Fun with assumptions

A new editorial in the Contra Costa Times takes a wait-and-see approach to Oakland’s efforts to retain the A’s.

Over at the Merc, Todd W. Smith, the lawyer representing the “citizens” group Stand for San Jose, outlined their rationale for rewriting the San Jose ballpark EIR. So far the response from the city has been, “We’re already doing that.” While the idea that the ballpark will be a drain on city services sounds downright hypocritical coming from a team who accepted public funds in much the same vein recently, there is plenty of room for revision in the EIR. Smith wouldn’t let it end there, including in his submission an argument coming completely out of left field.

Before we get into that, let’s take a look at his major bullet points.

Updating the potential traffic impacts on Interstate 880 from A’s fans driving down from Alameda and Contra Costa counties

Since the original EIR did not specify a specific baseball team, traffic patterns were drawn from an area equidistant from the ballpark site. It did not factor in existing A’s fans coming in the the East Bay. Now that the A’s are the target, the focused study will indeed include some percentage of fans from the East Bay. I’m curious about the percentage of fans they are forecasting, and where they might get the numbers from.

Analyzing if the original environmental impact report certified in 2007, before current talks with the A’s began, considered whether a stadium in the Diridon/Arena area was consistent with San Jose’s land use policies

The Diridon/Arena Plan was written in 2003, well before the current ballpark effort started. It makes no mention of a ballpark, and only discusses high speed rail in the most fleeting of ways. During the original ballpark EIR process, the Diridon/Arena Plan was referenced frequently, with great care to ensure that the ballpark fell without design guidelines and plan objectives. This included compatibility with redone traffic, bike, and pedestrian circulation, newly planned parks and open spaces, and development. The obvious difference is that a ballpark would supplant either medium-density residential or tower office space on the Diridon South parcels. There are more than enough precedents to say that the uses are entirely compatible. During the study session, at least one commenter asked if the ballpark would be better suited for a less dense San Jose parcel such as the 237/Zanker site or the County Fairgrounds. To use either those sites instead of Diridon would be a terrible example of land use, since they would only invite more sprawl, car trips, and discourage public transit use.

Studying the impacts of residential, commercial and mixed-use projects proposed near the stadium site.

While the residential neighborhoods nearby have been studied, it’s difficult to say how the six blocks between the ballpark and the arena will be impacted. As part of infrastructure building, those six blocks will be mostly wiped clean with the possibility of one block becoming a parking garage for the ballpark. The area could be dug up for years as VTA waits for the cut-and-cover construction for the BART tunnel to commence. Initially, most of that area will end up as surface parking to satisfy requirements for both venues.

Now for the bit of crazy:

Finally, Smith said the revised report must analyze the potential for urban decay around the Oakland Coliseum that could result from the A’s relocation.

… In his letter, Smith says the Oakland Coliseum, where the A’s now play, is a centerpiece in the city’s Coliseum Redevelopment Area Plan. Since the A’s use the Coliseum more than any other tenant, their exit would mean the facility could sit empty and unused on at least 81 additional dates.

Ah, so now the A’s will be responsible for contributing to the failure of the Coliseum Redevelopment Area Plan! Look, we’re talking about a vast amount of East Oakland, stretching from the Central Estuary and Fruitvale to the San Leandro border. Much of the area immediately around the Coliseum complex is zoned light or heavy industrial with small pockets of transit-oriented development near Coliseum BART. The plan doesn’t allow for mixed use along Hegenberger. Many plots of land would require massive cleanup prior to proper redevelopment. An October report on area blight shows how consequential the A’s are to the current economic situation there:

  • Employment in the Coliseum Redevelopment Area was estimated at 51,300 jobs in 2005 (p. 9). That makes the A’s responsible for less than 1% of the jobs in the area.
  • Deteriorated and dilapidated property is prevalent throughout the area, with the exception of the Airport subarea. More than 15 percent of surveyed parcels were categorized as deteriorated or dilapidated (16 percent – 26 percent, the latter high percentage in Central East Oakland) in all subareas except the Airport subarea (p. 32). In 2006, Lew Wolff proposed the Coliseum North plan that would’ve transformed up to 200 acres of the area into new mixed development. Area landowners were unwilling to sell and Wolff wasn’t interested in eminent domain, so the plan died on the vine. Even if that development had taken flight, there’s no way that one of the most economically depressed regions of the Bay Area would’ve suddenly been cured of its ills. Unfortunately, the problems in East Oakland go well beyond the impact of a cash infusion – one which would’ve received backlash due to likely gentrification.

