It’s 137 pages and will take much of my weekend. The rest will be either sleep or SF Beer Week events.
If you’re wondering what happens next, here it is:
E. CEQA PROCESS
The SEIR is being circulated for public review and comment for 45 days. During this review period, all interested parties are encouraged to read the document to inform their understanding of the project and its anticipated environmental effects, and to submit written comments regarding the environmental issues and analysis presented in the SEIR.
Every comment letter received on the SEIR during the 45-day comment period will be reviewed by City staff and the environmental consultant team, and the City will provide a written response for every substantive comment received addressing environmental issues associated with the baseball stadium. The SEIR will be revised as appropriate in response to comments received, and the City will prepare a Final SEIR, consisting of the SEIR, the public comments received, the City’s responses to substantive environmental issues raised in the public comments, and any text revisions resulting from the responses to comments. The Final SEIR will act as a supplement to the previously certified EIR.
The Final SEIR will be released, and a copy provided to all commentors, a minimum 10 days prior to the public hearing before the Planning Commission of the City of San José to consider certification of the Final EIR. If the Planning Commission certifies the Final EIR as complete and in compliance with CEQA, the Commission may then hold a public hearing regarding any recommendations related to the proposed baseball stadium. The decision of the Planning Commission to certify the Final EIR may be appealed to the City Council. Instructions on filing an EIR Appeal can be obtained by calling (408) 535-3555 or at http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/applications/.
The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider certification of the SEIR, in the event of an appeal. If the Council upholds the Planning Commission decision and certifies the SEIR as complete and in compliance with CEQA, the Council can then consider approval of actions for a stadium project as described in the Baseball Stadium in the Diridon/Arena Area EIR, as revised by this SEIR. It is anticipated that the City Council will place a ballot measure before the San José electorate regarding the use of public funds for construction of a stadium. Pursuant to provisions of the San José Municipal Code, the City may utilize tax dollars to participate in the building of the stadium only after obtaining a majority vote of the electorate approving that expenditure.
See you on the other side. Of the weekend, that is.
newballpark.org 
According to the Merc the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority Board will be asked next week to approve a “feasibility study” to look at the possibility of building a new football stadium on or adjacent to Coliseum property.
.
http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_14391969
.
I wonder what that means for the A’s in Oakland.
Probably due to a poll early this week that showed Santa Clara residents opposed to public funds for the proposed Niners Stadium; by a wide margin I might add. If that were to fall through, I still tear down the old bowl and build Mt. Davis Part II in its place. Sorry R.M.; back to the topic at hand.
I would be cautious to read anything into any polls about the ‘9er stadium in SC—as we all know from the gints astroturf group—you can sway a survey pretty significantly by the way the question is phrased. What stands out to me is that there are about 45,000 registered voters in the city of SC—asscuming a 50% turnout for a special election means 22,500 will vote—which means you need about 12,000 to win. 8,000 signed the ‘9er petition in less than 2 weeks to qualify it for the ballot—assuming these 8000 vote and dont change their mind than the proponents only need about another 4000 votes—18-28 is the key age–which I am sure they are already targeting–
Interesting that Oakland is willing to drop $125k on a feasiblity study for a new Raiders stadium while $150M of debt remains on the current one—
Last, on the EIR—SJ continues to push forward—my guess is that there is no reason to announce any decision on the “preferred” city yet—-most likely when the EIR is certified—should allow for enough time to formalize negotiations with the A’s and get it on the November ballot—
This means that the A’s can get in on this development, or build a new ballpark a bit closer to their fanbase in a beautiful central waterfront location in Jack London Square
Why would the A’s want to ‘get in on this development?’ All the other teams have figured out that a football/baseball stadium is not a great situation to be in. Do you enjoy the torn up field every Fall?
CSL did an economic impact report for the Niners that was packed with rosy projections. A feasibility study is different since it’s less about selling and more about doing.
Chances are that four alternatives will be presented: (A) one that builds a new football stadium next to the Coliseum (so that the Raiders don’t have to move temporarily), (B) one that rebuilds the Coliseum in a similar manner to what I had described last year, and then either of those two options combined with a surrounding development plan to help pay for it – if that’s actually feasible at all.
I’m going to stick with my hunch that it would cost around $500+ million for A and $800+ million for B. Whatever the study says about paying for it, the additional debt will still have to be tacked onto the estimate. That could make a new stadium cost a cool $1 billion. I have no idea how that could be paid for.
“The site on which we currently play is centrally located, with magnificent public transit alternatives, on a major freeway and presents an exciting location on which a new stadium can serve as the hub of a larger, urban redevelopment project,” said Amy Trask, Raiders chief executive. “We have been communicating regularly with city, county and Joint Powers Authority representatives about our desire for a new, world-class stadium and the manner in which such a stadium can serve as a catalyst for regional economic growth.” And why can’t Lew Wolff and John Fisher see this? Oakland is the perfect location for a ballpark. Everyone knows this except Wolff, Fisher, and Selig.
Are you now arguing on behalf of an organization which has successfully managed to screw you’re beloved Oakland for many a year? It takes magnificent leaps of distorted logic to construe the Raiders as “friends of Oakland”. And how is it you can reason that the three people with the highest vested interest in the A’s are the ones who are blind? Look, they’re under no obligation to inspire economic stimulus to the city of Oakland. Get this through your head, they A’s don’t owe Oakland a damn thing. Why don’t you quit whining about the downtrodden city and what the A’s can, or should, do for them? You’d get more traction arguing what the city of Oakland can do for the A’s. Do you understand what it is about SJ that appeals to the A’s? MLB knows what’s in its best interests. Try and understand this, you will not succeed in “strong arming” MLB into doing what you want them to do merely because it’s what you want. Your so fond of breathing threats of law suits, yet there’s not a single precedent in case law where a city has successfully sued a sporting franchise into remaining in their burg. Not one. Nor will there ever be. It’s the USA after all, and people are free to do business where they damn well please. The only reason we’re not all watching the A’s play in SJ right now is because of internal politics within MLB.
The City of Oakland can do a whole lot for the A’s because it’s centrally located to the entire Bay Area and it’s close to the fanbase. The reason that Lew Wolff isn’t successful has nothing to do with Oakland’s central location, Oakland’s superior public transportation, or Oakland’s great climate. It has everything to do with how ownership runs the franchise and treats their customers. The Raiders, 49ers, and Warriors realize the benefits of Oakland’s great location, Lew Wolff, John Fisher, and MLB are biased against Oakland and do not. Also, Oakland is far from being “downtrodden.” As a matter of fact Oakland’s economy grew by 2.7% between 2007 and 2009 while the Bay Area economy shrunk. Oakland has a lot more going for it than just the A’s. Lew Wolff, John Fisher, and MLB need to realize that they are not bigger than Oakland and the East Bay.
