San Jose City Council approve resolutions to support A’s move
- 09.20.10, 16:55
- 91 Comments
Update 9/21 7:40 PM - Resolutions (city and redev agency) passed unanimously. Mayor Reed says that he’ll be talking to MLB COO Bob DuPuy soon to get some direction, and that he’s cautiously optimistic that he’ll get a resolution soon.
Tomorrow night, the San Jose City Council will vote on another set of resolutions (city and redevelopment agency have slightly different versions) in support of a move south. From what I can tell, the only significant language change was the recognition of recent statement of support by SVLG and 75 of its constituent CEO’s.
I will not be attending the session, but I will be monitoring it remotely. Action on the resolution is slated to be early in the agenda. If you’re interested, here’s the newest language:
RESOLUTION NO. ____
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE:
(A) REAFFIRMING THE NEGOTIATING PRINCIPLES PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED AND AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL; AND (B) SUPPORTING THE EFFORTS OF THE OAKLAND ATHLETICS OWNERSHIP TO MOVE THE TEAM TO SAN JOSÉ AND THE ASSISTANCE OF THE SILICON VALLEY LEADERSHIP GROUP AND OTHER LOCAL GROUPS IN THEIR EFFORTS TO BRING MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL TO SAN JOSEWHEREAS, on April 7, 2009 and August 3, 2010, the City Council and Agency Board affirmed its interest in supporting the efforts of the Oakland Athletics’ ownership to move the team to the City of San Jose; and
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2009, the City Council and Agency Board established Negotiating Principles for the development of a stadium in the Downtown for a Major League Baseball team, which were subsequently amended by Council on August 3, 2010; and
WHEREAS, on September 10, 2010, through the efforts of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a letter from seventy five (75) of Silicon Valley’s leading CEOs was sent to Major League Baseball urging Commissioner Selig to approve the Athletics’ move to San Jose; and
WHEREAS, various local organizations, including the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, the San Jose Convention and Visitors Bureau, the San Jose Sports Authority and Baseball San Jose, have all expressed their support for the Athletics’ move to San Jose, and Lew Wolff, the Athletics’ owner, is also on record as indicating he would prefer San Jose as the new home of the Athletics; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to reaffirm the following previously-approved Negotiating Principles that will guide the City’s efforts in bringing a Major League Baseball stadium to San Jose:
1. No new taxes are imposed to fund ballpark-related expenditures.
2. The City must determine that the ballpark development will generate a significant economic benefit to the City and have a positive impact on City General Fund revenues.
3. No public funds shall be spent to finance or reimburse any costs associated with construction of the ballpark or construction of any on-site infrastructure or improvements needed for the ballpark.
4. No public funds of any kind are spent to finance or reimburse any ballpark operational or maintenance costs related to activities conducted by or under the authority of the baseball team that uses the ballpark either at the ballpark or in the streets surrounding the ballpark.
5. No public funds shall be spent to finance or reimburse the cost of any traffic control, street cleanup, emergency or security services within the ballpark site or within the streets surrounding the ballpark that are related to activities at the ballpark conducted by or under the authority of the baseball team.
6. If the property is leased for a ballpark, the baseball team must be willing, at the end of the term of the lease, either to purchase the property at fair market value or to do one of the following things at the City’s option and at no cost to the City or the Redevelopment Agency:
a. Transfer ownership of the improvements to the City or Redevelopment Agency; or
b. Demolish the improvements and clear the site to make way for other development.7. The entity that builds or operates the ballpark must be willing, if the City deems it appropriate, to make the ballpark available to the City during baseball’s offseason for up to 10 days per year for community-related events, at no rental charge to the City.
8. The name of the baseball team must include San Jose.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE:
(a) Reaffirms the negotiating principles previously established and amended by the City Council; and
(b) Supports the efforts of the Oakland Athletics ownership to move the team to San José and the assistance of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and other local groups in their efforts to bring Major League Baseball to San Jose.