Ultimately there’s only so much the A’s can do for a community. A typical MLB franchise pulls in a little more that $100 million in local revenue annually, which is about as much as a medium-sized business. While a pro sports franchise gets disproportionate amounts of media coverage, that coverage doesn’t directly translate into economic benefit for anyone other than those associated with the team, which is why I tend to look at any economic impact report with a somewhat jaundiced eye. What’s ironic is that Smith didn’t mention that none of the three sites being proposed by Oakland for a ballpark are in the Coliseum area. Any of those sites would provide much the same blight-adding effects to the Coliseum Redevelopment Area.

53 thoughts on “Fun with assumptions

  1. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid! How can this Todd Smith character look himself in the mirror every morning!

    For the record, the City of SJ is currently working on the EIR. How can something be “seriously flawed” if it isn’t even finished yet?! Is there going to be increased traffic on 880, 680, and downtown streets? Of course! Heck, there would be increased traffic if corporate towers or housing was put in at Diridon South; it’s called living in the big city! But again, one of the allures of Diridon South will be its transit connectivity: currently VTA light rail/bus, Caltrain, ACE, Amtrak CC. In the future, High-Speed rail, HSR ACE and BART. Funny how Smith conveniently ignores all of that. I wonder how he gets to games at AT&T Park? Is he appalled by the traffic on 101, 280, and 80?

    Now the fun part; A’s moving to SJ resulting in decay at the Coliseum. Coming out of left field? Try coming out of the tarped-third deck! What, are the A’s supposed to stay at the Coliseum until Kingdom come because blight will join blight? Were similar study’s completed for the following: Giants move from Candlestick to Phone-Co. Park, Padres move from Jack Murphy (Qualcomm) to Petco Park, Lakers move from The Forum to Staples Center, The Raiders from the Coliseum to LA and then back???
    I tell yah; this backdoor SF Giants campaign to keep the A’s out of San Jose is getting more ridiculous everyday. Hopefully Selig and MLB come in soon to squash all of this nonsense!

  2. Another note: as I’ve learned regarding my support for our future High-Speed rail system, no EIR is perfect. Heck, I don’t think you’ll find a “perfect” EIR for any of the thousands of development projects completed across this State. If you’re against a certain project you can always find “flaws” and file lawsuits (see Frivolous) based on you’re assumptions. But as the survivor of 15-lawsuits Petco Park proves, suing or claiming “seriously flawed” almost never fly’s (thankfully). And in the extreme case where flaws are found, you can simply amend an EIR and life goes on.

    Question R.M., or anyone: In order to claim somthing, like traffic data, is “seriously flawed,” don’t you have to come back with your own hard-data on traffic? In essence, a counter-EIR?

  3. Last note: The City of San Jose ISN’T responsible for Oakland’s development and/or redevelopment issues (urban decay, fighting blight, job creation,etc.). That is all.

  4. I would like to start a Facebook petition to keep the blight and traffic in Oakland.
    How do I do that?

  5. You guys are real funny. Now it’s time to attack the city of Oakland. No only doe San Jose re route HSR from the more convenient and less expensive Altamont Pass and Oakland, but now you want Oakland’s baseball team as well. I’m hoping the Pacheco Pass route gets overturned and Oakland and the East Bay, where 2.7 million residents reside, get their own station as was originally planned near Jack London Square with a Bart & Ferry connection to SF. San Jose should be a spur on the line. The affluent communities on the Peninsula are going to demand under grounding through their cities to go along with the massive expenditure of tunneling under downtown SF. HSR would have cost a fraction of the cost with above ground tracks all the way to Jack London Square and then up to Sacramento. Unfortunately, San Jose’s sense of entitlement reared its ugly head once again. That’s right, you have corporations therefore you get to screw the areas of the Bay Area which aren’t quite as affluent but have more residents. This is the same sense of entitlement which we see with the poaching of the A’s from Oakland and the East Bay.

