Fremont rally brings out over 200
- 01.25.10, 23:44
- 78 Comments
Earlier tonight, the Fremont Chamber of Commerce sponsored a “Rally for the A’s to Fremont” shindig at the Saddle Rack. At least 200 people attended, including Argus reporter Matthew Artz, who thought there might have been 300 there. Of course, the TV crews were out capturing the event. Outside the Saddle Rack was a group of what looked like less than a dozen “Keep the A’s in Oakland” protestors.
Every party needs a Debbie Downer, and on KGO’s report it was San Jose mayor Chuck Reed, who dismissively said, “They had their chance and they struck out.”
Is that a lot?
Interesting to hear Reed being more assertive with his comments. I guess he’s moving away from his ” we just want to be ready if in case MLB …” stance.
How lame is it for the Oakland people to be there protesting. Just goes to show it has nothing to do with what is best for the A’s, just what is best for me.
I ended up not going because I didn’t know I could bring the kids until it was too late (I had checked the saddle rack website and it said they are an over 21 venue at all times). Glad there was a good showing without us.
200, 300 i’ve read there were nearly 400 – http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/sports/pro/baseball&id=7239060
guess we dont know until someone (who went) comments this blog.
Wild card remains the Nimby’s and their misguided efforts–they are organizing again to defeat it–check out their website—I haven’t heard the county step up regarding their willingness to purchase the 120 acres from NUMMI—any background on that? http://community.fremontcitizensnetwork.org/
I didn’t go for this same reason.
I don’t know that I would call it misguided… The land acquisition is pretty important. Fremont can’t pay for it with redevelopment funds. If the County isn’t in on this, it is dead in the water FCN or no.
The part I would like to understand, and have yet to, is what “other business opportunities” the FCN wants explored. When you look at the sheer size of the NUMMI controlled land, the lack of interest from manufacturers, and the already available commercial real estate in the vicinity… What is it that can be put there to provide a boost? Do they really want the equivalent of the Alameda Navy Base? Antiques and Swap Meets are better for property values than a ballpark? Is that the argument? Empty office buildings are better? Or is it that they want the site to remain empty until manufacturing becomes hot in California again?
I am casting no judgment on any of these scenarios just asking the question.
Agree with you on the land acquisition as being very important. Figure that the fair market value for 120 acres is $150M minimum? If so definetely not pocket change for Alamdea County—I seriously doubt that manufacturing will ever make a comeback in Silicon Valley area—just too expensive—so really at some point in the future–more R&D type office space—or housing—-and we all know what those vacancies are these days and in the forseeable future.
Using the word misguided—guess I am frustrated with the Nimby’s changing their argument depending upon location–PC was because of traffic, WS was because of NUMMI and the neighborhood, opposition and now this location because they would prefer to leave the site vacant?
…Let San Jose, Oakland and Fremont fight over the A’s. Just as long as one of them wins…Good to see the message is getting out that not everyone in Fremont agrees with the NIMBYs and their “Whatever it is, I’m against it.” ways…
At least they showed up for something.
(from Jan 12 Fremont city council meeting)
Councilmember Natarajan: “One of the first things strikes me about this proposal is 95 acres in surface parking. …… The image of 95 acres of parking surrounding standalone stadium immediately gives you the impression of the [Oakland] Coliseum.”
Councilmember Wieckowski: “People know what the [Oakland] Coliseum looks like, and nothing is happening for economic revitalization in that area.”
They both expressed concerned about the proposed plan.
Even the city staff acknowledged “only a properly planned ballpark can be successful; and a stadium alone cannot spur development.” “A suburban standalone stadium surrounded by 10,000 parking spaces and a BART station” is a BAD planning.
Indeed. Getting over 300 out to the SaddleRack is no small feat. Not only was it a week night, but the SaddleRack as I recall isn’t a cheap ticket either. It’s 10-20 dollars to get into that place.
Don’t blame him. Fremont had their chance and blew it. I’d be pissed if after the fact someone came in and tried to steal something back from me. Plus if Fremont ends up being viable it may be an excuse to not grant the A’s rights to the south bay. I’d doubt Oakland has ever been a concern for Reed as their “plans” so far are not serious. Nor have they been for the last 15 years. However a resurgent Fremont plan that is serious could pose a threat to an SJ move.