And nav if you think the wonderful raiders will give a red cent to Oakland to build a new stadium than you got some really good shit…..$150M remaining on the current bill, drove the A’s out of Oakland by ruining the Coli and now they want a new stadium of course paid for by Oakland and AC—-and your ready to anoint sainthood—-go figure—
A new state-of-the-art Football/Soccer stadium in centrally located Oakland with a surrounding residential, retail, and entertainment component would be great for the region. With the Raiders, 49ers, and possibly MLS soccer as tenants, it would have enough dates to justify the economic investment. If the A’s would want to build a ballpark in the same development, it would make it that much better. This would benefit the A’s, Raiders, 49ers, and Warriors. They could all be stake holders in this huge regional sports and entertainment complex. Also, it makes much more sense for the Forty Niners to be ten miles away from San Francisco playing in Oakland, than it would having them playing in a distant suburb without any real cultural and economic linkage to San Francisco. I think the NFL would look favorably on an Oakland location for a ballpark for both teams. The players would still be able to stay at their SF hotels, the blimp shots would stay the same, the economic benefit to SF wouldn’t change, etc.
Hummm–I always thought that you should build where your fans are located—‘9ers have no cultural linkage to Silicon Valley? you mean besides their headquarters, training facilities and a good deal of their fan base. Ironic how many of these same players happen to live in the Silicon Valley—-and nav–in case you haven’t noticied the size of an MLS stadium is about 25,000 max–playing in a 70,000 seat footbal stadium is not a winning formula–Oakland has its hands full dealing with Al and ultimately the Warriors relocation after their lease runs out in 2017–
Go A’s,
Doesn’t the Seattle MLS franchise play in the Seahawk’s stadium? While it’s true that the 49ers have their headquarters in Santa Clara, their National identity is with San Francisco. Santa Clara is a suburb of San Jose. Also, why would the Warriors want to relocate after 2017? They have a beautiful arena and draw incredibly well in Oakland despite stinking up the joint.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Qwest_seattle_sounders_pregame.jpg Quest field was also designed for soccer and we all know how much Lew Wolff likes tarps. I think it’s beautiful stadium and it works great for soccer. The same thing could be done in Oakland.
That situation is entirely unique to Seattle and doesn’t work anywhere else in the league. While that works for a team in its first year, there’s no telling how well it will work for them 5-10 years down the line.
R.M.,
Don’t forget the void left by the Supersonics departure (may they RIP).
What MLS team do you suppose would play in a giant football stadium in Oakland? The Earthquakes already have a site in San Jose for their stadium and they own all of NorCal. So unless you’re talking about an alternate reality it won’t happen.
A follow up question for Amy Trask to answer is… “What regional economic growth has having the A’s, Warriors and Raiders playing on the exact same spot for a serious chunk of the last 30 years provided? And since it is pretty much negative (considering Oakland loses $20 million a year at present), what will change that?
How will a ballpark in San Jose benefit he City of San Jose? Somehow a ballpark in San Jose is great for the local economy but a ballpark anywhere in Oakland serves no purpose.
This a disingenuous question. You are a smart guy, clearly, and you already know the answer.
But my answer is: A privately financed park in Oakland would provide an economic benefit to the City (provided the City doesn’t have to spend too much money to secure the JLS sites). The Raiders are not looking to build their own stadium and they already have the City on the hook for $20 Million a year. There has been negative economic benefit to Oakland as a result of bringing the Raiders back.
Building a new football stadium in the parking lot on the City’s dime will be a similar boondoggle. If you think the Raiders are not positioning the “economic benefit” for the purpose of further swindling the City of Oakland (your place of residence?) then I think you are being willfully naive.
Any new stadium starts in a deficit because of the current investment at the site, add to it pushing one tenant who provides 83 days of potential foot traffic for any mega development (is that what they are hinting at?) out to be replaced by the 49ers and you have swapped 10 dates of 55k plus 83 days of 17k for 20 dates of 55k.
If you buy the Raiders bullshit that this will be an economic boon and therefore the city should be footing the bill, have fun with that.
The debate for the A’s is not about the economic benefit for a particular city, but the economic benefit for themselves. They clearly think they will make more money in San Jose than in Oakland.
Jeffrey, It’s understood that Oakland will not be footing the bill for this development other than possibly infrastructure improvements. The Coliseum area is in an economic empowerment zone which means tax breaks and incentives for builders. Also, this has to be financed by the Raiders, 49ers, the NFL, MLS? MLB? etc. You also seem to be arguing that a ballpark for Lew Wolff in San Jose, benefits Lew Wolff, but not San Jose. And, we all know that no one is “pushing the A’s out of Oakland.” The fact is we are trying to keep the A’s in Oakland. They have three very good sites in Oakland to choose from. One of them happens to be the Coliseum area.
nav—who will be footing the bill? I bet Al can’t wait to pay $1B to build a new stadium in the same location where he leads the league in 1 area–blackouts—because of lack of attendance—and help me understand why this same area has not been an “economic empowerment zone” for the past 40 years that it has been open? You love to twist statements—MLB will be a benefit to San Jose–that report was released a year ago—but that isn’t what is driving LW’s desire to locate their–its the business opportunity that he sees to get his club off of perpetual welfare and to be able to compete on and off the field. Pushing the A’s out of Oakland started 15 years ago with the return of the Raiders—why don’t you inform Al that you also plan a new ballpark in the parking lot of his new stadium and see how he likes that–or for that matter how the Warriors like that–
Go A’s,
There’s more area to build on than just the Coliseum parking lot. The idea that by going to San Jose Lew Wolff will be able to compete financially with the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Angels, Mets, and Giants, is not realistic. No one will EVER be able to compete financially with the Yankees or the Red Sox. The A’s have “competed” on the field in little old Oakland just fine. We have four World Series trophies to prove it. Also, Lew Wolff has already made plenty of money in Oakland. The value of the franchise has gone up quite a bit since Wolff bought the team with the idea of moving them to San Jose. And, the Raiders may not mind having the A’s and Warriors participate in this project. It may make the project more viable.
Have you read much on the NFL’s policy for new stadium development?
Come ‘on Jeffrey–have you not heard that Oakland is the center of the universe—surely the NFL will waive all requirements just to be able say they have a stadium in Oakland-
And… As I clearly stated, a new stadium in any city (San Jose ro Oakland) will benefit the city (San Jose or Oakland) provided that the cost for acquiring the land does not outweigh the revenue generated. It si really simple.
As for a stadium being financed by the NFL, you should read the NFL’s policy (hint: it requires the City to invest in the stadium).
Nav, So now you want an MLS team at the Coliseum? Presumably, that”s the Quakes. If so, weren’t you just complaining about cities swiping each others teams? Wsn’t San Jose was the big bully bc its trying for the A’s but now youre advocating for Oakland to house the Quakes? C’mon…
If San Jose gets the A’s, all territorial rights should go out the window. It becomes a free for all. May the best man or stadium or city win.
