SJ likely to push election back to Spring 2011

Thanks to MLB’s indecision, the deadline to get a ballot initiative ready for a March special election in San Jose will elapse, forcing San Jose to put the ballpark question on the ballot to April 12 or June 7. Mayor Chuck Reed clearly showed his frustration, though he took a moment to spin it in a more positive manner.

“The commissioner’s delay is certainly making it more difficult to figure out when is the best time to go to the voters,” said Reed, who added that he has been “pestering” Selig weekly for a meeting but has yet to make contact.

For now, Reed and the city council has no choice but to wait for MLB’s decision.

“The more time we have to make those decisions, the better,” he said.

Potentially complicating matters is a possible statewide tax measure, which could be floated by Jerry Brown in an attempt to make up for ongoing deficits. Anti-tax voters may have a negative view of a ballpark measure, even if it doesn’t have a tax or bond component attached to it. That could also be counteracted by pro-ballpark voters, it’s hard to tell.

Of course, pushing the measure back a month or two also pushes the deadline back the same amount. If MLB doesn’t make its decision in the newly extended timeframe (whatever that is), we could see this drag on until the 2011 general election.

38 thoughts on “SJ likely to push election back to Spring 2011

  1. A’s in SJ would destroy the Giants ticket/sponsorship revenue? PLEASE!! Got proof? Of course not! And it still amazes that the lies continue to live regarding a ballpark taking away from essential city services. People really need to educate themselves on what “Privately financed” means. I still say NO Vote, since one won’t technically be necessary; even more unnecessary if Wolff buys the land.

  2. Well, at least Oakland is moving forward. See ya’ll tomorrow.

  3. Excellent sarcasm GJ10!

  4. @GoJohn10–I will be there tomorrow. First 75 people get a free “STAY” shirt from Oaklandish.Can’t see any of the guys on here wearing that except me, Ethan and one of the David’s.
    Good to see Oakland get some positive buzz for a change, and SJ some not so positive buzz.

    • @GoJohn10–I will be there tomorrow. First 75 people get a free “STAY” shirt from Oaklandish.Can’t see any of the guys on here wearing that except me, Ethan and one of the David’s.Good to see Oakland get some positive buzz for a change, and SJ some not so positive buzz.

      Questions: What “positive buzz” for Oakland? Did they ink a naming rights deal worth $130 million? And how in any way is this latest development negative “buzz” for San Jose? Again, considering a ballpark won’t open at Diridon until 2014-2015. Oh what’s the use!

  5. Does Oakland have the money yet to buy the 22 parcels comprising the Victory Court site? Didn’t think so. Well, Santa Claus will be in town again soon so maybe he will have $1 billion to make the new Oakland ballpark happen.

  6. @pjk–does BS have the 3/4ths vote to overturn the TR’s? I don’t think so, so Santa Claus ain’t coming to San Jose this X-mas.
    BTW, the A’s (Stomper, Cahill and Anderson) will actually be at the Oakland Children’s Holiday Parade on Broadway this Saturday, which they was passed up last last year and were criticized in favor of several south bay events. They’ll also be at San Jose’s Christmas Parade on Sunday, but will be overshadowed by the SF Giant’s, who will be Honorary Grand Marshal’s at the parade…lmao. See, SF Giant’s Country it is!!! The G’s are having a parade in San Jose, and just adding a Christmas theme around it!! lol.
    Both parades get huge crowds of 100k. I’m going to Oakland’s, but not SJ’s of course.

  7. It’s almost as if you’re a parody of yourself now…

  8. re: Does BS have the 3/4ths vote to overturn the TR’s? I don’t think so, so Santa Claus ain’t coming to San Jose this X-mas.

    Once again, a belief that San Jose losing means Oakland wins. Not the case. If the A’s can’t go to San Jose, Oakland has nothing to offer to keep them: No site, no plan, no money, no corporate support. Just a 45-year-old stadium wrecked by Oakland against the A’s wishes. So it’s most likely San Jose or some place far away from the Bay Area, or maybe even contraction.

  9. As far as the territorial rights thing is concerned, owners will be asked if they want to each continue writing a seven-figure check every year to csubsidize the A’s in Oakland, or if they to make money by letting them move further away from Frisco than they are now. Oakland’s long record of dismal fan support of the A’s is costing each of these owners bigtime $$$.

