Will reason win out?
- 12.30.11, 11:21
- 78 Comments
In light of the big redevelopment news, it might be easy to forget that there was plenty of other news from earlier in the week. Susan Slusser’s article featuring Peter Magowan had a poll attached. Normally I don’t bother with polls (notice how there haven’t been any on this site for a long time). In this case the poll had over 2,000 respondents, plus the question and responses were well-phrased, so I’ve been following the results (it’s still up if you haven’t voted).
Results as of 12/30, approximately 11:00 AM
The three camps are pretty well delineated: the pragmatists/realists, the Giants-only crowd, and Oakland holdouts. At this point, the pragmatists hold a sizable lead over everyone else, albeit a plurality, not a majority. The holdouts are in the Quan position, though there’s no instant runoff here. And the SF-only voters simply need to have some sense knocked into them because they’re greedy dickheads.
Sure, there are a lot of people in the leading group who are not actually pragmatic, they’re really pro-San Jose. Many are longtime A’s fans, many are not. I can tell you that most of the people I correspond with are silent majority types – they are overly vocal or passionate about either San Jose or Oakland. They just want this whole ordeal sorted out so they can get back to cheering on the green and gold. The real danger is in losing a large percentage of these fans to apathy or disgust. At Mayor Quan’s press conference, Doug Boxer told me that among the parties working to move or keep the team, there is no one with clean hands, which is absolutely correct. It’s all this out-in-the-open maneuvering – done by A’s ownership, Giants ownership, and the cities – that is chipping away at the fanbase.
Do the owners of either team care? Obviously not, as ends justify means here for whomever wins. The cities? Sure, insofar as they’re buddying up with business and civic leaders, not so much citizens. I’ve mentioned before that the Athletics-Oakland saga is akin to a divorce, so it was going to get messy. Signs are pointing to some kind of resolution soon. After that, the big issue will be dealing with the mess all of this has created. It may take an entire generation to wash the stink out of this.
I don’t have children, but a lot of the regulars here have multiple kids that they’re raising as A’s fans. I want there to be an A’s in the Bay Area for those kids as much as for myself. That’s why I keep doing this. Compared to everything else that’s happening in the world it’s beyond trivial, I know. The A’s are still a big part of the community, and of my life. Hopefully 2012 will mark an end to the politics, one way or another. Here’s to hope. Catch you next year.
@Jerry- Piccinni says that it was the gints who destroyed his chance for owning the team-because- they want the A’s out of the Bay Area- knowing how useless the city of Oakland has been on the ballpark issue over the past 15 years LW is a hero in my mind for working as hard as he has to keep the team here in the Bay Area- I wold prefer to have a competitive team in a new ballpark around 2015 than pretend we can compete with Texas or LA in the same shitty hole with the same shitty support-
eb,
It is what it is….to use a tired phrase. SJ is a behemoth that looked out on the landscape and came to the inevitable conclusion that they are the safest bet for MLB. And you know what? They’re right. As mentioned, a community with a 400K population is at a serious disadvantage when playing the “civic pride” game. The East Bay may have been a cultural touchstone in the past, but things change. SJ is most definately ascendant, and nothing in the forseeable future will change that fact. The A’s are merely seeking a mutually profitable arrangement with the best suitor. So it goes.
One thing that is overlooked here is how SJ will react if they are thwarted by MLB. If anyone truly has nothing to lose if they are denied the right to the A’s is SJ. They could very well make life very uncomfortable for MLB if they are denied. Talk about an entity with the capability of the nuclear option….why wouldn’t they challend the AT exemption if they are denied? Civic pride and all….
i still think raiders end up with the niners in the santa clara stadium. nfl i think wants two teams in that stadium so the niners themselves aren’t just the only tenant there. wouldn’t the nfl chip in more money themselves too like they did with the nyj/nyg when they decided to play again in the same venue with metlife stadium. the raiders sign a ten year lease meaning they’ll play from around 2014/15 until the early 2020s. by then will they look elsewhere to build a stadium or remain at the niners stadium. neither teams fanbases will like it but that’s i think the most realistic option out there.
…
la? chargers likely will be moving to la and i’m guessing the nfl one of these teams in the rams, jaguars, or vikings move there too. said it before but it maybe tough for the nfl to schedule a home game for a team that plays in the same division together if they decide to move both the raiders and chargers in to that single la stadium.
Jerry,
As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, I understand the passion of wanting something can override calm, logical and collected thought. I believe that happens to everyone at points in their lives. With that said, you and the rest of the Stadium in Oakland No Matter What are a frustrating group, Time and time and time again with the posts that are contrived and, at best, leave out facts to suit your ultimate motive (again, at best). IMHO these types of posts are wasted effort here. There are too many factual posts that speak to the facts and reality of the situation. These posts drown out your dis/misinformation.
If you can’t look at the situation and say the following: ***I can’t believe how appallingly bad Oakland leaders/pols handled the A’s stadium situation*** then you have voluntarily chosen to close your eyes to the truth. Consequently, you will continue to waste your energy on writing posts that I suspect even you, deep down, know are lacking a honest and realistic basis.
Sorry if that is less than cordial…..