I agree with abolishing t-rights but there is a major problem with your argument. If the A’s move to San Jose they’ll be locked up there for 40 years or more. Same thing with the 49ers in Santa Clara. The Quakes probably for 20 years at least. Meanwhile, the W’s are up in 2017. The Sharks play in the only NHL-ready arena in the Bay Area. The Raiders could stay put long term in Oakland.
With these teams and others staying in their homes, what’s the incentive for a league to add or move a team to Oakland? The Bay Area market is already well served is nearly oversaturated. Oakland would have to wait out leases and pony up for significantly improved venues for teams to go there. That’s not likely.
As others here have mentioned before, the t-rights that are the only thing keeping Oakland in the A’s race. Abolish t-rights in baseball, and any other sport, and Oakland still faces an uphill battle. In fact, it would probably fair worse. Fair or not, teams (and companies, for that matter) simply are not clamoring to get into the Easy Bay market they way they are fof San Francisco or Silicon Valley. Maybe that will change at some point, but even if it does, Oakland will still have a lot of catching up to do.
Oakland needs to protect itself by freeing itself legally of any claims by MLB or any teams owned by Lew Wolff or based in the City of San Jose or the City of San Francisco. Let the market determine, without any collusion or interference, from any entity, if Oakland and its centrally located sports complex is a desirable location for any team and any franchise in any sport within the United States.
As for your assertion Pacifico, that Oakland is an undesirable place for businesses, Oakland’s economy actually grew by 2.7% between 2007 and 2009, while the rest of the Bay Area including San Jose, saw a decline in the economy. In case you haven’t been paying attention, Oakland is the hottest place in the Nation for new restaurant openings.
Here’s a link http://www.eastbayexpress.com/eastbay/oakland-americas-next-great-dining-town/Content?oid=1371381
Oh boy. The East Bay Express says Oakland is more of a dining destination that San Francisco. That doesn’t sound batshit crazy in any way, shape or form.
You’re describing a pyrrhic victory. So Oakland’s free of territorial constraints, great! There are plenty of other barriers that make it even more difficult for Oakland to make pro sports work in the future. Some of them are Oakland’s doing (Raiders deal), some are not (proximity to SF, small city size compared to prospective rivals).
BTW, the constant pumping up and selling of Oakland is incredibly off-target. Do you honestly think that the people that make decisions at the league level care about Oakland’s growth rate or restaurants?
First of all the Oakland Metro Market consists of 2.7 million residents in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Let’s please stop with the “small city” non-sense. Secondly, Seperstein and Wolff are constantly trying to make points with MLB and the fanbase, by denigrating Oakland’s economy. The truth needs to be put out that despite what Seperstein and Wolff imply with tier negative comments about Oakland’s economy, Oakland is on it’s way up. It’s sad that these individuals feel the need to falsely denigrate Oakland’s economy for their selfish purposes. Marine Layer, I’m surprised that you resort to these inane arguments about the size of Oakland’s population when you know darn well that the East Bay and Oakland’s central location to 7 million Bay Area residents makes the Oakland market highly desirable. Lew Wolff needs to keep his hands off of Oakland if he chooses to leave the city. Oakland will not be denied pro baseball and pro soccer for eternity just because Mr . Wolff says so. Either he wants Oakland or he doesn’t. He can’t have it both ways. You don’ t want Oakland then get the hell out of the way.
If it came down to swapping the East Bay for the South Bay without further complications, Wolff would take the deal yesterday.
Again, you mistake certain facts for denigration. Oakland being a smaller city means one big problem: it can’t get a deal done on it’s own. It needs county help or even regional help, which is far more complicated. The Coliseum is a joint venture and thus requires multiple signoffs and in certain cases can involve political infighting before anything gets done. Mayor Dellums admits that the federal gov’t could have to contribute to make a JLS ballpark fly. Oakland is the site of two major eminent domain cases (City Center and Uptown) which have effectively killed any possibility for a similar taking in the future (see 5th Ave Marina/O29). These are issues that Oakland has to face whether it builds a new MLB stadium or even a minor league facility.
Wolff needs to sign off on that “swap.” Wolff can’t have his cake and eat it too. Also, cities have different interest among various neighborhoods. Large spread out cities like San Jose have varying interests depending on districts and neighborhoods. Do you really think for example, that the large Vietnamese community in San Jose puts a high priority on bringing the Oakland A’s to San Jose? Do you think the residents of San Jose are going to overlook a 100 million dollar budget deficit and hop on Lew Wolff’s bandwagon just because they all live in the large city of San Jose? Oakland and Alameda County worked on the Coliseum Complex very nicely. Despite San Jose’s and San Francisco’s larger populations, San Jose has only one small hockey arena and San Francisco has no arena at all. And yes, when you distort the economic growth of a city for selfish purposes, that is “denigrating” the city.
“Small hockey arena.” You have to get a shot in there, don’t you? Can’t just defend your city – which you’re doing a poor job since you’re not actually countering my arguments – you had to get a shot in there.
I have a question for you, Nav. When I moved this site to a new server, part of the motivation was to better get ahead of spam and trolls. Thankfully, the comments sections are spam-free. Trolls – we’re still working on it. The new capabilities have given me more insight into where commenters are coming from. As expected, most of them come from either the East Bay or South Bay.
However, when I looked at the IP address from you, I noticed that it’s not coming from Oakland. I couldn’t believe my eyes when I checked and found out that you aren’t posting from Montclair, Downtown/Uptown, East or West Oakland, or even Piedmont. You’re posting regularly – actually, all the time – from Danville. Can you explain to me why such a staunch supporter of all things Oakland, a man who calls himself Mr. Oakland on another board, posts from Danville of all places?
I’d say your credibility on this site rests with your answer.
I believe the word, “pwned” is apt here.
LOL, Nav must work for the Warriors. If you remember, Raymond Ridder, the Warriors PR Director was anonymously posting positive comments about the Warriors on the Warrriorsworld.net message board. That is until someone checked on his IP address and discovered the posts were originating from the Warriors’ office.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2009/05/21/warriors-pr-director-confirms-he-authored-anonymous-blog-comment/
Bob Fitzgerald was doing that too.
I have a question for you, Nav. … when I looked at the IP address from you, I noticed that it’s not coming from Oakland. I couldn’t believe my eyes when I checked and found out that you aren’t posting from Montclair, Downtown/Uptown, East or West Oakland, or even Piedmont. You’re posting regularly – actually, all the time – from Danville. Can you explain to me why such a staunch supporter of all things Oakland, a man who calls himself Mr. Oakland on another board, posts from Danville of all places?
I’d say your credibility on this site rests with your answer.
.
Good sleuthing, ML, but I have to disagree with your final sentence. Nav’s credibility on this site has nothing to do with where he posts from, or his explanation thereof.
It has everything to do with the content of his posts: provincial, full of spin and highly selective “facts”, loaded with misinformation and disinformation, cliched, illogical, inconsistent, often unrelated to reality, founded on a sense of Oakland entitlement, alleging conspiracies, and compulsively repetitious.
.
