Winter of our discontent

Supposedly something or someone’s going to make news on this ballpark matter in a couple of weeks. Not now. A couple of weeks.

In the meantime, Mark Purdy’s getting impatient.

There’s a complex land swap deal that could result in a new arena for the Kings at the railyards north of downtown Sacramento. Marcus Breton raises questions and thinks the deal might be too big for Sactown.

The Quakes are about to break ground on a training field near the location of their future stadium.

The 49ers are greenlit for the June election.

The NY Times chronicled the fight to keep the Cubs in Mesa.

MLB.com is already advertising its app for the iPad as part of the MLB.tv subscription. Too bad I’d have to be outside Northern/Central California to appreciate it (A’s blackouts).

46 thoughts on “Winter of our discontent

  1. Next thing you know, SJ, Oakland and Fremont are gonna set up big jumbotrons on the day of the announcement. Gonna be like naming a host city for the Olympics. What a needless circus. This decision is way over due.

  2. “Supposedly something or someone’s going to make news on this ballpark matter in a couple of weeks. Not now. A couple of weeks.”

    ML,

    Care to expand on this?

  3. Don’t we have a mole on the inside that promised news right after the Super Bowl? I’m gonna hold my breath until then.

    • Don’t hold your breath, I was expecting news last August, nothing happened. One of the many times.

      Larry Baer was just on KNBR the other day and said t-rights weren’t even discussed during the owners meetings. So if something does come up in two weeks and that’s a big fat IF, it may be about giving Oakland a second chance with a deadline to get a deal done, bla bla bla.

      • MLB has just tied itself into one big knot. They’ve toyed with Oakland, and know they’re are toying with Fremont. If they now come out and go with San Jose, it will look like the fix was in all along and Bud Selig has done the bidding of his frat brother. At this point, the path of least resistance is Oakland. It’s the prudent thing to do. It’s central to the fanbase, the fanbase wants the ballpark built in Oakland, no fight with the Giants will incur, no lawsuits, no rehashing what they’ve done to Oakland in the past, etc. The thing to do is give Oakland it’s first real chance with the honest and sincere cooperation of the ownership and MLB. Any location other than Oakland at this point, is wrong and will create a huge headache for MLB.

      • Yeah, except Oakland is the farthest behind in the development process and easily has the most ineffective city government. And even if Oakland is the path of least resistance (which I don’t think it is), there has been little, if any, indication from any of the power brokers involved that Oakland is still a serious contender. I mean, maybe if San Jose and Fremont fall into the ocean… But it seems that even with the added burdens of a San Jose relocation, all indications are that it is still a more desirable spot than Oakland.

      • Jesse,
        We all knew that territorial rights or the committee Bay Area report weren’t discussed at the last quarterly meeting in AZ. Why the suggested importance of Larry Baer saying it on KNBR? Look, the committee has been at this for almost one year now. Taking all partisan hats off and leaving emotion aside, if you look at this from a purely business standpoint (ie maximizing MLB revenue and Bay Area profits for both teams, getting A’s off of MLB welfare, getting the A’s a new ballpark sooner rather than never), we all know what MLB and the committee will decide. If the decision comes in two weeks, all the more better.

      • Tony D, if a decision comes in 2 weeks to put the A’s in SJ and MLB gets the Giants to back off their turf war tactics leading up to the election I’ll be very very happy.

        If they decide the Coli parking lot or Fremont, i’ll be happy. I just give me something concrete that we can all look forward to.

        A’s fans we’ve been mistreated for too long, and there are so many entities to blame for that, a new ballpark changes EVERYTHING. I want it so bad for the A’s, I’m afraid to get my hopes up anymore. The last Fremont attempt exhausted every ounce of hope I had for realizing that change for the A’s.

      • It’s too bad the latest poll finds only 45% of SJ residents wanting the A’s, 44% not, and the rest undecided.

      • What’s your source jk-usa? This the gints poll? Poll results taken by SVLG show overwhelming support for it—

      • You are quoting a push poll that misrepresents the spirit of the nondeal in San Jose. That poll was mroe for the Giants to use in their anti ballpark campaign rather than a true measure of what people actually think.

