SVLG makes plea to Selig
- 09.08.10, 23:12
- 92 Comments
It’s best that I just post the contents of the letter sent by SVLG to Commissioner Selig today (Merc article), so without further ado…
September 8, 2010
The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball
Allan H. (Bud) Selig, Commissioner
245 Park Avenue, 31st Floor
New York, NY, 10167Dear Commissioner Selig,
The Silicon Valley Leadership Group strongly supports a new home for the Athletics baseball team in downtown San Jose. We were encouraged to learn of San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed’s positive conversation with Major League Baseball President Bob Dupuy regarding the timing of a possible election next spring should the A’s be granted approval to pursue the construction of a baseball-only state of the art Ballpark in downtown San Jose.
By way of background, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group was founded in 1977 by David Packard and has grown to become the largest organization of its kind in Silicon Valley with more than 300 member companies. Combined member companies employ more than 250,000 local workers – nearly one of every three jobs – and generate more than $2 trillion worth in global revenue.
We, the undersigned CEOs and senior executives, are committed to bringing jobs, revenue, a rich culture, and a thriving business climate to Silicon Valley. We believe that an intimate state of the art ballpark located on a prime downtown San Jose parcel, close to mass transit and major highways will be a catalyst for economic development in our region. We also believe downtown San Jose offers a compelling location for the advancement of Major League Baseball in the 21st Century. Silicon Valley is well known throughout the world as the cradle of innovation and the leading incubator of new ideas and new possibilities for human kind. There is no better location than San Jose, located in the heart of Silicon Valley, to advance the Major League Baseball brand on a global basis.
San Jose is a world-class community, and the ballpark proposal not only secures a quality Major League Baseball team for America’s 10th largest city, but also creates jobs, strengthens our economy and enhances the cultural opportunities for our workers and their families. According to an economic study commissioned by the City of San Jose, a new ballpark will generate thousands of construction jobs and permanent positions at the ballpark and surrounding area.
The Silicon Valley Leadership Group, along with other respected and diverse organizations, stands ready to offer any support needed to move this important project forward. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group is comprised of both devoted A’s and Giants fans and we will continue to enthusiastically support both teams. We strongly believe that both teams will thrive in a vibrant two team market anchored by San Francisco and the Bay Area’s largest city, San Jose. Today, the Bay Area is the only two team market in Major League Baseball where the teams don’t fully share their common geographic territory. The divided territory was imposed at the request of San Jose baseball boosters in 1992 in a previous attempt to secure a Major League Baseball team. We can only hope moving forward that the Bay Area can be restored to a shared marketplace for the two teams in a manner similar to Chicago, Los Angeles and New York.
It is integral to our mission that we support and promote opportunities to improve the quality of life for families who live and work in Silicon Valley. A new A’s ballpark will provide a great entertainment and community asset that will capture the essence of Silicon Valley. It will be a tremendous benefit to our region, with a wide appeal that can help to promote Silicon Valley – and Major League Baseball – on a national and international level. The new venue will be a great source of pride for our innovative region, and deserves your consideration and approval to move forward.
Please call on us to help make this decades old dream to attract a Major League Baseball team to Silicon Valley a reality in the near future.
John Chambers
CEO, Cisco Inc.Carol Bartz
CEO, Yahoo!Tom Werner
CEO, SunPowerJohn Donahoe
CEO, eBayMike Klayko
CEO, Brocade Inc.John Doerr
Partner, Kleiner PerkinsCarl Guardino
CEO, Silicon Valley Leadership GroupShantanu Narayen
CEO, Adobe
Other signatories include Lew Wolff, former mayor Ron Gonzales, the publisher of Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal, the presidents of Santa Clara University, UC Santa Cruz and Foothill-De Anza Community College District, the CEO of Palo Alto Medical Foundation, and the head of Goodwill Silicon Valley, who happened to be head of the Valley’s largest beverage distributor a couple years ago. Just about everyone else on the second page is either the head of a tech firm or a bank. Including the main heavy hitters, that’s 75 companies and organizations, and the vast majority of them are not small businesses.