He has about three talking points written on his left hand, and no sense of embarrassment about regurgitating them dozens of times over. He seems to subscRibe to the Joseph Goebbels school of public communication: repeat a lie often enough, and people will eventually come to think that it’s true. If these posts all originated from Oakland, they still would lack any credibility — they are sly and propagandistic, regardless of their point of origin.
.
I’d say that the recurring presence of Nav’s incessantly recycled talking points diminish the value of this blog by about a quarter or even a third, given the amount of space and time that they waste, and the number of rebuttals that they inspire.
My feelings exactly. This behavior is exactly what makes him a troll.
Sorry, my last note was supposed to be a reply to Connie Mack.
ML– also don’t forget to take a peek at the Appendix B Attachment B that is the KMA report on the Urban Decay impact on Oakland were the A’s to leave town (see pages 79 ff of http://www.sanjosec a.gov/planning/ eir/Ballpark_ PP05-214/ AppendixB_ IS.pdf).
I’d say that’s a spot on analysis. I myself only spend money on Bart outside the ballpark.
Jeffrey, Do you find that article offensive? Do you think they’re making up those restaurant openings and the fact that so many new businesses have opened in Oakland ? I guess this hits the anti-Oakland people square in the gut. I know it takes a while to let go of outdated stereotypes. I’ll try to ease you into it next time.
Not slighting the growth in Oakland but it has a long way to go to catch San Francisco. Even if some businesses relocate to Oakland from S.F. , those vacancies will be filled rather quickly.
I am not an anti Oakland person. It is ridiculous to pretend that Oakland is more of a foodie destination than San Francsico. An article published after the one you posted said as much .
You prove time and again that you have no concern for reality, just spin. Anything that is positive about Oakland gets 3 times the weight in your mind.
I love Oakland. My favorite dining destination in the Town is up on College. I used to like JLS, but that was mainly for Old Spaghetti Factory, my kids love that place. It isn’t there now, we usually only go to JLS on our way to the ferry.
Jeffrey, The East Bay Express is about what’s going on in Oakland’s economy and dining scene. You linked an article about a project at Jack London Square. Although the project is taking a little longer to complete than expected because of the current economy, the place has opened a few new restaurants like Miss Pearl’s, and Boca Nova to name two, along with signing a new lease with Sungevity http://www.contracostatimes.com/business/ci_14335406. It’s going to take a little time for Jack London Square to get where it needs to be, but it will get there. Jeffrey, I really don’t think you value Oakland very much. I know you say that you do, but when a positive about Oakland is brought to your attention your instinct is to downplay it and belittle. You said yourself that you don’t believe the East Bay Express article and that you use Oakland to take the Ferry to San Francisco. Anyone who truly loves Oakland would not stand by and watch the A’s leave town and applaud the entire process.
Why are you San Jose people so negative about anything Oakland? You can’t stand it when your stereotypes are refuted. Why did you even become fans of the Oakland A’s? I really don’t understand your attitudes.
I got no prob with Oakland whatsoever. Nice enough city. And yeah, I’m from San Jose. However, if the A’s had even adequate facilities in Oakland I’d be all for them staying put. But they don’t, not by a long shot. And if they had the best chance to succeed by staying in Oakland or moving to Santa Rosa, or Livermore, or Los Altos, I’d support those places, too. But now its obvious that San Jose is the A’s best chance at success in the Bay Area, so that is why I support their move there.Its not about restaurants, its about Cisco and eBay.
See, this is where the disconnect comes into play. Nobody here is “anti-Oakland” so much as they’re “pro-A’s”. We’re fans of the team first and foremost, with their actual location in the BAY AREA being a secondary consideration. Does Oakland have issues? Without a doubt. It’s a rather small city which is hemmed in on all sides geographically speaking. It relies on industry which is either holding steady, or in decline. Fair or not, (it is), it has a reputation for crime known throughout the US. To be fair to Oakland, the majority of its violent crime occurs in specific areas of the city. Given its size and location, it is rather remarkable that they’ve held on to their sporting franchises as long as they have. It’s my hope that they get their political act in one little ditty bag, get a handle on their local issues, and reach their full potential. Because it does have potential, albeit as far as sports are concerned they will be fortunate to retain even one major sport. It just doesn’t have the resources for all three. Contrast that with SJ. The tech industry is still in its infancy. It’s the industry of the future and will continue to grow in leaps and bounds, with all the accompanying capital that supports growth. Oakland cannot compete with that, and quite frankly, they city pols would be idiots if they tried. That’s mainly why I favor SJ over Oakland. The A’s will eventually have a legitimate shot at being a large market team in time. Do you know why everyone hates the Yankee’s? It really comes down to the fact that they want to BE the Yankee’s. Here in America, winning is what matters. It’s all that matters.
I don’t think winning is all that matters. The Raiders have been losing and a lot of people (including me) don’t like them because of the way they do business. The Cubs lose and people love them.
When the 49ers won in the 1980s, most of the U.S. liked them because of the West Coast Offense, when the Steelers won in the 1970s, they weren’t popular because their success was mostly defense and running.
Bring the A’s to Fremont make a lot of sense to the A’s, Major League Baseball, and fans. It’s between Alameda County and Santa Clara County, two major highway, and future Warm Springs BART Station. Alameda County fans can take BART to Warm Springs and Santa Clara County fans can drive to Fremont to watch the game. Fremont NIMBY’s cannot opposed the A’s project because it’s 1 mile away from their homes and NUMMI cannot opposed because they’re closing. Oakland will never happened because there’s no land use plan and landowners will sue the A’s and Oakland. to force them to leave. San Jose will never happened with the angry Giants will sue the A’s from moving to San Jose because it’s their territory rights. Most of their sponship is from Silicon Valley.
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2010/02/08/lew-bud-and-the-oakland-as-of-san-jose-and-fremont/
Bud Selig: Then all that’s left is Oakland.
Lew Wolff: Who’s going to buy the luxury suites and season tickets? Have your consultants thought about that? By the time the stadium’s built, the top 10 businesses in town will all be indoor marijuana farms. Do you really want to throw out the first pitch at Oaksterdam University Field? It would give a whole new meaning to “the green and gold.”
Why copy and paste a portion of this article when it has no merit what so ever? Did you even read clearly the first paragraph Fremonta’s??
.
“I dreampt up a conversation between Selig and his old University of Wisconsin fraternity brother, A’s co-owner Lew Wolff. Although the popular assumption is that Wolff will be able to move the team to San Jose, this MAKE BELIEVE dialogue…”
There are strong oppositions from Fremont residents. Only Fremont Chamber of Commerce and some business groups support the stadium. The community support for the A’s is much better in Oakland and San Jose.
Fremont will be a long drive or BART ride for east bay fans. It’s a short drive from Fremont to San Jose. But it will be a LONG drive from San Jose to Fremont due to the commuter traffic. 237 east and 880/680 north is already bumper-to-bumper in late afternoon. If the stadium is in Fremont, the A’s will only gain a few south bay fans, but will lose a lot of east bay fans.