        That said… why doesn’t someone commission a poll asking the exact same questions of Oakland residents? I wonder what they would answer if asked “Do you support a publicly financed stadium for a greedy owner in the City of Oakland?”

      • It’s flat out wrong and absolutely impossible to say that Oakland is the path of least resistance. We don’t know how difficult it would be to acquire a site, what EIR challenges could arise, what infrastructure will cost – we don’t even have a consensus for a site fer chrissakes!

      • Marine Layer,

        At this point we don’t know the specifics of the plans in Oakland. We do know that the enthusiasm from the fanbase for a ballpark in Oakland exists unlike in either Fremont, or San Jose. The NIMBY opposition in Fremont is certain to come up again. And, can we really blame them? They have a budget deficit and only have 16 cops on the streets at any given time for a city of 200,000 residents. Fremont doesn’t have the money to build the infrastructure necessary to accommodate a ballpark. Also, a ballpark outside of a downtown area or entertainment district has little benefit for to a municipality. Fremont is clearly a no go because of these facts . The possibilities for the NUMMI site are much better for a manufacturing venture such as the building of HSR cars. San Jose is also a problem because of the distance to the fanbase, the alienation of the fanbase, the percentage of Giant fans to A’s fans, lack of previous support for the A’s in Oakland, possible NIMBY opposition, a 100 million dollar budget deficit, legal challenges from SF, Oakland, and the Giants, possible ramifications against MLB , Bud Selig, Lew Wolff, Steve Schott, San Jose, and the Giants, for previous transgressions against Oakland having a fair chance of retaining an economic asset, etc.
        Oakland on the other hand, already has the team, the infrastructure, the central location, the proximity to the fanbase, no legal hassles, aesthetically pleasing waterfront sites next to an entertainment district, very little chance of NIMBY opposition at either location, multiple public transit options, and an eager and ready local business community ready to make it happen. And let’s not forget the most important fact of all, the Oakland A’s will remain the Oakland A’s when they build that ballpark on Oakland’s waterfront, just as 32,000 of their customers and growing, want them to do. Oakland is definitely the right thing to do for the A’s, the fanbase, the City of Oakland, and for MLB.

      • You could have just stopped after the first sentence. Instead you had to go into spin mode for the umpteenth time. That’s the problem. No substance, all spin.

      • This isn’t spin at all. I sincerely believe everything I’ve written. What did I write that isn’t true? There’s no question that MLB is taking all of these issues and possibilities into consideration. They’d be foolish not to consider every possible scenario.

      • Oakland already has the infrastructure? Can’t make that claim without a lot more study including an EIR.
        Little chance of NIMBY opposition? Based on what? The only similar project of recent note is O29, and the NIMBY effect there delayed the project long enough to practically derail it.
        Once again you’re dismissive of the myriad challenges that Oakland faces. Sticking you fingers in your ears and singing la-la-la won’t make them go away.

      • And not to mention the fact that if anyone tries to build anything in Oakland for any purpose, there will be a lawsuit.

      • Well said, Nav, as usual.

      • Now that’s funny jk-usa! By the way, it’s good to see that the city of Oakland has been immune to the recent recession and is flush with a budget surplus; unlike SJ and SF, which at last count had a budget deficit of half a billion $’s. A city with a strong local government, lot’s of money, big business throwing money at everyone and no civic issues whatsoever…must be nice Oakland!

      • So OA–looks like you agree with Tony D–taken from the source you posted the following quote which puts Oakland’s budget deficit at $70+M—they also cite the lack of current leadership—so not quite sure what point you are trying to make by using the resources posted–bottom line—Oakland has huge budget problems and they haven’t even begun to purchase land for a ballpark—-or pay off the last remodel of the Coli

        “They have approved a special election for July 2009 for increased revenue measures, such as increasing the medical marijuana tax, real estate transfer tax, parcel tax to replace the landscape and lighting district, and a sales tax increase. Even if all five tax measures pass, it is projected that the city will only have $6 million to 7 million in new revenues, about 10% of the current projected budget deficit.