    • HSR had just as many opponents in Southern Alameda County as it does in the Peninsula. Same reasoning too – no one wanted the aerial tracks and tunneling would’ve been required. So no, it wouldn’t have been cheaper and it would’ve faced the same political quagmire. As Jim Calhoun famously said, “Get some facts and come back and see me.”

      • Marine Layer, San Jose would have been connected to HSR via the BART extension from Fremont. HSR would have gone through the open spaces of the Livermore Valley all the way to the Bayfair Bart Station and then up to Oakland heading north to Sacramento. Oh well, power, money, and greed seem to win out most of the time in our Country. I’m hoping the situation with our Oakland A’s will be different and the voice of the people will be heard.

      • That alignment make zero sense. It’s inefficient and doesn’t directly serve the Bay Area’s largest employment centers, SF and Silicon Valley. Why would a person in Mountain View on Friday night go to LA via a Caltrain-to-BART-to-HSR or LRT-to-BART-to-HSR double transfer when he could just head to SFO or SJC? The point of HSR is to be a credible alternative to planes. What you just described is the complete antithesis of that.

        Massive fail, nav.

    • I attacked a politician, of whom many in Oakland don’t even approve these days. I have no problem with the city itself. I’m not of the mind that it’s one big ghetto. Things are always black and white with you, though, aren’t they?

      As for HSR, you tout the east bay as having 2.7 million residents but that’s from Livermore to Richmond and Fremont to Antioch. One line is hardly convenient for everyone. San Francisco was a huge selling point to voters and would never be left out, so I don’t see how laying more track and creating a bay crossing make things cheaper, either. Lastly, Pleasanton and a few other towns were ready to make the same stink as the peninsula had that route been chosen.

      • There’s already a “Bay crossing” It’s called BART and the Bay Bridge. How does it make sense to run HSR right into a culdesac in San Francisco? You run that line above ground all the way to Oakland with transfers by BART & Ferry to SF. You then continue north to Sacramento with an eventual connection to Portland and Seattle. But of course we have to waste billions because SF and San Jose want to divert traffic to their cities. It makes much more sense to have the 750,000 people in SF cross the Bay to where the 2.7 million residents on the mainland side of the Bay reside. Now we force more commuters to cross the Bay over dangerous bridges and under water tunnels in earthquake country.

      • It’s pretty obvious that you’d prefer that traffic be diverted through Oakland. At least admit it. BART is the exact reason why the East Bay doesn’t need to be serviced directly by HSR. Passengers can disembark at Transbay Terminal, walk or travelator 1 block to BART, then head out to the East Bay.

        Brooklyn and Queens aren’t served by Amtrak’s Northeast or Acela trains. They take the subway or LIRR in. Sounds like a good plan for the East Bay too.

      • Marine Layer, Oakland is at the very center of the BART system. All trains meet in downtown Oakland. That HSR station should have been in Oakland. The SF chauvinists could’ve called it the “San Francisco” station if they wanted. It’s a horrible waste of billions of dollars just to put a feather in San Francisco’s cap.

      • First, HSR is not going to skip San Francisco just because of BART or the bridge. It’s just too prominent a place in most minds. It and LA were the anchors in the general tagline, “SF to LA in 2.5 hours.” It sold a lot of the votes, I’m sure.

        Second, going through San Jose does not preclude going to Oakland and beyond. That’s San Francisco’s doing. The tracks could just as well have been planned to head up the east side of the bay.

        Lastly, as I understand it, the route from Oakland to the Carquinez Strait was a quagmire in terms of right of way. Then, of course, there’s another expensive water crossing. It’s not as simple as you make it sound.

      • Dangerous bridges? Water tunnels?? Now you’re just effing with us.