Baseball stadiums work best in a vibrant downtown environment. The suburban Fremont location surrounded by 10,000 parking spaces and a BART station is just like another Oakland Coliseum. And the city of Fremont doesn’t have the infrastructure and budget to support the stadium. It’s will be a lose-lose proposition for the city and the A’s.
NoAsWS, do you have any opinion on whether Oakland or SJ would be better. I don’t why you would have any bias. Whats your opinion?
NoAsWS just want to live in a boring city with cows and horses. Also since Warm Springs residents aganist the stadium support NUMMI? NUMMI can create a health problem for the Warm Springs residents. But since NUMMI and the stadium is one mile, why they support NUMMI than the stadium, unless Warm Springs residents like toxic site. I would rather live near the stadium than a manufactoring plant. San Jose will never happened. Lew wolff have been searching sites for years. I bet he looked at the Jack London square but don’t think the site is a viable location for the A’s and poor leadership. Last year, Kieth Wolff like the Warm Springs because it’s near the BART Station. Since NUMMI opposed both sites in Fremont, no lawsuits including the NIMBY’s.
NoAsWS just want to live in a boring city with cows and horses. Also since Warm Springs residents aganist the stadium support NUMMI? NUMMI can create a health problem for the Warm Springs residents. But since NUMMI and the stadium is one mile, why they support NUMMI than the stadium, unless Warm Springs residents like toxic site. I would rather live near the stadium than a manufactoring plant. San Jose will never happened. Lew wolff have been searching sites for years. I bet he looked at the Jack London square but don’t think the site is a viable location for the A’s and poor leadership. Last year, Kieth Wolff like the Warm Springs because it’s near the BART Station. Since NUMMI opposed both sites in Fremont and the plant is shutting down, no lawsuits including the NIMBY’s.
As an A’s fan, I’d like to see the San JosA’s (also see: http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2008/12/15/maybe-it-was-meant-to-be/ and http://noasws.blogspot.com/2008/12/inconvenient-truth.html ). It’s the only way the A’s can become a first-tier team with big market and revenue. San Jose also needs the A’s to promote it’s national profile. If you put in Lew Wolff’s shoes, it’s very obvious which location can make the best return of your ballpark investment. Now it’s how much they want to pay off the Giants, either by money or politics.
.
BTW, the Wolffs never like the Warm Springs sites (too much like Oakland Coliseum location, and even worse) . It’s a group of real estate developers (many of them not even living in Fremont) begging the A’s to Fremont for whatever sites they proposed. The residents in Warm Springs, Mission San Jose and Irvington account for more than 50% of Fremont population, a very big NIMCY (Not In My CitY).
PS. ML, sorry for the multiple posts, one of the link was wrong. Please keep this one and delete the prevous. thx.
Amen brotha!
As an A’s fan, I’d like to see the San JosA’s (http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2008/12/15/maybe-it-was-meant-to-be/ and http://noasws.blogspot.com/2008/12/inconvenient-truth.html). It’s the only way the A’s can become a first-tier team with big market and revenue. San Jose also needs the A’s to promote it’s national profile. If you put in Lew Wolff’s shoes, it’s very obvious which location can make the best return of your ballpark investment. Now it’s how much they want to pay off the Giants, either by money or politics.
.
BTW, the Wolffs never like the Warm Springs sites (too much like Oakland Coliseum location, and even worse) . It’s a group of real estate developers (many of them not even living in Fremont) begging the A’s to Fremont for whatever sites they proposed. The residents in Warm Springs, Mission San Jose and Irvington account for more than 50% of Fremont population, a very big NIMBY.
I know someone who live near the proposed stadium, support the A’s movin to Fremont. Irvington, Mission San Jose, and Warm Springs. I wonder if NIMBY’s is not even U.S. Citizens or even they are not even 18 years or older. I guess they can’t vote or majority of Asian are not interested in politics so they won’t vote . How sad!!! 68,558/210,000 residents of Fremont voted Measure MM: Transient Occupancy tax on Nov 4,2008 elections and it passed.. Bob Wasserman and Steve Cho supported the A’s move to Fremont. As a results, Bob Wasserman was elected as a mayor of Fremont. I’m 100% sure the mesure will pass to build a major league baseball stadium in Fremont.
The Warm Springs plan was announced right AFTER the 2008 election. Had the city announced it before the election, Bob Wasserman will lost the election. Besides, Wasserman didn’t win by majority. Steve Cho didn’t support the stadium. He was the only councilmember request a city wide vote.
.
Of all three cites, Oakland and San Jose have much stronger support for the stadium, and need the ballpark to revitalize their downtowns. While in Fremont, there is too much opposition, and the city of Fremont doesn’t have the infrastructure and budget to support a successful ballpark.
.
FremontA’s, do you know where Fremont’s downtown is?
Fremont is proposing a midtown project near the Fremont BART Station. I’m hoping that NummI will be the future a true downtown with a ballpark. I those NIMBY’s should buy their homes at the midtown project that will take too long to get built, brand new low income Irvington houses, or leave Fremont. Milpitas or Cupertino has a nice homes to raise a family. No crime in Saratoga it make me feel safe. Fremont has a lot of crime. With or without stadium, Fremont already have crime. De-anza college is better than ohp
Fremont is proposing a midtown project near the Fremont BART Station. I’m hoping that NummI will be the future a true downtown with a ballpark. I think NIMBY’s should buy their homes at the midtown project that will take too long to get built, brand new low income Irvington houses, or leave Fremont. Milpitas or Cupertino has a nice homes to raise a family. No crime in Saratoga it make me feel safe. Fremont has a lot of crime. With or without stadium, Fremont already have crime. De-anza college is way better than Ohlone College. Most Asian go to De-anza college than Ohlone. Don’t assumed that Fremont school is better or kids is well here. If A’s comes to Fremont, they will make the school better. The majority residents of Fremont do want the A’s here.
I read the city’s plan again. There is no mention about “midtown” or “downtown” anywhere in the document. The stadium proponents will use rosy projection and beautiful picture, but the reality is Fremont is not an urban city, and a Fremont stadium is just not feasible.
.
The city staff also acknowledged in the council meeting: “build a stadium in the field doesn’t make it downtown.” Their plan is to build the stadium first (phase 1A), the HOPE to do phase 1B and phase 2 later. Even with phase 2, the area is still a long way to become an urban downtown. Besides, do you know how long (and how much money) would it take to de-contaminate the toxic lands around NUMMI?
.
If you are an investor, would you build a stadium and HOPE it becomes the downtown? Or you can just build a stadium near an EXISTING downtown.
.
Please don’t beg the A’s to Fremont. Lew Wolff is just not interested in Fremont. Business developers want the stadium (no matter at what cost), but most Fremont residents oppose the stadium idea.
Hey NoAsWS, Do you want a pot clubs where soon to closed NUMMI plant? It will bring thousand of high paying jobs that Fremont Citizens Network dream of?