The crux of the letter is the request to share the Bay Area the same way New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago are shared. My guess is that this won’t happen because of certain long term implications. Unlike those other three markets, the Bay Area is uniquely set up for a game of franchise musical chairs once any lease ends and a team wants a new stadium. The others aren’t. If a T-rights compromise were to occur, the definitions would look much more like Washington-Baltimore just because of the decades of history there (and here) that can’t be easily wiped away. That said, the letter’s soft pitch does have one statement that has some hidden teeth.
We strongly believe that both teams will thrive in a vibrant two team market anchored by San Francisco and the Bay Area’s largest city, San Jose.
Something’s missing from that declaration.
@pjk–by attending 25-40 games a year for 40 years, my family and I have contributed to the city of Oakland and the A’s 4 owners as much as anybody. I probably spend as much time and money in Oakland as I do in my Hayward, from sports, concerts and restaurants. I actually was interested in one of the lofts, The Sierra, on Oak right at Victory Vt., about 5 years ago. Took a tour, got all the literature, but they were too expensive at the time for me. If a park is built there, you’d have a nice view of the park from those lofts. I’d consider a move over there. Kids are all grown and moved out, and Hayward is kind of blah and boring as you guys all know, but great location for anywhere in the bay area.
So you do not plan to move to Oakland and pay for the ballpark out of your taxes. OK. Get somebody else to pay for it, I guess…
Go find another aging benefactor to sink his life savings into the team, except he’ll have to deal with dramatically increased payroll and the construction of a new ballpark. I’m sure it’s not that hard, the way people keep talking about it. I imagine these guys must be everywhere in Oakland.
@ML—and we all said that TR could be bought for some value….and we now know that without BS stepping in to guide the show that will not be the case–call it over dramatization–all ATT had to do at the time was say that they would be happy to work with San Jose if and when the time came—rather than capture the attention of the press as they did and continue to grab as one of the obstacles standing in the way of the A’s move—
relative to our last point….I don’t think that San Jose has to worry about that either….
Chuckle. Marine Layer, your resident Oakland gadfly clearly doesn’t understand how the world works. Rich, powerful guys, in this case, the MLB owners, only listen to other rich, powerful guys. Which is why that letter from the SVLG is meaningful. Lots of bucks and lots of power behind that letter. It’s a good letter and it’s also a veiled threat. One doubts the Giants will fluff that letter off the way jk-usa does. The letter is a very strong statement in favor of San Jose. OTOH, what has Oakland given these rich powerful guys that would serve as a counter to San Jose? Doug Boxer? No money, no power. He’s the son of a politician, but everybody knows Barbara, fighting for her political life, never mattered in this equation. What’s she going to do? Try to get rid of the anti-trust exemption? You go, girl. Do it. Then the A’s can move to San Jose without all of the hassle. So that’s all Oakland has. No political horsepower and nothing but vague ideas. No money, nothing concrete. To borrow from Gertrude Stein, there still is “no there there in Oakland.”
-
The MLB owners know that the A’s ownership—members of their rich, powerful guys lodge—will not spend the money to build a ballpark in Oakland. Jk-usa, do you really think that his fellow owners aren’t very well aware that Wolff has given up on Oakland? That the idea of building a new park there is no longer even on his radar? That the owners also know they can’t force him to build a park in Oakland? Actually, what Oakland is doing is complicating the whole process by fighting a rear-guard action aimed at somehow forcing somebody to spend money where he doesn’t want to. And they can’t do that. Nobody can, especially not the MLB owners. Everybody but some diehard Oakland politicians and fans like jk-usa knows that Oakland is a dead man walking. And the city actually does know it, thus the half-hearted and vague “proposals” that have no meaning anywhere in the real world. Oakland is just showing the flag now, just to placate the hard core fans.
