, but if I remember correctly from back in my Marketing classes, median income is a better measure of the relative wealth of an area when compared to per capita, because per capita can be dramatically skewed by concentrations of ultra wealthy people.
What is the argument for using per capita rather than median? Does it change the landscape in any significant way if you use median?
Whether you think they are shallow or not, they are the people you need to make the debt payments on a new privately financed park.
They also happen to live down here. They know, like, and are familiar with San Jose. It may not be as glamorous as SF, but it’s a heck of a lot closer and they are a heck of a lot more comfortable with it than Oakland.
And you cannot ignore, from Menlo Park/Palo Alto/Mountain Vew/Cupertino/Sunnyvale (where many large corporations are located) you can make AT&T Park in about an hour, and you also have Caltrain as an option. You could make San Jose in about twenty minutes, and you would still have Caltrain as an option. For the Coliseum you must fight Dumbarton Bridge and/or Route 237 traffic, and you cannot reliably get to the Coliseum during rush hour in less than ninety minutes to two hours. There is no convenient transit option. Putting a ballpark in downtown Oakland will likely add another ten to fifteen minutes to these times.
Bottom line: They’re just not going to do it.
Jeffrey,
Serious answer – you would only cite per capita income if these less relevant numbers better fit the point you’re trying to make. And yes, it does significantly change the landscape.
As you note, median income does tell you a lot more about how many people in the club seat/suite buying class there are in an area. Not surprisingly, these numbers strongly favor Santa Clara County.
Here are median household income/median family income figures as of the 2000 census:
Santa Clara County: 74K/81K
Alameda County: 56K/66K
Contra Costa County: 63K/73K
Hey, I never disputed there would be attendance shifting; to me, it seems an obvious point. Don’t tar me with comments from others just because they may share some of general views. Do you really want to take ownership of everything Navigator writes?
I don’t doubt there are many wealthy people in those areas, but as discussed below the numbers suggest that there are many more people in the target demographic in Santa Clara County than in either Alameda or Contra Costa county. (The difference in the per capita and median numbers suggest the East Bay numbers are skewed by a relatively small number of uber wealthy people). Nor do I buy your constant attempt to lump San Francisco and Marin in as part of the East Bay (while somehow San Mateo and Santa Cruz never get into the conversation of the South Bay). In any event, the A’s won’t be scrapping as directly with the Giants over the same pool of people in San Jose.
There may be wealthy executives of San Francisco companies who live in the East Bay, but that doesn’t translate to premium seat sales in the East Bay. Many or most season ticket holders for suites and club seats are the companies themselves. Companies will buy near where the company is located, both because it’s easier to entertain clients that way and also because it’s “ground zero” for where their employees are located (to whom they will distribute tickets as incentives etc).
Jeffrey,
Do you really expect Navigator to stop repetitively posting something inane just because he’s annoying people? Where have you been the last few years?
“The truth is I prefer the Chabot Space and Science Center to the Academy of Sciences, but I am in a small minority.”
I do too, but SF throws the twofer at yah with the De Young across the plaza, so on balance they’ve got a pretty hard hitting location.
One thing I’m left wondering is how, when there were two roughly equivalent facilities, more often than not, people did go to Oakland more than SF. And then also, I wonder how an equivalent ballpark situation down the road will look, when the East Bay has added about 600,000 new residents since 1990, compared to only about 150,000 new residents in the West Bay over that time.
When have there ever been roughly equivalent stadiums? The A’s had a much nicer place before 1996, then they both had crappy digs… then AT&T Park came along.
And… Maybe I am just getting confused but all this talk of territory and East Bay v. South Bay v. West Bay is kind of moot. Most people don’t experience baseball at the stadium as often as they do through the media. East Bay v. South Bay v. North Bay v. West Bay is less important in that regard. And, I live in Pleasanton, almost as east as the east bay gets. I am surrounded by Giants fans in my neighborhood.
The point being, fans of the A’s and Giants are both spread out across the whole region. Because someone lives in the East Bay doesn’t mean they will go to A’s games in Oakland and won’t go to games in San Jose. Similarly, I don’t think that a fan from Milipitas won’t go to games in a new Oakland.
I am in another small minority on the topic of stadium placement: I don’t think it really matters where it is… there are pro’s and con’s for each place. Average Joe diehard A’s boosters like me will show up at either place.
Where ever it can actually happen is where it should.