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=7278906
FremontA’s – Could you please construct proper arguments? You’re doing your side a disservice by going on like this.
Sorry, I know Warm Springs won’t welcome it. You can keep it for yourselves.
Is this your dream? http://tmgpartners.com/pdfs/1673_001.pdf You should live there.
The new stadium in Fremont will be similar to AT&T Park in San Francisco and Petco Park in San Diego. That NUMMI will turn into a true urban downtown with a stadium that will be a true destination.
The plan is not a proposal, it is a Conceptual Approach. “The proposed site plan can be modified, expanded, and revised based on input from the A’s, MLB, the community, staff and Council.” The toxic site can be funded by NUMMI, the city, federal grants, and other grants. Did you know Ford Motors plants in Milpitas pay $12 million to clean up the site and sell to a developer and then is now a Great Mall. We can do that in NUMMI plant but turn into a urban downtown. Why will you think its going to take 50 years to get funded and clean up the site?
If I was a developer, I will build a condo and retail near the ballpark. If I were Cisco CEO, I will build a campus near the ballpark so employment can go to the game after work and go out for lunch or dinner.
Major developer like the Dutra support the A’s moving to Fremont. They will do anything to bring the A’s in Fremont and invest and develop that area.
So FremontA’s, you really are Dutra? Do you know how many years it takes after Ford closed the plant and became Great Mall?
.
Do you know Fremont is not a large city like San Francisco or San Diego? Do you know how many ways of public transportation can get to AT&T or Petco Park? The Fremont location is much more similar to Oakland Coliseum, and will become a disaster for the city and the A’s.
.
Feel free to build your condo near any existing stadium, but it’s just a bad city planning to build a stadium near existing large suburban residential neighborhoods.
.
Allow me say it one more time. A good business plan builds a ballpark near existing urban downtown. You cannot build a stadium and HOPE it will suddenly become a downtown.
I love traffic!!! Fremont is going to happened. Why will Major League Baseball wasting their time on a lawsuit in Oakland and San Jose, when there’re no lawsuit in Fremont? NUMMI is closing and residents can’t sue the city or the A’s. Why will Major League baseball listen to small NIMBY’s in Fremont when they don’t have the knowledge. Fremont Chamber of Commerce do have the knowlege in business. Please don’t listen to he NIMBY’s in Fremont. Just ignored them. It will be a shame if the Giants leave he bay area. Fremont or Las Vegas is the perfect for a A’s stadium.
Sorry, Fremont won’t happen. Even if the blue ribbon team recommend the Fremont location, Lew Wolff and the A’s still won’t waste their money in Fremont, because they know it’s a bad investment. Even several city councilmembers raise concern about the close resemblance to Oakland Coliseum. It’s a bad location for a ballpark.
Let’s put on the ballot and we’ll know who will win.
Yes, we have been requested for a city-wide vote for years, but the city just ignored because they know they can decide without resident’s input. They are even clever this time. They suggest an “advisory vote” – even the majority of the voters reject the stadium proposal, the city can still proceed.
Fremont city policy has been influenced by land developers and business groups for a long time. The residents are united now to oppose the stadium, which will have severe impacts to a lot of Fremont residents.
MLB hear the Fremont oppositions, and they won’t take the risk. The A’s won’t risk their investment either.
San Francisco Giants already have a minor league baseball in San Jose and have a their sponsership in the silicon valley. A’s can’t move to San Jose. Oakland is going to take forever to build a stadium. A’s has a choice: Fremont or Las Vegas. http://www.astofremont.org
Marine Layer, Thanks for the Danville address. You just increased my home value by a couple of hundred thousand. I didn’t mean to set you off. I could see someone being upset by “small” in another context, but an Arena? My goodness, threats and all kinds of personal attacks? I really can’t believe your reaction. It can’t be because I used the word “small” to describe the Arena. OK, let’s call it a mid size arena. Sheez, calm down, take a deep breath and relax.
Sorry troll, you’re gone for a bit. Perhaps you can learn how to debate properly. Or answer a simple question.
Now, if someone on AN would get around to banning cRaZyK@PsDuDe (who I suspect is the same person as navigator, or should I say, nAvIg@tOr), there can be some peace and common sense in these discussions, like OldBlue’s comment below.
I’m in my 60s, so I suspect I’m older than most, if not all commenters on this excellent site. If my screen name leads you to believe I’m a Dodger fan, you’re correct. I’m a native Angeleno and much as I try to escape it, I guess I’ll always be a Dodger fan. However, as a result of my residence in San Jose from 1989 to 2006, I’m also an A’s fan, although if I’m honest, the Dodgers always come first. You didn’t think I’d root for the Giants, did you?
The preamble is only to establish that (1) I’m old, and (2) I’ve lived in both LA and the Bay Area. Fundamentally, LA is better for baseball and the Bay Area is not so good. You don’t believe it? When has anyone talked about the Dodgers or Angels leaving SoCal? Shit, in the past 20 years, there’s been serious talk about both the Giants and the A’s leaving the Bay Area. In Candlestick, the Giants were often pretty good, but they always got crappy attendance. The A’s were even better, but their attendance figures were even worse. Bottom line to me: Despite high incomes and 7-8M people, the Bay Area is actually iffy when it comes to supporting two MLB teams in an era where competitive teams need to draw 3M attendance. And that’s why the Giants would love to see the A’s leave.
Even though the Giants have settled into being the same old mediocre franchise (they love second place), Phone Company Park has seemingly locked them into that 3M attendance figure. That park isn’t as great as they say it is (go to Pittsburgh sometime) and the location isn’t really all that great either, but that, coupled with SF tourism and corporate tickets, means the Giants are in good shape.
Then there are the A’s. And here’s where I’m going to agree with Navigator, the Oakland booster, about where the team should be located. I agree Oakland or somewhere in the vicinity is the best location, but I strongly disagree with Navigator as to whether such a scheme is feasible. As I see it, Navigator’s argument in favor of Oakland can be divided into: (1), it’s the best geographic location; and (2), Oakland deserves to keep the team. As to (1), well, I think it’s a no-brainer. Oakland is central, and San Jose is tucked away down to the south. As to (2), oh, man. It’s hard to think of a city less deserving than Oakland of the A’s, an organization that’s consistently put a good product on the field, and has also been a good corporate citizen. Navigator, you’d do better if you’d spare us the paens to the good burghers of Oakland and Alameda County, those wonderful folks who love the A’s so much. That’s BS. You know it and we know it.