  6. Marine Layer, I love the logic which says the A’s can’t do much for Oakland but having them in San Jose is suppose to be a great economic boost for the city. The truth of the matter is that a waterfront ballpark near Jack London Square would help the City of Oakland economically. Also, just to keep you guys posted, I know you look forward to these Facebook updates, the keep the A’s in Oakland campaign has now over 26,000 supporters.

    • Read the post again, then comment on something related to the post.

      The lawyer wanted a response to blight in East Oakland. So if the A’s move anywhere outside of the Coliseum – including JLS – guess what? It translates to more East Oakland blight by his reasoning.

      That’s the great part of all of this sabre-rattling and ankle-biting. The opponents can’t even get on the same page!

      • Even inside San Jose the opponents won’t be on the same page. Noise, lights, traffic, taxes, etc. This problem is amplified with regional opposition from both San Francisco and Oakland compounding the usual difficulty with such a big project. The “blight” thing is, I think, just a sort of freudian slip by this attorney, hinting at the Giants deepest desire to keep the A’s at the Coliseum as long as possible.

      • That’s fine, TPS. At least the truly local opponents aren’t misrepresenting themselves. They don’t have ulterior motives. Some of them just want to make sure that proper mitigation is in place.

  7. The Council punted the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) budget last week to February 2010. As has already been highlighted in the news, the state is taking $75 million away from San Jose’s RDA. We need to pay the State off in May and identify where the money is coming from in March (no negotiation or payment plans on this matter are allowed by the State). The legislature, recognizing that this payment would be difficult for all RDA agencies, allowed for borrowing from affordable housing money which is 100-percent funded from RDA. Twenty percent of all RDA money goes off the top to the Housing Department in San Jose. The payroll for the housing department alone is $9.7 million a year for 83 employees for an average salary of $117,000.

    The Mayor’s Budget message was pragmatic in that it said let’s not spend any money ‘til we work out borrowing the money from the housing department to pay the State; let’s determine whether or not RDA is able to issue bonds to pay for a capital program—which would include matching the hotel owners’ share and expanding the convention center; and let’s continue negotiating with the County of Santa Clara (which by the way in the last decade has been paid $270 million by the RDA).

    The Mayor had a very good public meeting with stakeholders from all sides prior to writing the budget message. Everyone who attended realized the choices are difficult and few options exist. Everyone at the meeting got the same information—that San Jose has already built 18,000 units of affordable housing by spending hundreds of millions of RDA dollars making San Jose the number-one provider of affordable housing in the state of California. Everyone left the meeting understanding that there is no pixie dust to magically fix things. A majority at the Mayor’s meeting felt that economic development should be the priority now.

    However, when it came to voting on the budget, another option was voted upon at the last minute that asked for a $25 million reduction in how much would be borrowed from the Housing Dept., and instead look at borrowing from other sources. This option was well liked by the audience (which was made up by mostly paid affordable housing lobbyists and people who work for affordable housing entities in some capacity—the Housing Director is campaigning against the Mayor and is ensuring that she has her supporters at the meetings). This “option” would take money by borrowing monies from the following: Commercial Paper backed by the General Fund, Sewage Treatment Plant Connection Fee, Library Parcel Tax, Sewer Service and Use Charge, Integrated Waste Management, Ice Centre Revenue Fund and HNVF-Anti-Tobacco Funds. This “option”—taking from all of these other resources—was approved on a 7-3 vote with Mayor Reed, Pete Constant and myself voting no.

    We have borrowed money from some of these funds before, but that was to balance our general fund so we could fund core services like public safety and not more affordable housing. If we borrow this money now to create more affordable housing, then we will have one less arrow in our quiver to balance the general fund budget in June.

    My question to you is: Should we use money that is supposed to go towards core services like sewers and water treatment plant so that we can build more affordable housing that does not pay fees for parks or road paving?

    How do you feel as a voter that may have supported the library parcel tax to let that money be borrowed for more affordable housing that does not pay property taxes (property taxes is the number one revenue source to pay for city services) versus what you intended that money to be spent on…libraries.