I don’t expect this to change unless MLB makes its own announcement, after which the resolution would be amended again. This is what we can expect until the spring election, if it occurs.
Some choice quotes from public speakers at the session tonight:
Michael Mulcahy: I’m not a San Francisco Giants fan, but I’m rooting for them to make the playoffs so that we can see how that transforms a city.
Former Mayor Susan Hammer: I’m getting a little impatient with the snail’s pace of Major League Baseball.
@Zulu, now that I think I know what you are referring to as “trollbait,” let me ask you something. Is it not relevant that Mr. Clorox CEO can tell everyone who will listen that Lew Wolff won’t give Oakland a chance and then has the balls to send 60% of his Oakland based employees out to the burbs? Someone who really loves Oakland would not have qualms with calling out hypocritical crap. Mr. Knauss is part of the group of business leaders backing the “Lew hates Oakland” crowd, is he not? Maybe we should start hanging banners that say “Clorox hates Oakland.” after all, he is taking jobs that provide a living wage and moving them 30 miles away, not just seasonal, part time work.
@Jeffrey–yeah, I’m disappointed in Clorox moving those jobs out. Oakland can’t get a break for the life of them. But it sounds like hdtrs will stay in Oakland for awhile. Safeway moved out of Oakland to Pleasanton in the 80′s. They just outgrew their space near JLS and now got a huge campus near Stoneridge. I did read Dreyer’s loves Oakland and their College Ave. hdqtrs, and the founder (now dead) would never think of moving out to the burbs. Who knows now, with this tough economy. They just reduced the size of the ice cream containers again, but still keep the same price. With cheaper, more spacious office space with lots of amenities and plenty of parking in the burbs, moving jobs out of the urban core is constant, . SF has lost a lot of jobs to the burbs. Most recently AAA. At the same time, a lot of start-ups and new tech companies like the inner city like Oakland’s Uptown and SF’s SOMA. Hipper, more lively surroundings with cool bars and restaurants rather than these boring suburban office parks.
I’ll take Jeffrey’s “half-assed” blogging over zulu’s full-assed commentary any day.
.
On the hypocrisy front — it wasn’t bad enough that Clorox is moving out to Pleasanton, but he had to say he was hoping to build something like IBM’s campus in…San Jose! Yeah, he has no room to tell Lew where to build his stadium.
To ST:
thanks for the link; I actually have been following this issue quite closely. I remember now CISCO’s pledge – four years ago.
Let me be more specific; has any company pledged anything in the last year (outside of A’s ownership) to a new stadium in San Jose?
My point obviously is that I keep reading about this South Bay economic juggernaut but don’t see any hard evidence that many companies have stepped up to the plate as yet.
Another thing: I agree with the various posters regarding the use of “a source” or “sources.”
75 companies backing up the San Jose effort. One already signed for $4 mill a year. Why would more of these companies formally sign on to a stadium in San Jose that may never be built? We haven’t seen that MLB has the intelligence yet to let the A’s go to San Jose. These companies are not going to hire lawyers, etc and spend money on something that isn’t allowed to happen yet. Give the A’s the OK and watch these companies officially jump on board.
In the East Bay, where there is no territorial rights issue, we have so-called deposits for $500,000 and no one stepping forward to buy naming rights. Wow.
@jk, I work at a start up. Oakland, despite the ridciulos jibberish that baseballoakland puts out there, is not on the radar. Most start ups are based in and around Menlo Park because that is where the money comes from. There are plenty in San Francisco, Mountain View, Palo Alto, etc.
.
68 A’s fan, the A’s haven’t yet been granted permission to build a stadium in San Jose. You can read my post from a week ago about funding and the budgets of companies that have pledged “to do whatever it takes to get this project done.” not sure what else you are looking for.