-
Something else the MLB owners know is that if they support the Giants in the bogus territorial rights claim, they will set the chain in motion. The A’s will remain in the Coliseum, living with poor attendance and a poor team, sucking revenue sharing dollars from the other teams. They will not build a ballpark in Oakland. They will wait until the economy improves and some sucker city elsewhere makes them an offer. This might actually be a good deal for the A’s because there is a good chance that the sucker city will actually offer to build a park for the A’s. Hello, Charlotte. Or Portland. Or San Antonio. The owners will of course approve the move on the spot. Alternatively, if the sucker city doesn’t materialize and the owners get tired of subsidizing a failed franchise, contraction may come into play. Any way you slice this, no matter how the economy does, no matter what the political situation elsewhere in the country, the clock has already started on the A’s being out of Oakland.
-
This is what’s so funny about folks like jk-usa. They’ve already lost the A’s and they don’t realize it. They should be supporting the move to San Jose because it keeps the team within shouting distance. Otherwise, they’re going to have fly to see their team play. Or live with not having their team at all.
isn’t fisher the 4th richest owner in mlb?
does he have any clout within the rich man’s club of mlb owners?
@GoA’s – By stating that they’d work with San Jose, they are inserting themselves into the situation. Of course it would be easier if everyone just played nice and was sensitive to each others’ issues. All they’re worried about is making sure they have a good place in or near downtown for their employees. Even though the move wouldn’t be that expensive, it’s still upheaval. So it does matter, like it or not.
If San Jose isn’t worried, then why stipulate the name in the negotiating principles?
@old blue – ouch.
@letsgoas – The reason every team has a managing partner is to avoid public fracturing of ownership groups. Otherwise you have the Wilpon-Doubleday war for the Mets, or the ugly Dodger divorce.
ML–we have rarely disagreed but come on–why is downtown important to ATT–its a service center—by issuing a statement that says in the event that major league baseball approves the A’s move to SJ than AT&T will work with the city of SJ to establish a mutually beneficial solution….is that hard…is that meddling…this is a freaking utility for god sake—an additional $5M on their bottom line equates to a latte for you and I at Starbucks-
second why does San Jose require the name to be used—hmmm–lets see–a weak commissioner that is lookign for the easy solution—move to SJ but name stays the same….come on–in 1992 the gints had no problem putting the SJ name before them…how many teams are banging on SF’s doorstep to move there? Would you sacrifice the opportunity to be located in the backyard of all of these Fortune 1000 companies to have SF in your name…..don’t think so–
Finally–lets get it all out on the table–disagree with you on the shared territory—AT&T will always be a gem of a ballpark–gimicky but a gem—-I can’t imagine any team ever wanting to try and compete directly by locating in the city of SF assuming there was shared territory—the San Jose ballpark will also be a gem—-I believe will be on the caliber of Wrigley and Fenway—-and will be the final home of this team for as long as MLB is around
larry ellison just lost his bid for the warriors to two guys worth a mere fraction as he… its not always about money…
@GoA’s – It’s all about the location and bottom line. The work center is at the nexus of Downtown, Midtown-Rose Garden, and Willow Glen. All of those areas can be reached by a worker or supervisor in 5 minutes. These guys all have GPS in their trucks. The company uses it to gauge productivity. Put them in a less optimal location and fuel usage really starts to add up. So yes, it is incredibly important to AT&T – not the corporate side – but the low level utility, service providing side.
Having value in the city name has no relationship to whatever number of teams may be interested. It’s about the city’s self-image. If San Jose was so sure of itself, so blah about sports, it wouldn’t pursue sports teams. Or a car race. Or the end of a bike race stage. SJ sees value, so they’re going after the A’s. SF does not, so it’s losing the Niners (though not the name, because the team sees the value there).
ok–enough of the back and forth-but if SF was so sure of itself than why threaten to sue to keep the A’s out of San Jose—-or threaten to sue the ’9ers move to Santa Clara–we obviously have a difference of opinion—this is about economic benefit as much as city image–both would be enhanced by the location of a ballpark in downtown—all cities pursue media grabbing events–whether it be sailing in SF or bike races in SJ—or World Expo’s for Silicon Valley
@GoA’s – People cash in political favors all the time.