But I don’t think San Jose is any better. I don’t think San Jose will prove to be a good MLB town. In baseball, there are Boston, St Louis, New York and LA. And then there are Pittsburgh, Detroit, Kansas City and Tampa Bay. Oakland has always been in the latter group. San Jose will be there, too. I don’t think the A’s will do any better in San Jose than they’ve done in Oakland. Sure, the jumpstart from a new stadium will provide increased attendance for a while, but then, the A’s will settle back into the same old rut, trying to get 2M attendance in an era where 3M is needed to be competitive. San Jose would prove to be an especially difficult nut to crack, what with the inadequate area to be dedicated to the new stadium and the plans to build a park with 32K capacity. 32K? Do the math. You can’t even get to 3M attendance, so if you need the revenue that the Dodgers get from gate receipts, you’re going to have to charge a lot more for tickets. Wolff is not smart here, and the city of San Jose isn’t being smart, either. Ticket prices will approach Fenway levels. Anybody think people in San Jose will pay that?
Oakland is the best location for a new ball park. Oakland is centrally located and a nice, new stadium could draw all the way out to Sacramento. But it’ll never happen. As Navigator points out, Oakland gets a lot of undeserved bad press. There are many good things about Oakland, but the one thing that can never, ever be termed “good” is Oakland’s city government. Rife with ineptitude and corruption, bedeviled with failing schools, Oakland is the city that “can’t.” And inasmuch as city government is key to any long-term planning for a major corporate effort such as an MLB franchise, it’s no surprise that the A’s don’t want to deal with Oakland. And since they don’t want to deal with Oakland, the A’s will not build a new park there. Hard to blame them for that.
I look for it to be San Jose or contraction.
OldBlue, you and I don’t always agree on this stuff, but I appreciate your incredibly nuanced comment.
you cannot compare the Bay Area to Los Angeles because the total population aren’t even close. Los Angeles metropolitan area has 12.8 million people and SF Bay Area has 7.3 million people.
I go to a lot of Dodger games myself and I am proud to call them my second team but let me tell you guys the stadium has a high attendance because Latinos love their baseball, you see dodgers stadium average around 45k per game (in a 57k cap stadium), half of those attendees are latinos. Angels on the other hand – haha, it’s almost as un-diverse as Montana. But they still pack their yard pretty well.
I hope the A’s stay in the Bay Area, I’m rooting for Fremont myself. And you guys talk about contraction all the time – do you guys know when was the last major sports team contracted?! this aint the USFL, XFL, AFL, soon to be WNBA.
anyways….you can’t compare the two metropolitan areas because there is a huge population indifference. Why there still isn’t ONE football team in LA is beyond me.
There is a large Latino population is SJ too. Very large in fact.
Also, contraction requires 2 teams. Now that the Twins, Marlins, and ex-Expos all have new stadiums, the only other team that might possibly be considered would be Tampa Bay– but their lease goes through 2026 or something. So contraction would seem a very unlikely outcome.
Me personally, I think that if the SJ venture comes to fruition, the capacity will morph into the 42K range. Although it’s hard to quibble with your notion of LA being a better baseball market, I think SJ partisans can make a pretty good go of it. Realistically, we ought to be talking about what the SJ market will be like ten years from now, rather than what it currently is today.
OldBlue–not sure where the data is to support your premise that a ballpark in SJ won’t be successful—-ever checked on the cost of what it is to attend a hockey game—and yes they are consistently sold out and have been since they arrived in SJ 15+ years ago—it may only be 42+ games per year and 17,500 fans but it is a data point for the SJ market—–and of course all the naysayers all said the same thing about building the Tank for the Sharks—
I think it has been said over and over—its not about gate receipts as much as it is selling luxury boxes and advertising—and Silicon Valley is where its at today and expected to be so in the future—-which is why the ‘9ers also want to be down here also.
Check out independent rankings of sports markets in the US and you will see Silicon Valley as one of the most attractive—high disposable income, underserved market, large corporatations…obviously Wolff must believe it if he is willing to invest $500M of his own money in building a ballpark—besides AT&T you don’t see that kind of deal on the table anywhere else.
Problem is though, the Warriors draw well too.
Yup—but the A’s don’t—-no need to regurgitate the A’s attendance woes in the East Bay—regardless of what some will say these are facts not projections—-definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different outcome—-
Old Blue,
You seem sincere, and a good deal less crazy than Navigator. But you’re just as wrong as he is in the idea that Oakland is “central” in any meaningful way.
– First of all, “central” needs to be measured in travel time, not just mileage. On a weeknight, getting to the Coli from the Peninsula or South Bay is frequently a hideous 2 hour ordeal. If you use a more meaningful metric like, “How many people within a thirty minute drive,” a San Jose park will serve just as many people as an Oakland park.
– Second, like Navigator, you ignore the fact that there is already a team serving virtually the exact same “central” location. Eyeballing a map of metropolitan Los Angeles, Downey seems to be about in the middle. Do you really think the Dodgers and Angels would draw as well if they both played in parks in Downey, six miles apart (as the A’s and Giants would if a yard was built in JLS)?
– Third, all populations are not created equal. Access to Napa and Sonoma is not as valuable as access to Santa Clara County.
– Finally, San Jose is far MORE central to the most important demographics – big corporations. These are the customers for the suites and club seats which drive revenue in the modern day game.
You state that 3 million is a magic number for viability in modern MLB. Based on what, exactly? Only nine MLB teams reached that figure last year. Do you believe all 21 other teams are on the verge of failing?
The difference between the 32K park the A’s are proposing and a more typical 40K park is 8,000 cheap seats. These are the ones that will sell for somewhere between 10 and 25 bucks on average, be discounted heavily in promotions, and sit vacant for lower demand games. As ML has posted previously, these also happen to be among the most expensive seats to build, cost-of-construction-wise. From a profit and revenue standpoint, these are nowhere near as important as the ability to consistently sell the premium seating. Also, the scarcity of seats for high-demand games will sell seats for lower demand games, just as they do in Boston.
“Ticket prices will approach Fenway levels. Anybody think people in San Jose will pay that?” Prices may well be similar to Fenway, and yes, absolutely, people will pay. That’s the whole point. Residents of Santa Clara County have more disposable income per capita than almost anywhere else in the US. Equally or more importantly, Santa Clara County has a higher density of free-spending corporations than almost anywhere else in the U.S. Even Fenway prices are a relative bargain compared to NHL prices, which South Bay residents happily pay. I fully expect a 32K ballpark in San Jose will generate more gate revenue than 2/3 of the other teams in the bigs, regardless of capacity.
Daveinsm doesn’t think comparing the Bay Area to the LA is fair because of the population differences. Well, I disagree. I think it’s eminently fair to do so. Two teams in LA, two teams in the Bay Area, all bound by the economic rules pertaining to MLB. Dave actually supports my growing feeling that the Bay Area may just not have sufficient numbers of people to support two MLB teams in this high-dollar era. Furthermore, Dave actually provides misleading numbers. He uses the US Census Combined Statistical Area (CSA) figure for the Bay Area, but then uses the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) for the LA area. CSA is always larger than MSA. LA’s MSA is indeed 12.8M, but the SF MSA, which omits San Jose, is only 4.2M. When you add in San Jose, you reach the CSA figure of 7.4M. However, when you look at LA from the CSA perspective, you get a figure of 17.7M. Yes, a 10M difference. And, just for comparison, the other areas with two MLB teams have CSA of 22M (New York), 9.7M (Chicago) and 8.2M (DC-Baltimore). Anybody checked out how the Orioles and Capitols are doing these days? In ballparks built by taxpayers.