Civic Pride for someone who lives in Pleasanton has nothing to do with Oakland. That is not a criticism of Oakland. Regional pride, which is sort of nebulous, has people identify with the cultural center of the region. That is San Francisco for most people in the Bay Area. Walk around Walnut Creek and count A’s hats and Raiders gear and do the same for Giant’s gear and 49ers. Hardly scientific, but I think those who beat the “Oakland as East Bay cultural center” might be surprised.
Will reason win out? YES! Happy New Years! 2012′s gonna be awesome!
@Tony D.
I concur
——-
and short the Euro.
@Jefferey Walnut Creek or Pleasanton, maybe not. San Leandro, Alameda, Berkeley, Richmond, etc. yes. I get your point though.
Although, I have noticed a distinct us vs them East/West Bay mentality among long time East Bay residents even if there is no Oakland connection. Maybe, it’s not as apparent in places like WC where there are a lot of commuters to SF or there are recent transplants. It’s definitely there though. Just like there is a lot of San Jose vs. SF posts put on here.
I’m just happy if the A’s remain the anti-SF team.
Happy New Year, bitches!
@Al
—-
Since the day that the meglomaniac John McGraw nicknamed the then Philly Athletics the “White Elephants” – long live the anti-Gnats franchise!
Have a great new year everyone, be safe out there. Go A’s!
OT-Murray Chass chimes in on the A’s situation. http://www.murraychass.com/?p=4165
Another national sports writer talking about the A’s situation–I like how he summarizes the situation-
“It has been nearly three years since MLB Commissioner Bud Selig commissioned a panel to figure out if the Barons of Baseball, the 29 owners who don’t own Lewis Wolff’s Oakland Athletics franchise, should allow Wolff to relocate his team from Oakland to San Jose. In what should have taken no more than a day to decide, Selig’s panel was dragged their collective feet because they cannot figure out certain questions such as is San Jose a better corporate community than Oakland? The answer to that is yes. Would an Athletics franchise move from Oakland to the southern part of the San Francisco Bay change the San Francisco Bay Area television market? No, Wolff’s A’s share the TV market with the San Francisco Giants. Is there government support for Wolff in building a stadium in San Jose? Yes.”
http://www.examiner.com/business-of-sports-in-national/is-california-dreamin-still-a-sports-reality
Not the best article actually. He’s got tons of things wrong including dates and basic facts…
His point on the A’s is on mark–an easy decision when you look at the facts logically—
Something that I have never really understood, is what exactly happened to the Fremont Project? It seems like Lew gave up on the project very easily, but maybe I am missing something? I understand that there were some NIMBY’s who were opposed to it, but did they have any legal standing and even if they did, wouldn’t the A’s have been able to overcome the objections?
The Fremont project was going to be funded by selling housing alongside the ballpark. But the housing market died. Also impacting it were objections by some Big Box retailers and Warm Springs homeowners
The NIMBYs in Fremont at Pacific Crossing had contractual standing as I understand it that made that deal unworkable. And the neighborhood association near 680 had enough clout to make the city very uncomfortable moving forward politically with the NUMMI north site. Not to mention the years of lawsuits they’d have brought to block it. On top of the financial reality that the funding model in Fremont collapsed with the housing market.
But dont those same threats of years of lawsuits exist with the current San Jose sight, I am guessing that they dont give up so easily in this one…
@wacchampions – Not really. The EIR has been certified twice, covering instances of a large stadium and a small one, and addressing additional concerns about traffic and parking in the process. Considering how many large projects get multiple lawsuits, the fact that the San Jose project only has one – and a shaky one at that – puts it on good footing.
Do we know there will only be one lawsuit? Is there a sone sort of deadline for filing lawsuits on this project?
No there’s no limit of when they can be filed. Anyone can attempt to sue anyone else at any time for any legally relevant reason. I mean look what happened in San Diego. They got 15% of the way built and then were shut down for over a year due to a lawsuit. There’s always someone out there who can gum up the works. What really matters is can they ultimately succeed. Because even though anyone can file a suit it doesn’t mean they’ll succeed in the end, particularly against someone with more money than them (Wolff and MLB).
Cool….I understand, but Marine Layer, what were the actual reasons that they bailed out on Fremont so quickly, without much fight, or was there a big fight that I just missed? It seems like Lew complains a lot about the money that he spent in Fremont and it not getting done, but it doesn’t seem like they pushed very hard once they got a small bit of resistance.
@wacchampions – Let’s just say there were plenty of convenient excuses for Wolff to bail on Fremont when he did. The real reason was the economy.
Should we just start bombarding Selig’s office everyday until we get an answer?
The examiner article mentioned above states
“Because the Supreme Court of the United States gave the National League an antitrust exemption in 1922, the Lords of the Diamonds don’t play by usual business rules and that has blocked Wolff’s attempt to enter San Jose”
This is not accurate because the AT exemption was given to Major League Baseball, not to the actual teams,
MLB is not trying to block the move anyway, the Giants are…. With the Exemption,.MLB can dictate where teams are placed, not an individual club.The author also mentions that the Giants can’t hide behind the ATE, but that is really because it has nothing to do with them anyway.