    I remember months back Councilmember Constant and I were criticized because we wanted to use the Healthy Neighborhood Venture Fund (HNVF)/Anti Tobacco money to pay for school crossing guards, a public safety service the City has had in place since the 1940’s. It’s okay to use these funds for affordable housing but not for crossing guards? Hmm…sounds like maybe a vote of the people should be had on how these funds should be spent. With a $75 million deficit just for RDA and another $96-plus million deficit for the City’s General Fund, I am all for the residents sharing their votes via the ballot. If we can ask residents to raise their taxes then we can ask them for direction on spending their money.

    Ed.: The above comment was originally posted on by Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio, in whose district the ballpark site and many affected neighborhoods reside.

    The sentence below was not part of the original post.

    how the hell can san jose afford new stadiums?!?!

    • I am editing the above comment to note that it was lifted without attribution from Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio’s post on, with the exception of the last sentence – which was made to look like it is part and parcel with the post.

      It’s one thing to post anonymously, it’s another to take someone else’s original thoughts and post them as your own.

    • What stadium is San Jose building? It amazes me how people still don’t know basic facts on this situation. Just shut up if you can’t do a little homework.

    • As Nam Turk alluded to,
      San Jose can “afford” new stadiums BECAUSE SAN JOSE ISN’T PAYING FOR THEM! Hey new guy (or gal), do your research on PRIVATE FINANCING and come back to this forum with something stronger than that.

    • The SJ RDA is 75 million in the red? Isn’t that in the vicinity of what the acquisition costs for the ballpark site were supposed to be?

      • TPS,
        Read the article again: the $75 million in red is due to the state raid on redevelopment funds. It has absolutely no bearing, or relevance, whatsoever to the site acquisition costs. San Jose has been acquiring the land at Diridon South over the course of five years. That’s the job of the RDA: economic development and land-banking for future developments (ie housing, corporate towers, a ballpark). But keep trying pal!

      • Let me try this again. What is the total cost of the Diridon project that will result in this “free” ballpark from the Oakland A’s? Isn’t it going to be around 75 million dollars? Which happens to be the amount of money the city is now trying to suck from other projects and agencies in light of the state raids. Are there unfinished pieces of the Diridon acquisition, relocation project subject to cancellation or delay come February, in light of the raids?

      • The original projected price for the land was $75-80 million. Since then the site has shrunk and market conditions have made the acquisition cost around $40-45 million. The PG&E substation is not going to be relocated, it will either be reconfigured or left untouched. Half of the land has been acquired or was already city-owned, leaving some $25 million left to acquire plus business relocation costs. RDA still has a significant amount of banked land it’s ready to sell for the ballpark site, which is why they said the ballpark project won’t be affected by the state raid. If there’s a delay, it’ll be because existing landowners are balking at compensation.

      • tps–one huge advantage of SJ is that they have been acquiring the property over the past 5 years before the state raids on redevelopment agencies. They are by and large done. Now if they were to try and BEGIN to acquire the property today (like Oakland proposes) it would be a different story—so understand that if the SJ RDA is in the red….so is Oaklands…..which means that ain’t nothing going to be happening in Oakland for a long time—

      • Great post GoA’s!
        You’d think that somehow Oakland was immune to this recession when reading some of these Oakland-only posts.

      • Are the acquisitions and relocations complete? Where do you get updates on this? I couldn’t find anything recent or specific at the RDA site, but maybe I’m just not good at digging around there.

      • Last I heard there were still a few parcels left to be acquired.

      • Okay, just so long as we’re clear that by, “They are by and large done…” you really mean, “Half of the land has been acquired or was already city-owned, leaving some $25 million left to acquire plus business relocation costs…”

      • tps–being in the midst of a 5-year process to acquire properties is much different than not having started the process—bottom line–funds have been identified and are set-aside as ML pointed out—compare that to where you are at in Oakland which is 3 potential sites and you can see that SJ is well past the half way point on its way to the finish line while Oakland hasn’t left the blocks—and once again—all of this over a 5 year period–it doesn’t magically happen overnight because you feel you have a potential site

  8. Also, just to keep you guys posted, I know you look forward to these Facebook updates, the keep the A’s in Oakland campaign has now over 26,000 supporters.
    I certainly look forward to those updates.
    Please inform us when you hit 26,500.