@oldblue–Chuckle x 1000 on your anti Oakland post. There’s more “there” in Oakland than San Jose can ever dream of. Cheap shots at a great city just shows your ignorance. If you are so damn sure the A’s are going to SJ, lets have a little bet. And according to you guys, Oakland has no chance in hell, so I want the guys on here to set the odds. Maybe 20-1 or 50-1 Oakland the underdog. I’ll bet you $50, and I will get $1000 if I win @ 20-1. 50-1, I get $2500. We can arrange to meet with ML and he can hold the money. I trust him, but don’t want to meet such an ugly, negative jerk like yourself. Put your money where your fat mouth is, or shut the hell up and NEVER respond to my posts again. THERE!!!
Lmao off at jk…. Melt down mode! Hahahahaha
JK-USA:
since you and I seem to be the only Pro-Oakland proponents on this board, do you want to chat sometime?
Let’s figure out a way to do this.
Thanks.
68 A’s fan
jk–what you define as “winning” is that territorial rights are upheld and the A’s are prevented from moving to SJ–you seem to believe that if this happens than magically a ballpark will appear in Oakland—and the A’s will live happily ever after…..and yet nothing has been established to support this “dream” other than 3 potential sites–no city money, no willing owner, etc
From my perspective your definition of winning is a loss for A’s fans….as it forces the team out of the Bay Area…and the gints win—which is what old blue said…
So let me turn the tables on you–your so confident that Oakland can pull this off—than give me some odds that Oakland will build a ballpark for the A’s by 2015—-happy to put $1000 on that—what are the odds your willing to give me?
Bad move putting down $1K before you know what the odds are going to be.
Ha! Jk-Usa is losing his mind. I was reading a few older posts that some real hardcore Pro-Oak guys were banned from this site for going “overboard”. Wow.
Old Blue is right, if San Jose gets shot down its over the for the A’s on several levels in the Bay Area.
@Jeffrey and ST- In my earlier post I was assuming Neukom would use “surrogates” to sue MLB and not sue directly. By suing even indirectly he would alienate the other owners which is not a good PR move as what if he needs something from these guys down the line? Not to mention erode the AE that keeps the A’s out of San Jose currently.
Hence why Lew Wolff doesn’t call the City of San Jose and have them sue MLB for anti-trust violations regarding their city and territorial rights while funding it himself under the table.
No owner wants to look like Al Davis or Donald Sterling to the other owners hence they must play the political game as much as they can until a decision is made by the MLB owners or Board of Directors.
At the end of the day Old Blue is right in the sense that “rich powerful people” listen to other “rich powerful people” and not delusional heads like jk-usa who like all Pro-Oak fans live in a world where reality isn’t separated from fantasy. Or where dollars and sense are separated from personal beliefs and civic pride.
@ML- The “shared market” is the only way as that is what the A’s have requested and what the SVLG has mentioned in their letter as well. “Slicing and dicing” the Bay Area doesn’t make sense as it will fluctuate the teams valuations.
I do see the point about someone moving to SF and all but what is to stop the Angels from moving to downtown LA? or the Yankees moving to Flushing? Or even the Cubs moving to the southside?
The practicality of location and rule of reason come in play here as no owner will want to do what you suggest could be possible by not slicing up territories.
At the end of the day MLB cannot hurt its franchises valuations and will only vote to improve them. A shared Bay Area does that as the Giants value will go up slightly with the East Bay being factored in while the A’s will skyrocket having SF, SC, SM, Mont, Santa Cruz counties included.
That is why it makes sense for CHI, NY, and LA to be shared as it helps their value as teams. The Bay Area should be no different than these markets as it is not like the A’s are moving to San Jose from out of state…If that was the case I would agree with you 100%.
i am (super) pro-Oakland. I have been reading and posting occasionally here, because this site is more democratic than ‘Athletics Nation’. I commend Marine Layer on his objectivity. The folks on AN try to shout you down… and they don’t have any links to Pro-Oakland stadium websites. This site does!