  10. For some reason, JK was conspicuously absent from the last thread about Oakland. JK have a read:

    “And running around bitching about how unfairly Lew Wolff treats Oakland while doing absolutely nothing to further the goal of offering a viable stadium site is whining. While Oakland sat around feeling all put upon and pouting about being rejected and claiming there are tons of great ballpark locations all over Oakland if your ignore all the feasibility problems with them, San Jose, without any guarantee or even real reason to believe they could land the team, identified a site, bought up most of the land, certified an EIR, and built up significant community support for their proposal. That’s what being serious looks like.”

  11. BTW JK – From the other thread also: “No more A’s in my life from that point on. It will NEVER be the same in SJ. I’d follow them more if they went back to Philly over SJ.” By this statement, you have a direct issue with SJ and its residence which many people on this site are. You made a trivial decision (staying in Bay Area, generating additional revenue for a more competitive team, increasing the fanbase, etc.) into a personal vendetta between Oakland (which you don’t reside in) and SJ. Why? Did someone in SJ run over your grandmother or something?

  12. @pjk–we know one thing BS did say, is that contraction is off the table for the A’s. Players union wouldn’t go for it. Where can they go outside of the area? Portland? Vegas? NC? Salt Lake? NJ?
    No, no, no, no and no. Put them up for sale and keep them in Oakland, and this time don’t have “the Lodge” turn down a qualified group. That’s my x-mas present.

  13. If contraction is off the table and so is San Jose, then the options are these: Continue losing big $$ every year playing in a football stadium or move to some faraway place. Oakland has no money, no plan, no site and no corporate support. Do you really think MLB is going to make the A’s stay at the Coliseum forever?

    For the 80th time, nothing is stopping a group of investors from coming forward and expressing their interest in spending $1 billion of their own money on the franchise, ballpark and land, with no corporate or public support. Why haven’t we seen this happen? Because such an endeavor would be pure folly.

  14. @ST–i got nothing against SJ. It’s a find burb (if you’re into burbs), and the 10th largest city in the US, with a very low crime rate, but IMO, is far removed from the real bay area and is rather dull visually. Doesn’t have that east bay funk to it. I am against a carpetbagger owner who’s had a hard-on to move the A’s to SJ since 1998, before he even owned the club!
    I could handle if the A’s stayed in a nearby city like E-Vile, Alameda, Berk, or San Leandro and kept the name Oakland A’s. But this move to an area so different from where they’ve played for the last 43 years is just wrong. And many people share the same feelings I have.

  15. Yes, the A’s in Oakland have been such a smash hit, such a part of Oakland lore, that Charlie Finley wanted to move the team as early as 1974, a mere six years after he got there. And then in 1995, Oakland and Alameda county ruined the stadium. So where are the investors ready to spend $1 billion on the team, ballpark and land in Oakland? Where are they?

    Why is it wrong for the A’s to want to leave a situation where they have been flat-out treated with disdain?

  16. @pjk–i’m hoping the City and LGO are looking for an investment group as we speak, because Wolff doesn’t want any part of Oakland if their VC site is a go or not.
    Last post for the nite for me. I’m going to the meeting tomorrow at city hall. Should be interesting.

  17. re: move to an area so different from where they’ve played for the last 43 years is just wrong

    Why is it wrong to want to move from a place that has offered abysmal fan support to a place that might just offer outstanding fan support? Like saying, “You’ve been dirt poor your whole life. To want to be rich now is just plain wrong.”

  18. Jk,
    Have a great time at the Oakland “rally” today. You deserve it. By the way, shouldn’t those free t-shirts read “PAY!” instead of “stay?”

  19. @tonyd–thanks, I will. No rally planned tonight like last time in 2002 with Uptown. People were ticked off that no rep for the A’s was there. Wolff obviously won’t be there tonight. He’s never driven north of 66th Ave.
    Cheap shot on the “PAY” shirts. I’ll just have to keep hammering your guy’s messiah, the big bad Wolff for that one.

  20. Oakland: No money, no plan, no site, no corporate backing. And complete dismissal of the A’s for years and years, to go with the dismal fan support. But oh, they sure want the team to stay. Once again, this all reminds me of that old Shel Silverstein song, “Put Another Log on the Fire,” where this guy treats his woman like garbage for the whole song and then ends it asking, “Now come and tell me why you’re leaving me?”

  21. “i got nothing against SJ. It’s a find burb (if you’re into burbs), and the 10th largest city in the US, with a very low crime rate, but IMO, is far removed from the real bay area and is rather dull visually. Doesn’t have that east bay funk to it. ” …. Utterly moronic.

  22. @Pacifico, whether you are right or not doesn’t really matter. Bottomline is that the A’s for the most part have not drawn well in Oakland.