@Jeffrey–with all due respect, I find Baseballoakland site very informative and not ridiculous gibberish at all. Sure, he has a pro-Oakland slant, like this site has a pro SJ slant, and that’s okay. As for tech start-ups, Oakland is starting to show up on the radar, unless the Wall St. Journal is ridiculous gibberish too.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467004575463590688048652.html
@jk-usa… do you know what a tech start up meet up is? They happen all over the bay area all the time. I go to three on a regular basis. As your article states “It is unusual, because it is Oakland.” That is hardly “on the radar.” That is not to say that it might not one day be, but it is way premature to say that there is some burgeoning tech start up free for all moving into Downtown Oakland. The premier meet up is held once a month in Palo Alto at a law office right off 101 at the University Ave off ramp. Huge companies got their start in that very room… When something like that develops in Oakland, which I am all for, then I will say it is on the radar.
.
And yes, Baseball Oakland is useless gibberish. There is nothing on that site that is reality based, just the same old bullshit that used to be all over the OAFC website, mainly because it is run by linusalf from the old OAFC site. It is opinion and slanted, and in my view doesn’t even belong mentioned in the same breath as this site and the tireless work the ML has put into objectively covering the stadium issues for years. Calling ML slanted is ridiculous… He has supported 2 plans in Oakland, one in Fremont and one in San Jose. The commenters here, sure… Slanted. The content, absolutely not.
.
Writing entire pieces that say things like… “There is nothing wrong with the coliseum playing surface,” destroy credibility. Or, “I went to a meeting about the planning process around Victory Court, and though no one brought up a baseball stadium, no one was against it when I mentioned it. Therefore, everyone is for it!” Destroy credibility. This is just two examples of the completely slanted misinformation that exists on Baseball Oakland. I have stopped reading it because it is completely ridiculous.
.
Meanwhile, I make a few calls, talk to some folks and get copies of 4 neighborhood organizations that are not really for it and are asking to have another site considered. Including the JLDA. I also reached out to people with Let’s Go Oakland and the Oakland City Government and got nothing.
.
What you have here is a site run by one guy (ML) who has his heart in journalism, wants to see a new A’s stadium and is fine wherever it is, as long as it is in the Bay Area. He is helped by another guy (me) who has no skin in the game and really doesn’t care where the team ends up in as long as it is in the Bay Area. And you just compared us to a website that was started to advocate for a ballpark in Oakland. Forgive me if that offends my sensibilities.
Jeffrey and ML – really want to thank you for taking the time and initiative in making and contributing to this blog. To me it is completely neutral and the definitive source for all A’s stadium developments with insights that look at all issues and news objectively, not subjectively.
@ML and Jeffrey—you guys do an incredible job of discovering and communicating facts for all of options that are available to the A’s—to construe either of you as pro-SJ fails to acknowledge that the more significant developments over the past several years have been coming from SJ—-what makes no sense to me is when the Oakland only crowd complains that this is a SJ site–if that’s the case than stop visiting it–and making comments on it—regardless of what anyone thinks what is said in these blogs is not influencing the ultimate outcome–but rather provides a forum for interested parties to share their knowledge and voice their opinions….
Hey Guys, no need to pat us on the back, I wasn’t fishing.
.
I invite everybody, Pro Oakland, Pro San Jose, Pro Bay Area in General to come and read.
I forgot to say thanks for the back patting, even if it was unnecessary, ha. So thanks.
@Jeffrey–I agree, you and ML are fairly neutral on most things, but it’s 95% of the followers/posters who are stubbornly pro-SJ, which makes it appear so pro SJ. That’s all I’m saying.
re: @Jeffrey–I agree, you and ML are fairly neutral on most things, but it’s 95% of the followers/posters who are stubbornly pro-SJ, which makes it appear so pro SJ. That’s all I’m saying.
Well, what do you expect? While SJ has been taking steps to woo the A’s (buying downtown properties, approaching MLB and working with Wolff), Oakland has been taking steps to banish the A’s (wrecking the existing stadium, firing the city manager for daring to suggest a downtown ballpark, bashing Wolff).