Interesting to note that AN had a poll asking respondents if they would support the San Jose A’s–responses of 406 individuals were overwhelming positive–
Will you be a San Jose A’s fan?
76% Hell yes! Where can I order my San Jose A’s shirt?!?! 310 votes
13% Only if they retain some Oakland reference and/or aren’t called San Jose 56 votes
7% Hell no, we won’t go!30 votes
2%I’ve always been a closet Giants fan, and this will signal my coming out party 10 votes
@all – A bet either way is a fool’s bet, as long as MLB and Selig are involved. I would’ve wagered on Portland for the Expos. Look how that turned out.
@Sid – As T-rights themselves are arbitrary constructs with no enforcement other than the application of stadium building, I can’t buy that argument. Whether the South Bay is shared or granted outright, the Giants will lose it for the main application. That should in theory negatively affect them either way, right? The thing is, it doesn’t. The Giants’ argument has always been protecting their investment, which is AT&T Park. If you look at the team’s current valuation ($483 million), $131 million is tied up in the stadium, whereas the rest is related to location and revenue streams. While revenue streams could be negatively impacted by an A’s move, the stadium value should stay constant. If it drops, it’ll be due to depreciation, not the A’s move.
This thread has been reduced to internet gambling. I’m just gonna shoot up this signal flare as a reminder:
This T-rights issues isn’t about Oakland vs. San Jose vs. Fremont nor is it about the Giants vs. A’s. As of now, it’s an internal/company (MLB) policy issue brought on by a conflict of business-related interests. MLB has two teams in the area. How can we get them both to succeed without infringing on the success of the other. Perceiving this all as a them vs. us (whether it’s Giants vs. A’s or SJ vs. OAK), you gonna miss why this is such a complicated issue that’s taking this long to resolve.
@ML–my bet wasn’t on MLB or Selig–it was on Oakland being able to deliver a ballpark by 2015–it doesn’t require Selig or MLB for this—
jk-usa – let’s change the wager around shall we? if the a’s construct a new site at downtown SJ, you buy me tickets to the first game. if the a’s construct a new site at oakland, i’ll buy you tickets to the first game there. nice friendly bet between die hard a’s fan (that’s what we all are, aren’t we? my email is below. feel free to contact me. stranx44@yahoo.com
ML / SID – Here’s my take on a Neukum Defcon 4 play: Challenge the AE on the premise that it is no longer just a local business, the main premise that left the owners, instead of government to regulate it. There are a lot of ammunition to this argument, as it has not only transcended state lines, but also now an international event (aka federal statutes would be needed). Once this is rescinded in the courts, of course SJ would want to pick up the A’s. HOwever, Neukum now has the authority to both sue the A’s and SJ on infringement of competitive territory based on historical precedence during the SJ Giants stillborn move. This could take years upon years to play out in court. It is only in the best interest of Neukum to either 1) Get a huge cash bribe from the A’s or 2) Keep the status quo. That’s worst nightmare scenario.
On a related note:
I wonder if we’ll ever know if adopting the name “Oakland” was contractually stipulated in Finley’s deal to move them to the Bay Area.
@ST:
I can’t imagine a single situation that would push a MLB franchise to sue another franchise or MLB as a whole– even if contraction was involved. TRights are like company policy. Lets say your company dress code says no blue jeans. If you wear blue jeans, you’re not gonna be charged with a misdemeanor.
RE: Cash/buyout, these are franchises under MLB that operate on investments and net revenue. My take IF it comes down to this: I see the Giants getting partial relief from revenue sharing or something like that, but not a lump or installment payments. Any transaction of funds who can to come from a variable budget.
I would parallel T-Rights more along the lines of Expense Report Policies. There’s the parameters set forth, but if you disobey it you’ll be called out on by your VP/Pres. Rampant violations is grounds for dismissal (see M. Hurd).
@68 A’sfan–sure I’d like to chat with you. Everyone else hates me on here and I’m this close to being tossed. E-mail me at jkraid@yahoo.com. Not sure I’ll know it’s you, so please, no one else e-mail me, just 68. Thank’s guys.