  9. This discussion thread bothers me. It’s as if you all need a primer on politics and the media. Just look at the remarks Republicans make on health care reform (or Democrats on the Iraq war, to be fair) and you’ll see that it’s most;l nitpicking and distraction. Same here.
    One thing this all tells me is we’re nowhere near Selig’s “owners consensus” on territorial rights. If that were the case I’d think we’d be seeing a much more conciliatrory tone from the Giants. If I’m wrong, then what we’re seeing is just scratching the surface of what could be a real free for all.
    But again, I doubt it. Instead all we have is Tony threatening to hold his breath until he turns blue. (“But daddy, you PROMISED me that San Jose would get a baseball team!”)

    • You’re one funny guy Rob! As for what this all tell’s yah, I disagree. All the Giants are doing are acting as the 2009 version of Orioles owner Peter Angelos. You remember all of his huffing and puffing, threats of lawsuits when MLB was proposing to move the Expos to DC. Well guess how that turned out Rob? I imagine Wolff, Fisher, Selig and MLB are holding their stomach’s in laughter over what’s transpiring here in the Bay (threats of lawsuit, “possible” urban decay at the Coliseum, increased Global Warming if the A’s move to San Jose, etc.); or at least slowly shaking their heads with big grins. But keep wishing Rob; this is the season to do just that.

      A little off topic: My wife and I jointly own a 2000 Acura TL and we share it. If MLB decides to make Santa Clara County a shared territory like the other two-team MLB markets, then the Giants and SF have no case whatsoever because they would technically still have TRights to SJ/SC; albeit now shared with the A’s. I don’t think this will be about stripping the TRights completely from the Giants; it will be about putting the Bay Area, or at least SCCo., in line with the other two-team markets.

      By the way Rob, putting all your SJ bias aside; do you really agree with the B.S. coming out of SF’s Herrera and the SJ Little Giants group?

      • Yes, it’s dumb! The whole thing is dumb!

        But it’s doing two things. 1) It’s getting the Giants position out into the media, and 2) It’s getting your goat, and probably annoying Lew Wolff to no end. But as I said, this is politics…1% Substance and 99% spin.

        Take a deep breath, Tony! I think MLB wants to see how revenues look after the 2010 season and Oakland will get a second chance.

        …just like San Jose did.

      • Well,
        As for your 1) yeah, it’s putting the Giants position out there alright, and everyone I talk to down here thinks it’s bull $hit! I mention the threat of SF lawsuits and the Lil Giants “coalition” and people (family, friends, co-workers) generally shake their heads in disgust. That goes for both A’s, Giants fans. Work with a guy who lives in “South City” and who is a huge Giants fan, and for the life of him he can’t understand his teams position regarding SJ. As for 2) I wouldn’t necessariy say my goats been gotten, but their position is appalling and just wonder why the Giants are so hell bent on keeping MLB out of SJ. Thank God that decision will be up to MLB itself and not Neukom/Baer or Herrera/Lil Giants.

        After 2010 season Oakland get’s another chance? Oh boy! Have fun in Corpus.

      • Oakland gets its “second chance” because MLB will wait until after 2010. It’s by default. And San Jose got its second chance because the housing market collapsed and killed off Pacific Commons Also by default.

        Assuming there’s some sign of a recovery by then, MLB will likely take a course of action after 2010. Right now, they’re in no hurry.

      • georob–funny–the guy who is going to invest his $500M isn’t worried about the economy–he is ready to go—not sure what georob expects will happen in Oakland when the economy starts to pick up—the economy hasn’t been bad for the past 15 years—time to SJ the green light to make it happen–if they can’t do it than Oakland can have another shot–

      • Just got off the phone with Al Gore. He’s totally on board with your Global Warming theory if the A’s move to San Jose and will devote his next documentary entirely to that subject.
        See what you get for opening your big mouth? Merry Christmas!