Has there even a town in history less appreciative of its MLB team than Oakland? I kind of doubt it.
@pjk–Iike I mentioned in a post a few weeks ago, Oakland has been far from perfect but did save the A’s from going to Denver in 1980 by holding Charlie Finley to his lease and finding a local ownership in the Haas family. Even if the Raiders didn’t come back and the Coli was the old Coli with a few upgrades, the Carpetbagger 1(Schottmann) and Carpetbagger 2(Wolff) would still complain about the facility being outdated and wanting to got to the SB. Wolff said back in 1995 about an A’s new home that he wouldn’t spend five minutes on any other city besides San Jose, and he wasn’t even associated with the A’s back then, so you know where his intentions were way back then. He put a minor effort in looking in Oakland but somehow won’t settle for a less than perfect site like VC. I can’t believe he wasted so much time and money on Fremont. That was the worse idea ever and the stupid name, which actually means a lot to some of us, was a bigger joke: Silicon Valley A’s of Fremont…lmao!!
@jk–where do you get your information? Ever heard of stating facts—-your bagging LW for not finding VC—who’s role is it to find a suitable location for the ballpark—the ones he was interested in the city of Oakland wasn’t interested in—here we are..18 months into Oakland’s latest death sentence and your still touting 4 sites in Oakland–3 of which have already been dismissed by the city and the 4th (VC) having serious land acquisition and infrastructure costs issues—
And please show me proof of anywhere where LW said it would be the Silicon Valley A’s of Fremont…anywhere to back up this “worse idea ever” claim you had…if the ballpark had happened in Fremont it would still be the San Jose A’s…..remember those 75 large Silicon Valley corporations that signed the most recentl SVLG letter to LW—he wants them to buy and as they stated in their letter—moving the team to San Jose….or in Fremont’s case…close to San Jose…is important to them-
Jk, I get it. I understand the rage… But seriously, Steve Schott volunteered $100M for a new stadium on the Coliseum grounds. That isn’t all that carpetbaggerish. Ken Hoffman wanted a stadium in Oakland.
.
Another thing to remember is that when Schott and Hoffman were buying the team, they were negotiating to have the Coliseum remodeled. Similar to what was planned, and eventually built, in Anaheim. They wanted to remodel the Coliseum into a baseball only facility.
.
The ONLY problem I have with the A’s is that they didn’t go after Uptown. Of course, Mayor Brown wasn’t into it either so…
.
Lew Wolff, I really have no problems with him in the stadium hunt. At all.
i dont’ know how they were gonna remodel the coliseum that would’ve made it even up to par with what these newer parks are like.
laa’s park was built specifically for baseball and then was remodeled for football when the rams moved in. the coliseum was specifically built for multi purpose venues for baseball and football.
the one huge drawback was the foul territory and even had they cut the foul territory down and added seats in it’s place, you’d still had a ton of seats far away from the field of play.
coliseum even had not been ruined, imo the a’s still would’ve needed to get a new stadium built eventually.
The A’s asked for baseball-only modifications to the Coliseum and got the destruction of Mount Davis instead.Schott and Hoffman pursued a stadium in Oakland only to have the duly elected mayor take an “over my dead body” position against a stadium in downtown Oakland. Has any other city been so dismissive of its MLB team? No. Does any city deserve to lose its MLB team more than Oakland does? No.
re: Iike I mentioned in a post a few weeks ago, Oakland has been far from perfect but did save the A’s from going to Denver in 1980
Why 1980 still matters, I don’t know. 1980 matters now as much as 1880. Oakland in the last 15 years has done nothing but hurt the A’s operations.Time for Oakland to lose its baseball team. Thanks to Oakland and Alameda County, the A’s went from having a sunny, unique ballpark into what is universally recognized as the Worst Stadium in Major League Baseball.
But I suppose some people just want to view poor Oakland as the victim here.
pjk, what does 15 years ago have to do with anything? Damn, I love stirring the pot
@jk – stubbornly pro San Jose?