@ST–thanks, but no thanks on the wager. Lew Wolff will not get one red cent from me if they move to SJ. The bet I want is with oldblue and I need odds, because according to everyone and their grandma on here, Oakland’s way behind in the game bigtime; the FB members don’t mean jack; Oakland’s downtown Renaissance don’t mean jack; Barbara Boxer is fighting for her political life, so her son’s hard work don’t mean jack;; and SJ/SCC/SV unlimited vast wealth trumps anything community and tradition have over in the east bay.
You just about summed it up right there.
@jk-usa: Chuckle again. I won’t bet you. Wouldn’t want to take your money. I hope you’ll remember this advice: never bet on anything where you can’t influence the outcome. That’s why I only bet on golf and on poker. Someday, you’ll appreciate the value of my advice. Maybe you’ll even have a little more money than you might have otherwise. With regard to your insults, well, I’ll overlook that. I understand that you’re caught up in the typical foaming at the mouth sports fan phase, where you somehow think that the rich guys you adore—owners, players, etc.—care about you. You’ll hopefully grow out of that. More free advice: Care more about yourself, your family and friends. If you find it necessary to really care about sports and if you’re a college graduate, then root for the old alma mater. Professional teams will break your heart every time. And what’s going to happen with the A’s will truly break your heart. I hope you’re not a die-hard Raiders’ fan, too. That’ll be next for you.
-
I actually like Oakland. I’m a native Californian who’s old enough to have known Oakland when it was a lovely city. But it is unfortunately no longer a lovely city. If jk-usa ever read any of my previous posts, he’d see where I’d like to see the A’s stay in Oakland. But many factors combine to make that impossible. I am not a San Jose booster. In fact, I lived in San Jose for 16 years—making the trek to the Coliseum—and I never minded that. Plus, I never liked San Jose all that much anyway. I was in San Jose for money. Got my money and left. I now live on the beach in South Carolina and I’m more than happy not to have any major league teams nearby. I do go to Atlanta to catch the Dodgers. And I’ll gladly go to Charlotte if the A’s move there.
-
If I were a die-hard Oakland-exclusive fan, I’d say this was a Shakespearean tragedy. But as one who’s adopted the A’s as a casual secondary rooting interest (Dodgers always first, of course), I want to see good things happen for the A’s. San Jose is not a tragedy. I will never get why someone in the East Bay thinks it is. Out of state will be the tragedy for you Bay Area A’s fans. And so far as I can see, that’s what you’re looking at if San Jose falls through.
You finally get it jk!
Hey all… SPoiler alert- I have been talking with folks in Oakland. I know the plan. And I will share before the weekend is out…
I guess they had to whip something up in light of all the news coming out of the South Bay/SJ. Can’t wait to read what you go Jeffrey! That said, let’s all Keep in mind one important thing moving forward: The best interest of the A’s and MLB long-term.
@Jeffrey–you’ve peaked my interest. I’m sure whatever it is, the pro-SJ guys will say it’s too little, too late, too weak, where’s the beef, etc…. It’s never too late. We’ve gone 17 months of waiting–I can go another 17!!
@oldblue–Okay, no bet, that’s cool. I’ll cut you some slack, you being nearly out of the country and all in South Carolina. Took the money and ran, huh? Good for you!
The city of Oakland is on it’s way back, and their worst days are behind them. Crime is down, the streets are a little cleaner, less blight, cool restaurant scene, the great Fox Theater is hopping and condos downtown are starting to sell again. This place has been through so much, grabbing big headlines every couple years, good and bad. From Hells Angles to Black Panthers to 7 world championships, to a huge earthquake, a humongous hills fire, to a moonbeam mayor (soon to be Gov. again) , brutal police shootings, riots, to great festivals (Art and Soul, Chinatown, EatReal, all in a 2 week span, drawing over 250k total).