  23. We all know jk has a “few screws” loose in his head as do most Pro-Oakland fans. We just have to accept him for who he is and his viewpoints…Regardless of how “off” they are from reality.

    San Jose is a part of the “real Bay Area”….It is only the largest city in the Bay Area. But how does that matter??

    Oakland fans have this “sense of entitlement” that is about to be squashed as the owners are having their winter meetings coming up from Dec 6-9.

    That is next week guys and San Jose will be given the green light to “explore” the ballpark for the A’s. The 3/4 vote will be made at this meeting to not change TR rights now but to allow the A’s to look at San Jose to see if they can get a new ballpark done.

    If it is going to get done then the 3/4 vote will be retro-active to the December meetings coming up and the TR change will be made in the charter and only then will the owners discuss compensation for the Giants.

    Why change the TR unless the A’s actually move to San Jose? Makes sense overall, this way they do not have to pay the Giants anything unless something happens that requires them to.

    All Pro-Oakland fans will be feeling real queasy in about 2 weeks….

  24. I wish (SJ A’s fans) would stop letting jk-usa, get under your skin. Nothing against jk, i’m with him in the pro-Oakland base. But constantly denigrating Oakland because of frustration with him, makes this blog seem “unfriendly”. All should be welcome to air there vies, constructively, staying on topic and if you disagree … don’t take it out on the city of Oakland, or the respectful fans who read this blog. I know every blog has lurkers, if its a constant “cat fight”, others will just not contribute.

    @pjk – there are at least 5 recents posts where you say the same thing … “Oakland doesn’t have: a, b, c, or d ….” …. we get it man … you made your point. I disagree, but i understand how you see things.

    Now, lets have a nice EIR meeting tonight (i think there might be a surprise or two..) and did you hear the news? The A’s met with Adam Dunn yesterday!! That guy could hit them out the old Yankee stadium with the DEEP left-center wall!!

  25. re: Oakland fans have this “sense of entitlement”

    …Precisely.

  26. @pjk — thanks for doing your part man ………………………………………………………………………………….

  27. Sid,
    Hope your right. What you’re describing is the “dream scenario” for this SJ booster. However, can’t get to excited (or excited at all for that matter) until I see something official from MLB/Lew Wolff. R.M. knows I’ve been wanting this A’s to SJ thing to happen for over 6 years now, and there’ve been many who’ve came to this site and posted what they know, who they know, and what’s going to happen. Alas, we still don’t know what going to go down in the next few weeks or next few months; all we can do is hope. It’s been two years since “Shocker News” and a year since the SF Magazine article; hopefully, at long last, let’s hope this thing is coming to a head.

  28. Sid’s scenario sounds like it makes perfect sense – let the A’s explore San Jose. If a commitment can be forged, then dump the t-rights. This whole thing with the “blue ribbon committee” has dragged on for nearly two years now and it seems obvious they have found that Oakland doesn’t work anymore, if it ever really did (for reference – see post above about Charlie Finley and 1974).

  29. I hope Sid is right, however I have a hard time believing what anybody says on this board. I’ve become a pessimist. I have a bad feeling that there will be no discussion about the A’s at next week’s owners meetings (just like November’s.) And if that happens, when is the next time the owners meet? Next off-season?

  30. They can play in the santa Cruz mountains for all I care. MLB just needs to make some kind of decision ASAP!

  31. @David: I for one hear you, and do my part…I’m pro-Oakland (which doesn’t mean I’m anti-SJ, because I’m not)…and I get slammed all the time even though I’ve been coming to this blog religiously for years…I don’t really comment any more because I’m so sick of repeating myself…BTW I’ll be at the meeting for sure, haven’t missed one yet…

  32. Selig doesn’t have a consensus(or enough votes) amongst the owners yet, plain and simple. I’m beginning to wonder if this has less to do with baseball in San Jose than baseball in New Jersey. (Or San Bernardino)

  33. Maybe MLB is simply as underwhelmed by a South Bay location as I am.

  34. Yes, they must be underwhelmed by the Sharks’ 100% attendance in San Jose compared to the 25% the A’s get in Oakland.

  35. That’s the point. They’re not looking at hockey attendance. Or any of the other “San Jose is for lovers” bullet points that pass for demographic analysis around here.

  36. @planet, think about it, if MLB really thought Oakland was a better option than San Jose, why would we have to wait at least 2 years to hear anything from them? There must be something they see which is causing them to seriously consider San Jose.

  37. Pingback: Major League Baseball continues to keep the Athletics in limbo | HardballTalk

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