.
Maybe the reason why there are so many posters in favor of SJ is because it is obviously the best location for a new ballpark. No doubt the Giants think so, otherwise they wouldn’t be fighting so hard to keep the A’s out of SCC. Even Giants fans tell me a move to SJ would be the best for the A’s
.
As with Navigator, I applaud your passion, even though IMO it’s misguided.
I’m going to agree with those folks applauding Marine Layer and Jeffrey here. I’ve been following this site since its inception and I’ve never really seen any San Jose or Oakland or Fremont-centric stance. This is a true fan site and it’s always been about what’s best for the A’s and about keeping the team in the Bay Area. I’m continually pleased by the quality work you folks do and I thank you. You are a “go to” destination for me.
-
Now, for you Oakland die-hards, I’ll say it does seem as if the site is becoming more San Jose-centric, something you guys delight in pointing out. But don’t you ever wonder why? To an unbiased observer, who used to attend lots of games in the Coliseum and is accordingly well aware of its shortcomings, it seems you all have a convenient memory lapse when it comes to how the city of Oakland has treated the A’s. Oakland hasn’t cared about the A’s for years. The A’s were just part of the background noise. They did care about the Raiders and look what that got them. They ruined the Coliseum to accommodate the Raiders—damn, Mt Davis is ugly—and looking at the Raiders’ attendance figures, we can see how well that worked. You seeing any Raiders’ home games these days?
-
I’ve said this before. Ain’t got a dog in the fight. In fact, all things being equal, I’d rather see the A’s stay in Oakland. But Oakland can’t afford the A’s. And the Raiders. And the Warriors. It’s too much for a small city with the problems Oakland’s got. Oakland chose the Raiders and the Warriors over the A’s. That’s where the money went. One would be hard-pressed to call the A’s beneficiaries of the money spent on the Coliseum for the Raiders. And who paid for the Arena upgrades? And what have the A’s gotten? IMO, Oakland’s got no legitimate beef if the A’s want to actually pay for a stadium in another Bay Area city. Why would they have a problem? The only thing Oakland could possibly offer as a counter to San Jose would be if the city offered to pay for the stadium. But that’s not going to happen.
-
Oakland guys: it’s a given that the A’s will have to pay for their new stadium. Their money. Not your money. Not mine. They’ve already said they won’t spend that money in Oakland. Read the history of how Oakland slumbered through the various offers over the years from A’s management. The attempts to get Oakland’s attention. Oakland wasn’t listening. Oakland didn’t care. So what’s Oakland’s point now in the last-minute scramble to find a place for the A’s to spend money in Oakland? The A’s won’t do it. Not in Oakland. They’ve given up on Oakland. And what’s your point, Oakland guys? Your beef is not with the A’s. You know who it’s with. And you’re not going to change reality by insisting that someone has to somehow force the A’s to build a new ballpark in Oakland when they don’t want to.
I was driving down 880 through Oakland on my way home to San Jose last night and I noticed that there isn’t a Oak street exit on the southbound side.
There is a 5th street exit but it was very evident to me driving through that area at 8:20pm at night on why the A’s refused to build there years ago.
The site is “not viable” strictly based on the existing freeway and road infrastructure that would need to be addressed in an EIR.
No EIR would get validated with the way things are in that area right now and it would cost millions to make the necessary changes, not to mention the land acquisition that would need to take place on top of this rather large problem.
The speed limit in that area is 55 mph and it was congested even at 8pm at night. During the daytime or rush hour it is such a mess that it is not even worth it.
The site is not “less that perfect” it is “far from perfect” and there is no way an EIR would pass in that area period with the city/county putting in millions to renovate the freeway and road infrastructure there.
If that is the “best” site Oakland has then it is truly over for them.
A part of me was thinking Oakland might have a chance with Victory Court but after seeing it last night for myself…..San Jose A’s in 2014 or 2015.