        It looks like the Mayor and City Council are going to have to make some hard choices to balance the city’s budget. Currently, nearly 65% of the budget goes to police and fire services. All of the budget revenue reductions cannot come from the remainder part of the budget. It is time for the city to look very carefully at its spending habits and find ways to reduce its costs, create efficiencies and find savings to balance this budget.

      • Oaklandathlethics, Thanks for posting those links. Oakland is defying the recession when it comes to the entertainment and dinning scene. Many people recognize the potential in Oakland with the exception of a few businessmen with long-held outdated anti-Oakland biases. One of these businessmen is Lew Wolff and his Oakland lackey Guy Seperstein. The fact is that the Oakland Athlehtics are a business in Oakland which effects the quality of life and civic pride in the city. Oakland has lost too much over the years and too often has allowed itself to be stepped on so others can prosper. This will no longer be the case. Oakland needs to retain this important civic asset in order to enhance its current renaissance. A move out of Oakland by those who falsely denigrate the business opportunities in the city will send the wrong message to others who don’t know Oakland, that the city is in decline, when nothing could be farther from the truth. Oakland needs to fight to the end to retain this business. Whatever it takes, Oakland needs to send a message to the bullies in San Jose, that even though they rerouted HSR away from Oakland and the East Bay, they will not also take our storied Oakland Athletics. Oakland needs to, and will, stand up for itself this time.

      • Yep, quite a happening restaurant scene and growing. SJ has a few nice places to eat downtown, but Fremont and the Tri-City area is a restaurant wasteland. Outside of fast food and a few big chains, there’s nothing there worth the drive, whereas Oakland has a nice diverse collection of eateries/bars/clubs.

      • What is happening with Barnes and Noble? Anyone know if there is a new tenant to fill that spot at JLS? KTVU’s report this morning seemed skeptical and they mentioned the future feasibility of JLS as being in doubt… Does anyone really no about this stuff? I was trying to find some articles on line that provide better color and I got nothing but press releases from the port about the alternative to the Ferry Building (coming soon/leases available) and old articles that mentioned a lot of vacancies and such.

      • That’s great for the City of Oakland that some restaurants are finally coming downtown. I sincerely hope the positive trend continues. But let’s not fall all over ourselves overreading the significance of this. As a city of over 300,000, Oakland SHOULD be able to support some kind of restaurant district; it’s somewhat embarrassing it has taken this long. There are many much smaller cities which support comparable restaurant/entertainment districts (Mountain View, Los Gatos, and Palo Alto, to name just three). None of this changes the economic fundamentals which make Oakland a non-viable location for a new privately-financed ballpark.

      • Its beginning to look like Oakland has no good simple options right now, except maybe the Coli parking lot.

      • http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_14335406?source=rssThis is good news for Jack London Square along with the fact that Oakland’s economy grew by 2.7% between 2007 & 2009 while other parts of the East Bay, and the Bay Area in general, saw a shrinking economy. It loooks like all of those new restaurants, clubs and the opening of the Fox to go along with the Paramount have benefited Oakland’s economy. So much for ownerships attempts at denigrating Oakland’s economy.

      • Really? You’re going to cite 54-75 employees as a major change? Come on.

      • good lord are you snappy!
        can you say anything positive about oakland for once in your life. i mean i know you want the a’s to move to SJ and all…and thats fine..but theres no reason to be snappy and negative about oakland.

        navigator may be a SuperTroll…but that his comment showed some GOOD news about oakland…and you snapped. theres more up here to like than to hate.

      • No, I should just allow everyone to put out insignificant articles because it supposedly bolsters their case. Don’t want to be criticized? Don’t put out that crap. It doesn’t help.