      • Merry Christmas to you to Rob.

    • Personally see it differently Georob—I would say that the concensus is there–and than as you suggest this is now all posturing by the gints to try and influence the ultimate compensation…not MLB owners. Let’s be serious—alot of progress can continue to develop on the SJ proposal while the drama continues to play out. If you go down to the site you will see buildings being demolished already and fencing put around them…ultimately they have to connect Coleman into Autumn–which will happen regardless and engineering and design are underway and the final ballpark EIR will be complete in Q1 of 2010. They are having to coordinate closely with HSR and BART as they are all going to be in the same area and you want to make sure you don’t have a perpetual construction zone for the next 15 years.

      Let the emotions and weak soap opera drama play out—Key date for SJ is a November ballot measure–back up a few for negotiations with the A’s and it is April—

      • GoA’s, don’t be fooled with a lot of progress that you say can continue to develop on the SJ proposal. Just because you see buildings being demolished and fences up doesn’t mean anything. If I recall back about a year or so ago in Fremont, they already had the land acquisition, EIR and even a sign that read “Future Home of Cisco Field.”
        If we’ve learned anything over the past couple of years is that this ballpark issue is liquid. Anything is possible and could change in any given moment with all this regardless of what people think is best for either city or the team. It’s all just a waiting game at this point and everyone can just speculate what they think the outcome will be. Even those who think they’re the smartest about these issues and seem know the most about this whole process really don’t have any idea where all this will end up.

      • On this I can agree. This situation is too fluid (not liquid) to be able to say with a large degree of confidence that anyone besides Selig and the panel knows where it’s headed. You’ve never seen me post odds on any one outcome.

      • Thanks OAKLANDathletics! You are right. People on this board don’t know nearly as much about this process as they think they know. I have to especially single out the SJ supporters.

      • Sure—but I don’t see alot of SJ supporters saying they have a friend of a friend who knows all and the BRP saw serious issues with SJ while Oakland’s new sites were awesome–come on DH—if you want to single supporters out go back to the friend of a friend—which is Oakland supporters-

      • Single out the SJ supporters? Are you kidding me?! Got three names for yah: Navigator, Dennis H. and TPS. In other words, none of us (SJ or Oakland-only partisans) know the outcome to all of this, but come on! SanFranMag article anyone?

      • OA–sure–anything can change—but history of performance, challenges of municipalities and most importantly—-need to resolve an issue that has been on the burner for 15 years coupled with an attractive location in a thriving area all add up to its time to seize the opportunity and move forward…..from my perspective it is SJ’s to lose—and it sure seems like the gints recognize that also…thus the clumsy and bogus attempts to stir things up in SJ–

        Relative to knocking down buildings–it’s not the demolishing of the buildings per se but the fact that they aren’t paving over them to increase parking for the Shark Tank—i.e–why waste money when that would be demolished near-term also—so yes–anything can change—but consistent with the past 5 years of this dance–SJ continues to move forward—Oakland is now sitting and waiting—pro-active v. reactive always plays well!

      • I won’t get into the whole “Conspiracy Theory” or Fremont saga, as R.M. did a great job of covering that until the end. But as R.M. and Georob know to well, I had hope (for a myriad of reasons) since day one that Fremont was a “front” for Wolff to get into San Jose, or at least act as the Silicon Valley backup in case getting SJ proved absolutely impossible. Once that trickle of light shown on SJ, Fremont was abandoned in a heart beat. In closing, why settle for the bronze when you can have the gold. Just my opinion.

  10. Excuse me if this has been covered, but is there any additional information on the 237/Zanker site that was mentioned in the post? What is it currently zoned for? Office space?

    • There isn’t any current information on the site. It was not considered as part of San Jose’s 2005 ballpark study, in part because of its distance from existing and future transit options.

      I believe that Tesla Motors was planning to build a plant and more its HQ to that site, but Tesla’s federal grants required a brownfield site so they decided against building there.

  11. Tony D = Purdy = SJ Delusional Homer

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.