San Jose doesn’t need to “out glamor” San Francisco to win the South Bay demographic. It just needs to be closer.
My corporate friends do critical have thinking skills – which is why they understand that two homicides is a meaningless, statistical blip and that there are plenty of homicides in Oakland (including both downtown and the Coli parking lot).
Barlteby, wrote, “also because it’s “ground zero” for where their employees are located (to whom they will distribute tickets as incentives etc).” Actually, if you look at the commute direction in the morning on the Bay Bridge, you’ll notice an incredible amount of traffic from the East Bay heading over the Bay Bridge to San Francisco’s financial district. These employees live in the East Bay and more than likely would come home for dinner before gathering friends and family and then heading out to a 7:00 PM ballgame. Of course, for weekend games they’d already be much closer to a ballpark located in Jack London Square..Corporations in the SF/Oak region buy tickets to wherever the hottest event is going on, regardless of city. If the Rolling Stones or the circus,or an Ice show, are coming to Oakland, you can bet they’ll be buying tickets to the Oakland Arena. If there’s a great musical in San Francisco you can bet Clorox, or Dreyer’s, or Cost Plus, or Ask, will be trying to get their hands on them. The East Bay has 2.6 million residents who would no doubt love to bypass having to drive over the Bay Bridge if a destination ballpark on Oakland’s waterfront were an option. Many people in the East Bay and elsewhere already bypass the San Francisco Zoo for the Oakland zoo, SF theaters for the Fox Oakland Theater and Paramount Theater, the SF ART scene for the Oakland Art murmur, SF restaurants for Oakland restaurants etc. There’s plenty of money on the East side of the bridge. If San Jose has a little more, then good for them. They don’t have the Oakland Athletics fanbase there, nor do they have an aesthetically pleasing waterfront location to compete with AT&T Park in San Francisco.
I am with you Jeffrey—as a diehard fan I will go to either location. Yet, the reason I am pro-SJ is not because I live there–I don’t–but because I believe that they have the vision, leadership, and financial means to get this done—unlike Oakland which has been chasing its tail for the past 15 years and continues to do so. I will also agree that Silicon Valley will be a much more profitable location for a MLB franchise today and in the future–which as an A’s fan I want also—so that we can actually compete and finally get off of welfare from the rest of MLB–
Jeffrey, I don’t agree with the “build it where you can” theory. You build a ballpark for the Oakland Athletics where it is convenient for Oakland Athletic fans and other potential customers. You build it in an area by the waterfront which is already going through a major expansion and renovation. You build it in an area where people want to go and enjoy the waterfront, enjoy the restaurants, enjoy the theaters, etc. You build it in a central area to your fanbase and in an area with great public transportation options. What draw does a ballpark in downtown San Jose have? What makes this location so special that I or anyone north of Milpitas would want to patronize? Is it scenic? Does it have a great view? Is near the water? Why would anyone north of Milpitas chose a ballpark in downtown San Jose when they could go to a beautiful waterfront park in San Francisco. What about the folks in Rockridge, Montclair, Piedmont, and towns like Orinda, Moraga, Lafayette, and Walnut Creek? Do you actually believe they would ever drive 50 miles to a downtown San Jose ballpark to watch a team that told them to get ucked, when they could go to San Francisco?
Do they understand 20 homicides in the various SF downtown neighborhoods including China Basin in 2008, compared to two in Oakland’s downtown neighborhoods of Uptown, Lake Merritt, Old Oakland, Chinatown, and Jack London Square? If they don’t, they are indeed shallow.
Jeffrey, I wouldn’t say that a large percentage of people on Facebook are not in favor of a ballpark in Oakland. There are a few who favor San Jose. A very, very, small percentage. Also, I’m sure that 100% of the people who signed the “Keep the A’s in Oakland” petition, actually favor keeping the A’s in Oakland.
you are truly clueless
Cute. I guess it takes one to know one. One thing I definitely wanted to do was use more recent census data than the dot com bubble figures from 2000 that you prefer. I think, without wasting my day away running numbers, you should find that from 2000 to 2008, Santa Clara County has lost a significant amount of it’s relative wealth vs. the other Bay Area counties, as measured by either median incomes or per capita income.
And given the 8 year difference, 2008 per capita income is probably no less useful or accurate to this discussion than 2000 median family income. Instead of examining the in-betweener median incomes for 2008, how about we cut the crap, roll the dice and try to count some dots?