I get that… what is the alternative? What is the good plan? A ballpark plan for that site is in the very infancy and would change, probably dramatically, by the time it ever happened.
If the idea was to replicate the conditions at the Coliseum (which it isn’t, from what I have read there is ancillary development right around the stadium that doesn’t exist at the coliseum) or something close to it, I am pretty sure MLB would pass on that.
I heard that it was free and FREE FOOD (spaghetti, at least) too. That would get people out there, even on a week night.
I wonder what the possibility would be for an underground parking garage, or a parking garage designed to be partially hidden by the second phase of development and also designed to ascetically fit into the surroundings? I know parking garages don’t have to just be concrete slabs. You can hide them behind the businesses and restaurants, or make them look fancy. I could see it as an alternative to acres of parking.
Parking Garages are expensive to build though. Not that I disagree with you, it just makes the thing more expensive.
I should have written “totally” misguided. Some of the stuff on the FCN makes it clear that these folks are 100% against anything, whether their “aim is true” or not.
At the end of the day… this is going to be a huge obstacle for Fremont on so many levels, with or without a ballpark fight. They have a huge “opportunity” staring them in the face as a result of this plant shutdown.
I agree with the FCN that other avenues should be explored. I disagree that a ballpark shouldn’t be one of the things they look into. It may prove that a ballpark is all that is feasible any time soon.
The alternatives are
1. parking lot
2. parking garage
3. not doing a stadium
and I think that suggesting to the city that they help pay for #2 so that they don’t have to worry about #1 would lead them more likely to suggest #3.
Oh… ouch
Good question… I once went to a Keep the A’s in Oakland rally back in 2001 or thereabouts and it was probably about 200 folks. I wasn’t that impressed with that then… so 200 in Fremont… eh.
On the other hand, compared to the 200 protesters back at the Pacific Commons meeting we now know that should this ever turn into a Sharks v. Jets rumble the numbers add up.
Yep.
This turf is small but it’s all we got, huh?
Remember–part of how this plan has been touted was the vast availablity of “existing parking” with the caveat that over time it could become something else—-sound familiar?
I do remember the two phases they mentioned. I’m totally behind the sea of parking becoming something else over time. The great part is that they don’t have to worry about the garage being build immediately in order to make the Stadium happen, since the lots are right there. Perhaps the parking garage could be paid for by the things that are replacing the lots?
“these folks are 100% against anything, whether their “aim is true” or not.”
Sounds like the Repubs, aka the Party of No.
Lew Wolff’s vision is a ballpark village, or a downtown ballpark. Now you want to give the A’s another “standalone stadium in a suburban setting”? The Oakland Coliseum has plenty of parking, a BART station, and lots of lands. It didn’t go anywhere!
The city staff did mention development in phases (1, 2a, 2b); and also acknowledged in current economy “let’s build the stadium first, and worry about phase 2a later” (bad omen!). The current city’s plan is too much similar to Oakland Coliseum, no vision at all. The Fremont location will be another disaster for the A’s.
*** Go San JosA’s ***
NoAsWS- just curious, Jeffrey asked previously what is a good alternative for this site—didn’t see any response—what do you advocate for this site–leave it vacant? I think that the Nimby’s in Fremont would have much more credibility if they proposed an alternative rather than just saying No to a ballpark–
The Alameda County is “one step away from bankrupt.” Some county supervisors don’t even know city of Fremont is proposing the county to buy the land. Maybe one county sup got briefed for ~5 minutes. Fremont just don’t have the money and resource to support a stadium. The plan is not fiscally responsible.
I think it’s great that people are there speaking up for the Oakland Athlethics. Thank you folks. They are there representing the tens of thousands who want the A’s in Oakland. All three cities have sites for fans to join in support of each location. Oakland has nearly 32,000 fans on its site. There’s no question that Oakland Athlethics fans want the team in Oakland. It’s unfortunate that Oakland has neighbors willing to undermine the city of Oakland in its attempts to keep the A’s in town. These municipalities, which don’t support the Oakland Athlethics, are now sniffing an opportunity to enhance their weak National profiles by hosting a MLB franchise.
lol–really Nav–all 6 of them speak for A’s fan’s—you gotta get a grip on reality man–
No, not “A’s fans,” Oakland A’s fans. There’s a difference.