      • I was responding to Jeffrey implying the Jack London Square wasn’t “viable.” Also, the fact that Oakland’s economy actually grew between 2007 and 2009, while the rest of the Bay Area declined, should put the whining and misrepresentations from Guy Seperstein and Lew Wolff, that Oakland is on the decline, to rest. A’s ownership should be ashamed of themselves in their eagerness to unfairly denigrate Oakland by implying that Oakland’s economy is on the decline strictly for their selfish purposes. Also, for the last time, I,m not a “troll.” I’ve dealt with insults time after time on your blog Marine Layer without you saying a word. If this is a “San Jose” site let me know, and I’ll stop posting.

      • Lord knows I’ve dealt with criticism. I don’t complain about it. Neither should you. You have no idea how many inflammatory comments about you I’ve had to delete. If you want to consider this site San Jose-biased, I’m not stopping you. Just know that your opinion stems from your own bias.

      • I wasn’t implying that JLS wasn’t viable. I was asking a question about the KTVU news report on JLS in general and Barnes and Noble specifically. In the report they interviewed nearby residents who were unhappy and both the residents and the news anchor made comments about people questioning the long term viability of the thrice delayed market. I wondered if anyone had any insight into what was happening with the Barnes and Noble building, or the the market.

        I couldn’t find anything searching online and wondered if there was anyone here that was “in the know.”

        As much as you try to paint it differently, I have written two pieces on this site detailing the JLS sites. In both I took a favorable view. I spend a great deal of my family recreational time in Oakland… at the zoo, Chabot Space and Science Center, Lake Chabot Golf Course, etc.

        I can tell you this much: ML asked me to cover those sites. ML made mock ups of what they would look like to support me in my efforts. If he was as biased in favor of San Jose as you are of Oakland, those things never would have happened.

  4. Nav:

    What section, row, and seats are your season tickets? I’d like to come by and meet you sometime during the upcoming season.

    • Rayburn, Id also like to meet you, but we’ll have to wait until Lew Wolff commits to building a ballpark in Oakland, near jack London Square. Once this talk about relocation is over, I’ll be glad to meet with you and buy you a beer.

      • If any post/reply underscores just how full of crap you are, it’s this one. The man simply wants to meet you at an A’s game, and you give him this ultra-pathetic line of having something happen (that will never happen) before you meet him. You’re not even an A’s season ticket holder, are you! Oh well Mr. Rayburn, based on this lunatics response to you, you’ll never meet or get a beer from him at the Coliseum.

      • You need to lighten up a bit. I’m optimistic that it will happen, and I’ll eventually get a chance to meet with Rayburn and buy him a beer. I’m sure Rayburn was sincere when he asked me about this and I’ll be glad to meet him when this devise talk of relocation is put to rest and I can once again support an ownership committed to the existence of the Oakland Athletics.

      • Mr. Nonsense,
        Hey Troll, cool it on your new identity just to rip Nav. You should be banned from posting on here. Nav has added valuable info and much true Oakland A’s passion on this site. He’s optimistic, like me, that Oakland will get a new park. You Oakland naysayers think SJ is a slam dunk, but I beg to differ.

      • I certainly don’t think San Jose is a slam dunk. However, I’m yet to be convinced isn’t the most logical choice and overall the best thing for the A’s.

  5. Don’t worry, Raybyrn, Navitroll will be happy to meet you in the afterlife, which, depending on his religious beliefs, is the first time the conditions he set will be met.

  6. with all this quietness is this the calm before the storm?

    I hope something happens after the superbowl weekend.

    Note to Bud: say something….give us an udpate!

  7. San Jose tech-giant Cisco Systems, you know, that company that will one day have its name splashed across the new A’s ballpark, recently announced it would hire 2-3,000 new employees in Silicon Valley. Just saying.

    • Even though the fact that it’s Cisco makes it tangentially related, it also doesn’t have a ripple effect in the grand scheme of things.

    • Tony,

      These numbers are for what Cisco is hiring World wide. Hopefully a good portion will be in the Bay Area. Also, keep in mind that Cisco laid off thousands no too long ago. Never the less, it’s great for the bay Area that companies are hiring in Oakland and in San Jose.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s