.
The census.gov website has a category for “Owner Occupied Housing Unit by Value” The highest category is $1,000,000 or higher. While a million dollar home is not the sign of fabulous wealth it once was, it’s still probably an even better way to count “rich people” than average or median incomes, Here are the 2008 census figures for million dollar “owner occupied” homes:
.
Santa Clara County: 82,816
Alameda County: 31,117
Contra Costa County: 38, 226
East Bay: 69,343
So, ignoring the problems of leaving a larger population with a current high market penetration, and leaving close proximity to many more very wealthy people in San Francisco and Marin, and losing existing rapid transit access for your existing core fanbase, and giving up the potential for world famous vistas of the central San Francisco Bay, etc., etc., you’re looking at gaining better access to an extra 13,473 wealthier households. Sounds sorta okay, I guess… except, that over 20,000 (nearly 1 in 4) of the million dollar households in SC County are in the Palo Alto and Los Altos areas, pretty far from downtown SJ, and in my experience pretty strongly Giant territory right now. This just sounds like much more of an uphill battle with a lot sacrificed to offset the gains, and the potential gains being potentially negligible if you don’t have a strong showing in converting the people in Palo Alto and Los Altos.
I support a ballpark in Oakland. I support one in San Jose. I am a member of the facebook group.
Most people I know, that are A’s fans, are agnostic about where the stadium is built. Even those that signed the online petition.
Nav,
I guess you didn’t notice that I live north of Milpitas and would go to games in San Jose. Because 1. I like the A’s and 2. I work in the South Bay and 3. I have fmaily that lvies in the South bay and 4. Baseball is cool and I like Downtown San Jose and … but you don’t really care for real answers much.
Do you not agree with build it where you can because you have a feeling Oakland isn’t really gonna pull out all the stops to build a stadium?
Here’s a few that come to mind:
- By the time finished, it would be like 15 years newer.
- BART is only 3 or 4 blocks away.
- The view across the estuary to Alameda will be more interesting and varied.
- It’s just a few blocks from a good-sized JC (great pro sports demographic)
- The A’s play there, instead of the Giants
They do understand homicide statistics, enough to ignore the ravings of delusional bloggers who fixate on a statistically insignificant one year blip in a single crime category and who try to lump Tenderloin and Western Addition statistics in with a ballpark location that is over a mile away.
If I cared about this subject enough, I’d go back and throw the last nine years of crime statistics at you for the neighborhoods that are actually relevant and we could also look at your odds of being mugged, raped, or having your car broken into in those neighborhoods. But I don’t. If you think you’re actually going to convince people that AT&T Park is a dangerous place to go because it had two homicides in the parking lot (at least one of which was a freak incident where some kids got into a fight and one of them fell and hit his head on the sidewalk), have at it. The people who will buy into your theory are the same ones who buy in when you cherry pick attendance figures for 1989 and 1990 and try to imply they are representative of historic A’s attendance, or even Walter Haas’ attendance figures. In other words, willfully ignorant people with the same agenda as you. (You know, the “birther”-type crowd.).
I call shenanigans. No one who went to both venues before ’95 would honestly say the Coli and ‘Stick were “roughly equivalent.” The Mt. Davis Coliseum is wretched for baseball, but I’ve been to about 30 MLB ballparks over the years and none was as anywhere close to as wretched as the Stick. It is legendary.
Nor is the statement that people went to Oakland more than SF a fair characterization. As you have pointed out yourself, the attendance statistics of the two teams pre-AT&T Park were surprisingly similar, and tracked closely with how the teams were doing at the time. The reasons for the similar attendance during this period are pretty obviously (a) the inconvenient and inferior venue the Giants played in, and (b) the fact that the A’s won four world titles during this time.
If the A’s build a new yard in Oakland, one can reasonably expect that they will underperform the Giants at the gate (adjusted for their on-field performance) and will get absolutely hammered in the competition for premium seating customers. Which of course is exactly why the Giants desperately want them to build there.
I said people went to Oakland more often than not, and I think it’s Jeffrey that showed that to be the case. Sure the A’s were better overall, and the Coliseum somewhat better. But let’s not get carried away. The Coliseum is a 60s vintage concrete ring 6 miles from downtown in an industrial zone, very near to a bad neighborhood, with bad sight lines and optimized for football. I think it has always compared MUCH more closely to Candlestick than it ever will to AT&T. Toss in the advantage of a 10 year head start the Giants had to build a loyal fanbase and a solid media presence, and I don’t think it’s fair to call shenanigans over a “roughly equivalent” statement.