Counting chickens as usual…
@Sid–and what makes you such an expert on an EIR? Just a drive by? I know you want the A’s in SJ as much as LW does, maybe even more, but I think VC is a cool area, less than perfect, but viable. They said how messed up Pacbell would be traffic and parking wise wise and it wasn’t as bad as they thought.
Okay, back up plan: 980 decking site.
I’m not at all familiar with the Victory Court site but if access is as bad Sid said, that should eliminate it from consideration. The 49ers don’t want to consider Hunter’s Point because of poor freeway access; PacBell Park, meanwhile, has 280 emptying right onto it and the Bay Bridge not all that far.
The San Jose site can be pointed to easily from Route 87. Routes 101, 880 and 280 also are nearby, as well as the Diridon train station and bus station.
FWIW, the only thing keeping Oakland in this game is an artificial constraint MLB stupidly imposed on itself: with territorial “rights,” not being intelligent enough to know that Frisco and San Jose are two separate places separated by 45 miles. Oakland simply has zero advantages over San Jose. Nada.
It’s not at all as bad as he’s making it out to be. The only problem I see is when trains are comming through causing traffic to stop, so they would need a solution for that. Ironically it seems most convenient for people comming from the south, closest exit puts you right on Oak St. essentially right next to where the park would be. Yes southbound isn’t as convenient but heads you right there, less than a quarter mile from the ramp. Not a problem at all. Train problem, yes.
Ralph, as I understand it (and I will freely admit that I am not a traffic engineer) the off ramps do cause challenges because they both end in a dead end 90 degree turn, which causes traffic backups now without a ballpark and 10,000 cars. The only alternatives are surface streets (like Embarcadero) that require crossing through, over or around train tracks (assuming Oakland builds an under or over pass).
.
It is part of the reason Jack London Square has always been “the next big thing.” it is not easy to get too.
@Jeffrey–a few weeks ago, about 100k over 3 days found there way to the EatReal Festival at JLS and really enjoyed it–I did.. The place was hopping. Parking was a minor pain in the area, but they had shuttles from DT to the Sq.. I notice a ton of bikes there. A lot of people form SF taking their bikes on Bart and biking it to to JLS. With VC, you’ll have LM Bart 1/3rd of a mile away, a straight shot down Oak. Pretty convenient I’d say. That’s the way I’d go to games. What is your biggest thing against VC? I wonder what LW’s biggest thing against it, besides that it’s in Oakland and not SJ. The view’s may not as be as scenic towards the estuary as DT Oak, but DT SJ’s skyline lacks any kind of character. Probably the blandest skyline of any major city I’ve been to and I’ve been to a lot of them.
jk-usa, VC’s biggest challenge is transportation. This isn’t something I am making up, this is reality. JLS has had trouble attracting consistent traffic (for decades) because it is a pain in the ass to get to/around even when there aren’t a lot of people down there. In recent years, they have improved parking by building some garages, but it doesn’t improve the freeway infrastructure, or make the trains go away. Those things can be improved, it is just a question of how and how much.
.
Sometime back (2004?), there was a study done about transportation options in JLS/Waterfront. It included options like a BART station (which was astronomical in cost because of the way the tracks are laid out as they pass through the area). The suggested option was for Oakland to build out a street car network connecting Uptown, JLS and Lake Merritt BART (I think those 3 points, I haven’t read it in a while). There were a couple of options presented that were also doable. The shuttle buses are a step in that direction, or a similar concept. For JLS to really be an attraction, something bold like the street car idea is going to have to happen, amongst other things.
.
The view of Alameda and the estuary, the freeway flyover that runs along the length of the “parcel,” and other sort of aesthetic things are what they are at VC. They can be polished in the design. I don’t think of those as a barrier or a bonus. I’d love a skyline view, but it is what it is in all proposals, not much of one.
.