San Jose: A nice big burb to say the least, but The Grand Prix, came and went, the county fair is dying, the Sharks blow it in the playoffs again, but Santana Row is nice (big fire there too, a few years back..brutal).
jk–Wow–that’s quite a mood swing…
Interesting quote from Larry Stone regarding the “perceived competition” between San Jose and Oakland as covered in the Merc–he does go on to suggest that Neukom will do whatever it takes to create gridlock in the process…and we have definetely seen this–
“Why are you folks trying to prop-up Oakland? Doug Boxer takes a map of Oakland, colors a couple of sites, and the Merc all but declares serious competition between Oakland and San Jose for the A’s. There is no competition, serious or otherwise, between Oakland and San Jose!
Oakland does not have the corporate or political leadership, financial resources, or fan base to compete. There is competition however, and I believe it is with the “consortium of East Coast lenders” that loaned the Giants $150 million to build Pac Bell Park which opened in April 2000. “
It’s amazing how the world is expected to know all the hip goings-on in Oakland yet they assume none of this ever happens in San Jose.
@namturk–I’m sure there’s hip places in SJ, but I just don’t know where they are because I don’t go down there that much. I’ll go to Yelp for help I guess.
Okay, I’ve been to the Tech once and it was kind of cool–much better then the original years ago when I went. (Oakland Museum currently has a Pixar exhibit and it is way cool, so’s the rest of the museum’s Calif. art). Saw the Smithsonian exhibit and the SJ Convention Center years ago–I liked it. Been to the arena 4 times, to see what this arena football is about; a Rhinos Vs. Oakland Skates game 15 years ago; and 2 Sharks games 8-10 years ago. Lets see, I’ve been to Santana Row (much cooler than E-Villes Bay St.), Winchester Mystery House back in the 70′s, the original Domes next door to see Batman Returns 20 years ago (I saw the Exorcist back in 1973 at the original Dome off of Hegenberger in Oak. It’s a Walmart now). Been to Stevens Creek Mall–wow, that place is packed. Been to the Fry’s off of Brokaw. Looks like the one in Fremont. I go all over the bay area, but hardly to SCC. I like SM county and Redwood City’s DT looks real nice from a few years ago when it was near death.
My favorite joint in San Jose is the Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum.
.
The Children’s Discovery Museum is also something the family loves to do.
.
I saw the most amazing concert ever (Pearl Jam 1996ish, i have a hazy period there) at Spartan Stadium.
.
There are plenty of great things to do in both Oakland and San Jose. I don’t, personally, tie my love for either city to sports teams. Mainly because the Coliseum is pretty lacking in the character department. It could be in any city anywhere in the country. It’s a concrete donut and I don’t really associate it with Oakland, odd as that may seem. It is the stadium equivalent of a strip mall.
.
In Oakland we love to go to the Zoo, most of all. It is such a great zoo, way better than San Francisco.
.
Piedmont Ave is fun.
.
The Crepevine (local chain in SF, Palo Alto, Oakland and San Rafael) is the spot to eat when in Rockridge.
@ML- I agree with you the Giants ballpark value would not be hurt by an A’s move to San Jose. I also agree that the main purpose of TR is for placement of a stadium to play.
The Giants argument goes further than that as when one sells the team “market value” plays into the final sale price. Neukom argues that if the A’s move to San Jose his team will lose “market value” thus reducing the overall valuation of the team.
The “location value” would not change as you point out but their their “market value” would be hurt if the A’s come to San Jose as Santa Clara County was factored in the sale of the franchise in 1993 and a few years ago.
Right now the Giants “market value” on Forbes.com is $198 million while the A’s is at $82 million. This includes the current territories in the MLB charter and factors in TV/Marketing/Radio revenues.
For example the Yankees and Mets share the same territory but marketing/radio/TV all factor into this # as well..Hence why the Yankees have such a higher market value than the Mets as their TV deal is ridiculous beyond belief as we all know.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/33/baseball-valuations-10_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Rank.html
My point is if the Bay Area is not “shared” and they slice and dice the territories MLB will have to compensate the Giants for loss for both of “market share” (Season tickets, advertising, etc..from SC) and “market value” from Santa Clara County being granted exclusively to the A’s.