.
And as I said in another post, if the A’s don’t hammer on the 20,000 or so affluent folks on the northern edge of SC County, plus another 10,000 or so a few miles away in southern San Mateo, you’re not left with much advantage at all in the remainder of SC County, based on the million dollar household numbers. Those people on the SC-SM boundary will have the option to travel 30 miles to AT&T or 20 miles to Diridon. It’s hardly going to be a case of “horrendous hardship” vs. “smooth sailing”… Will it be a slam dunk for the A’s to pack their tiny stadium with the expected outrageous ticket prices? I don’t think so. I think one can reasonably expect that the Diridon facility will produce the same sort of challenges for the team to win or else struggle at the gate as any other ML team with only a couple million people within 20 miles of the park.
bartleby, you wrote, “the attendance statistics of the two teams pre-AT&T Park were surprisingly similar” Here are the attendance figures for the Oakland A’s and San Francisco Giants. You can examine them more closely. http://www.oaklandfans.com/attendance.html
“The Coliseum is a 60s vintage concrete ring 6 miles from downtown in an industrial zone, very near to a bad neighborhood, with bad sight lines and optimized for football”
Has anyone informed Navigator of this? He apparently believes it is still an adequate venue for MLB in the modern era.
” I think it has always compared MUCH more closely to Candlestick than it ever will to AT&T.”
Well, ok. But this isn’t saying much, and it doesn’t mean there wasn’t still a HUGE qualitative gap between the experience at the ‘Stick and that at the Coli. Weather alone was a huge difference. And during the ‘Stick years, the Giants were at a significant disadvantage location-wise over the Coli’s “central location” and transit that you crow over.
“And as I said in another post, if the A’s don’t hammer on the 20,000 or so affluent folks on the northern edge of SC County, plus another 10,000 or so a few miles away in southern San Mateo, you’re not left with much advantage at all in the remainder of SC County, based on the million dollar household numbers”
Who said a million dollars was any kind of magic number? It doesn’t take a million dollars to buy club seats to a ball game. Six figures will do it, and there are WAY more of those folks in the South Bay than the East Bay. As has been posted here previously, the South Bay has twice as many tech employees as SF and the East Bay combined. These are the folks with six figure incomes who won’t blanch at buying a $100 ticket to a ballgame.
“Those people on the SC-SM boundary will have the option to travel 30 miles to AT&T or 20 miles to Diridon.”
I have a buddy who lives in San Mateo. He likes the NBA better than the NHL, and on the face of it would seem closer to Oakland as San Jose. Yet he is a Sharks season ticket holder. Why? Because he works in Palo Alto. While his ride home from a game in Oakland is slightly shorter than from San Jose (maybe five minutes or so), it doesn’t make up for the hellish ordeal of trying to get there for a weeknight game. And if you are a season ticket holder, you’re going to a lot of weeknight games.
I think you’re putting a bit too much emphasis on where people live, and not enough on where they work. The South Bay is THE primary job center for the region; San Francisco is second. The East Bay has a more limited employment base and functions more as a bedroom community for the other two.
For this reason, San Jose serves an East Bay fanbase far better than Oakland serves a South Bay fanbase. LOTS of folks from Southern Alameda county work here and would find a San Jose ballpark more convenient than one in Oakland. Lots of San Mateo county folks also work here, and would find a San Jose ballpark more convenient than AT&T Park. Very few people from the South Bay work in the East Bay.
“It’s hardly going to be a case of “horrendous hardship” vs. “smooth sailing”…”
If it were not for AT&T Park, I would agree with you.
“Will it be a slam dunk for the A’s to pack their tiny stadium with the expected outrageous ticket prices? I don’t think so.
They do for the Sharks, who play a niche sport. I think the A’s will be even more wildly successful in San Jose than the Sharks are, because there’s so much more interest in their sport.
“I think one can reasonably expect that the Diridon facility will produce the same sort of challenges for the team to win or else struggle at the gate as any other ML team with only a couple million people within 20 miles of the park.”
Well, no. I agree that 20 miles from the park is the primary radius they will draw from. But there’s still a big difference between a team located somewhere with 3 million people within a twenty mile radius and 4 million more within driving distance and a market where there’s only three million people in the entire metro area.