What I980 and Diridon both have over Victory Court is that they have an area where you can imagine a plaza. At I980 it would be between 980 and downtown, pedestrian traffic coming form 2 BART stations would pass right through there on the way to the stadium. At Diridon, there is the HP Pavilion at one end, a train station in the middle, and the proposed ball ark at the other end. Creating an urban entertainment district framed in by 87.
@jeffrey–good post. I see where you’re coming from. A plaza would be cool, but shouldn’t be a deal breaker at VC. LW wanted something like that in Fremont with a Santana Row type deal in there, surrounded by condos. Trying to create an urban environment in a suburban area. But talk about a pain to get to with no Bart. And they were still having people walk far for parking through the box stores of Pac. Commons. I would take any Oak location or even SJ’s plan over that.
@jk-usa- You are correct I am not a Civil Engineer (Though I was an Electrical Engineer) but it does not take an engineer to see the transportation issues at VC and the headache it would cause. The trains and bad freeway infrastructure would cause major back up on to 880 (which is already bad during the day/evenings) and city streets.
Granted you may take BART but a majority have to drive to the game and that is a fact. Pac Bell has several ways to get to the game and leave from it therefore their EIR passed. I-280 ends and starts there and you can get to a game on I-280 North with minimal traffic during rush hour in the evening because everyone lives off 101 and Highway 1, hence why those two are always packed in the evening.
I-980 has nothing around it and unless they decide to build some type of development to support the stadium it is a non-starter. That was “one” of the reasons why MLB eliminated that particular site. The conversation on I-980 needs to stop for this reason as it will “never happen” because of the BRC eliminating it.
Now if Oakland is willing to put millions of dollars into re-doing the freeway infrastructure in the VC area then I say it is a good site because of the points you make about it being near the water and JLS.
Even with perfect funding it would take 8-10 years to make it happen if cost overruns do not kill it first.
The A’s do not have a choice now but to move to San Jose because of this.
@Sid–Hmm, 8 to 10 years to make it happen at VC? I can wait; I’m very patient. I’ll still be only 56-58, retired, collecting my union pension at 55 and will enjoy the last 25 years of my life (hopefully) watching my A’s at VC. Can LW wait? I doubt it. Can he wait for San Jose? Barely.
Jk, MLB wants a plaza. Or more specifically, they want an ancillary area that enhances the overall fan experience. This was shared at a San Jose walking tour. As a fan, I think that should be important. I want an environment like Yawkey and Landsdowne in Boston. I’d settle for what is along the 3rd Base side in San Francisco.
.
If MLB really believes it will take 8 to 10 years, don’t be surprised if they aren’t willing to wait.
@Jeffrey–what’s up with BS not building his new ballpark in DT Milwaukee, having a plaza and all, instead keeping them on the old site? Brewer fans love their tail-gating, but BS loves that parking revenue even more and it was cheaper overall to build there, not requiring land to purchase. Kind of like if the A’s built on the existing Coli parking lot, which I was for of course, but would prefer anywhere DT.
I’ve read several articles criticizing BS for not building in DT Milw., which could of really used the boost of activity.
Yeah, Milwaukee is kind of odd. No idea why they didn’t do it downtown, I know the city leaders wanted it downtown.
.
Though, Miller Park is pretty fabulous. Watching games on TV don’t do that park justice.
Don’t do, ugh. That should be “doesn’t do” but, I think you know what I mean.
Hey jeffrey, are you also Jeffrey? Just want to make sure I’m not talking to another jeffrey. And I see that you’re Jeffro on AN. There’s a Jeffrey B. that used to post OAFC. That’s not you is it? I don’t post on either site, but do check them out now and then along with baseballoakland. I do post sometimes on LetsGoOakland on FB. That site is spammed to death. We keep bugging Doug Boxer to weed these vermin out.
I am Jeffrey August. Jeffrey, jeffrey, jeffro and not Jeffrey B.
@Jeffrey August. Jeffrey, jeffrey, jeffro. Got it! — and keep up the good work :)