The Fremont ballpark proposal will never happen.
Thanks for providing those informative details along with your opinion, Dennis.
What sort of plan would be fiscally responsible? I may agree with you that a ballpark is not fiscally responsible (depending on the specifics) but I still haven’t heard a real feasible alternative.
Surely, you don’t want an empty factory?
Ok so there are 6 “Oakland A’s” fans? I’ll give them credit, at least they’re 6 real people actually doing something unlike that facebook group.
You’re welcome.
LW still has control of close to 200 acres of greenfield land at Pacific Commons- if this stadium hunt drags on long enough, where the housing market rebounds in a couple of years , he may be bring back the whole Ballpark Village there again , to fund that ” Wrigleyville ” stadium , as originally proposed three years ago.
After all, a regional housing report says there will be a deficit of 600,000 housing units in the Bay Area in the next 2 decades .
http://www.thefremontbaseballvillage.com/home.html
Why are people always caught up with the “you need to have an alternative use” mode? Not embarking down a path towards financial disaster for the city is valid and very much important choice.
For a family that is unemployed, has no savings, is cutting critical expenses like food and utilities, taking out a loan to buy $1M in lottery tickets for a $25,000 jackpot does not make sense. You do not have to justify not spending that money with “what would be a better use” as there are plenty of other ways to spend that money and simply spending that money in that fashion is well-recognized as bad financial management.
The same with the stadium. Fremont can ill-afford to cut-off revenue for critical city services and education for a stadium that will not provide net economic benefit for the city. It will be much better off financially by not doing anything rather than chasing the stadium.
In fact, spend money courting businesses and providing incentives to companies to relocate to Fremont. The news has been reporting on the success of Livermore recently in luring two large companies to relocate there. Rather than having spent $100+ on a mere study plan, Fremont should have spent that money courting companies that would offer real jobs.
So you favor the site sitting empty rather than a stadium? Not judging, just clarifying.
Can you provide a link to the Livermore Business stuff? I haven’t read anything other than the generic incentives package brochure/descriptions on the City web site. I didn’t see who they had attracted and at what cost.
I’ve heard this argument and I’m certain it’s more complex than Fremont “attracting” companies there. As I understand it the solar company from Sunnyvale was working with Lam Research on a number of sites, including Lam’s vast holdings in Fremont. What likely happened is that Lam gave a better lease for the two Livermore buildings. Can Fremont do anything about that besides subsidizing the lease? I think not.
Link to article about Livermore attracting Admedes Inc. and Bridgelux.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/business/ci_14265394
Thanks
Having the site empty is not optimal I would agree. But spending the money and everything else that is entailed with a stadium is worse than having nothing there at all. — Consider it the lessor of two evils.
Someday, he may build the village without the ballpark.
This whole thing is just frustrating.
I am sick of the A’s not having a decent stadium in which to play. It is bad enough that we have to sit in that concrete monstrosity and stare at Mount Davis now. I remember when it was the Oakland hills and a turf slope out above center. We also have to deal with embarassing reminders of non-ticklet sales in the form of giant green tarps in the upper decks. Lame. On top of that, what radio station are we supposed to listen to for updates on our team? I tried to listen to AM 860 yesterday and it was just nationally syndicated programming. I turned to KNBR and got 30 minutes about Ben Sheets (which is a HUGE signing) and then more Benji Molina for 4 hours.
The A’s have some of the most dedicated fans in the nation, who have to put up with the most crap, and put in the most effort to be fans, in my opinion. Name another MLB team in a double-franchise town that is as big a red-headed stepchild as the A’s are to the Giants and their media empire. Speaking of which, look at attendance figures for the orange and black now that the Giants have a downtown park. It has revitalized south SF in a way that
A’s have a great, winning history and some of the greatest fans. It is time they were rewarded with a decent home and some media coverage.
End rant…cant wait for opening day.
That’s right – the SF ballpark has revived the area. They are not the plagues the NIMBYs are making them out to be.
A stadium is neither the catalyst for growth nor the solution for a down team. Case in point, the Washington Nationals just got a brand spanken new stadium. The area around the stadium has not seen any real growth or prosperity and the team’s attendance ranks around 24th out of the 30 teams. The team salary has also not grown by leaps and bounds as well. So stadiums are not the secret sauce for prosperity or success.