In a shared territory scenario he A’s would gain market value big time and the Giants would be about the same because of how good they are with TV/Radio/Marketing.
Forbes or anyone else couldn’t depreciate the Giants “market value” because the entire market is now one as Santa Clara County still factors in Giants overall “market value”.
Then it all boils down to TV/Radio/Marketing dollars. In a shared situation adding the East Bay would in fact help the Giants market value but no where near how much a shared South Bay would help the A’s market value.
The A’s market value would still be far less than the Giants because the Giants Marketing/TV/Radio efforts are far superior.
In a “shared territory” case MLB would not have to compensate the Giants for loss of “market value” and they can worry about simple compensation of “market share”…Most likely through a combination from revenue sharing and/or a lump sum.
There is a difference between “market value” and “market share”. It is something the Giants bring up time and time again as that is the reason they do not want the A’s in San Jose on top of being selfish of course.
That is why this issue so “complicated” as they need to figure out how much Silicon Valley factors into their market value and how it would be eroded with the A’s in San Jose..Or if it erodes it all.
This is why the A’s and SVLG have requested a “shared territory” as then everything boils down to “market share” loss as in the case of the BAL-WASH situation.
In BAL case they did not have hard territorial rights to WASH therefore that location was never factored into their “market value” and MLB simply gave them TV rights to WASH and compensated them for any “market share” loss via revenue sharing.
Do you now see the difference between “market value”, “market share” and “location value” as you pointed out?
This is why the situation is so difficult to grasp for MLB…Hence why we are at 17 months and counting.
@Jeffrey–I love going to museums. Haven’t been to The Children’s Discovery Museum yet or the Egyptian one. Saw the King Tut exhibit in SF last year, and 30+ years earlier in high school when they came to SF. That one cost $1 and they had the death mask. Last year’s was like $32 and no death mask. I love the Oakland Zoo, too. Much better than SF. I’ve been to many Day on the Green concerts at the Coli in the 70′s/80′s. Peter Frampton, Ronstadt, Marvin Gaye, Jethro Tull, Steve Miller Band, Journey,Heart, Boston….to name a few. Last stadium concert I saw was The Stones in 1997. It was cold, rainy and windy. Pearl Jam opened up or them. I found a rolled up $20 bill and that helped offset a red tongue t-shirt I bought.
Piedmot, Lakeshore, College, Grand Ave. are cool areas. I love the Grand Lake Theater and still support them becasue they are struggling. 26 screens close by in E-Ville and pricey parking rates are hurting them.
Oakland needs retail so bad, it’s not even funny. I hear they’re working on bringing stores to the auto row area and former Oakland Army base. Stick a Fry’s over there, I’ll go 3 times a week!
You’re in Pleasanton, right? My wife works over there and spends a lot if time at Stoneridge Mall. Our Southland Mall here in Hayward is pretty sad, but there’s a few new eateries outside and I like the new Kohl’s store. Love them discount coupons–get stuff for almost free.
I went to King Tut and Rosicrucian on the same weekend. The Rosicrucian kicked that “King Tut” exhibits ass.
.
I was at the same Rolling Stones concert. Pearl Jam played Beast of Burden in their set because the Stones weren’t going to.
.
Oakland has an enterprise zone where they could build a retail center, or an automall or something to bring tax revenue. Fat chance though, they don’t seem to think it is a problem. At least not enough to do anything about it. Considering that Emeryville’s Bay Street is an extension of Oakland’s enterprise zone and has been since before they built it out. What is holding Oakland back?
.
Ask Rebecca Kaplan where an automall should be. A hint, it will start with “no” and end with “where.”
.
The Fox Theatre is heavily subsidized. It hasn’t reached a point yet where it makes money, or is even break even. There are a lot of problems that need fixing and very little being done about it. Hopefully, Oakland elects a mayor who is looking to the future, though it seems it will be one of the establishment candidates that wins.
.