More Latinos makes the difference? I don’t think so. And even if it does, so what? The population figures are what they are.
Sharks? I’m hard pressed to see where one can draw any conclusions applicable to MLB attendance from attendance at an indoor winter sport with very high priced tickets where 17K attendance is considered great. And, not to offend anyone, but let’s just say hockey doesn’t occupy the same tier in American sports as baseball and football. Plus it just doesn’t take nearly so much population and money to support a hockey team.
Some years ago, Marine Layer provided a link to a very interesting Business Journal article regarding the ability of various regions to support various sports, with the criteria including population and income levels. As I recall, this article found that the Sharks’ success in San Jose was quite predictable. On the other hand, it turned out that the Bay Area was quite iffy when it came to supporting two MLB teams, specifically because MLB is the sport that demands the most people and the most disposable income. In good news for Bay Area A’s fans, it turned out that neither Portland nor San Antonio, the most mentioned MLB wanna-be cities could come close to supporting an MLB franchise. And interestingly, it seemed the A’s would have the greatest chance at long-term success if they were to move to either the New York or LA areas.
So LA has 17.7M and the Bay Area 7.4M? That would seem to support the argument that you really can’t compare the two.
Census projections have the Bay Area passing Chicago over the next few decades. There is no better market to move the A’s to.
oldblue – i dont know when was the last time you went to a dodgers game @ Chavez Ravine – but assuming from your screen name – 80’s? 70’s? I can guarentee you that the cultural dynamics at a dodger game has changed since you’ve left Los Angeles. Latinos love their baseball. Imagine if you had a Los Angeles Curling team, u think that would sell out 45k tickets per game? (extreme example I know, but im only using it to prove my point.)
Latinos don’t make a difference? I guess if you take away 20k attendees every Dodgers game doesn’t make a difference.
10 millions people doesn’t make a difference? …… are you serious?
I actually think Nav’s comments serve a purpose.
They unite the blog against him.
I really like the NUMMI site with the stadium and mixed-use development and more like a ballpark village similar to Pacific Commons than a stadium with surrounding with surface parking http://newballpark.blogspot.com/2008/12/all-you-need-to-know-about-warm-springs.html But why Warm Springs residents don’t opposed a mega mega surface parking at NUMMI?
I’m hoping Major League Baseball choose Fremont.
Hey, the infamous Fremont Citizens Network published some of this discussion on it’s webpage.
They claim to support the citizens of Fremont but censor and filter out posts all the time. The claim they are “editors” and think they are a “newspaper”. They are a propaganda page is all, run by a crazy bunch of baseball haters and shut-ins.
Some new guy went on a few days back and didn’t even take a side on the issue and they kicked his ass, acusing him of being other people and all sorts of crap. If it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny. These people think they are omnipotent and powerful because they put up a website and had 10 people shout down the mayor. They are truly a creepy bunch.
Two people who claimed the above mention poster was not a Fremont citizen by checking his name online (it was listed, twice, as a Fremont resident BTW) use fake names because they are afriad someone will “settle a score with a brick through the window”. Cowards and fringe luntics who deperately need a sense of power, that’s the makeup of the FCN.
Thanks for NOT censoring like they do!
bipes and FremontA’s,
.
Please provide more constructive arguments instead of many offensive languages. “You’re doing your side a disservice by going on like this.” And remember you are also a part of FCN community.
.
FCN Admin do not filter out or censor member’s posts. We seldom use the moderate feature unless it violate our policy (“You must follow proper etiquette of this community. No profanity, no personal attacks on any other member, no posting of offensive and pornographic material.”).
.
Many FCN members are long time A’s fans too, and are trying to find the best home for the A’s.
.
http://FremontCitizensNetwork.org/
I will never ever be a Fremont Citzens Network member that are anti-stadium. Fremont Citzens Network has been soo disrespect at Pro Stadium that’s why I and the mayor called you a mob. I agreed with the mayor that you write a nasty to the city council and the mayor. Fremont Chamber of Commerce and a pro stadium to do ever thing to get the ballot passed.
Bring the A’s to Fremont!!!!!!
http://www.facebook.com/astofremont
FCN admin,
How costructive is it for you to filter out certain people’s opinions on your website? How constuctive is it for you to allow bullying and shouting down of alternate opinions? How constructive is it for you to all ignore honest requests for answers to simple questions from the opposition perspective?
You get all up in arms becausde the mayour called you a “mob” but then you act like a mob. What do you expect?
Your assertion that you do not filter and censor is a untrue. Certain members are automatically censored from the front page so no one ever knows they posted. These members have not cursed, or violated any of the rules. I read an attack on an pro stadium person today and you did nothing about it. You show only one side of the issue and when someone says something about it, he’s attacked and called a liar. You made the incorrect assumption that because a few people shared a pro-stadium point of view, they were the same person. Will you also make this judgement of the anti-stadium people?
What type of disservice do you do when the opposition begins to get some good points across so you decide to filter them out?
Since this thread is shot to hell anyway, check out this SI archive article from a 30-year old Frank Deford written a week and a half before the Oakland A’s first game in 1968. Saw the link on AN. Here is the article summary:
A City Of Complexes
Oakland has long been traumatized by the glamorous city it faces across the Bay, but its other complex, a gorgeous stadium and arena facility, is new. Suddenly Oakland finds itself with five pro teams, all of them clawing for attention and devotion from the same elusive fans—choosy suburbanites, angry Negroes and haughty San Franciscans
I have no idea why this comment ended up so far up the thread
There seems to be something screwy in the replies within this thread.
That said, what I gather from the article is, I suppose, is that it’s true that the more things change, the more they stay the same. DeFord remains a lion in sports journalism, sharp as a tack to this day. He ends the piece with this flourish:
“Latinos don’t make a difference? I guess if you take away 20k attendees every Dodgers game doesn’t make a difference.
“10 millions people doesn’t make a difference? …… are you serious?”
You’re just not getting it, DaveinSm. Of course, the number of people as well as ethnicity make a difference. They make a huge difference. But this thread isn’t about touting the relative advantages of LA vs San Jose or Oakland or wherever. It’s a given. LA is a megalopolis, with more Latinos than anywhere else outside of Mexico City.
The thread is about whether the A’s can make it in San Jose, not LA. LA (and New York) is important only as an example of a metropolitan area that can easily support two MLB teams. And, yes, specifically because of those Latinos and those millions more people.
In a discussion of whether the A’s can make in Norcal, why in the world would you waste your time complaining that someone’s drawing unfair comparisons between Norcal and SoCal? I’m not talking merit here, I’m talking numbers. From the A’s perspective, those numbers are the only thing that matters, not which city’s “better.” Fact: SoCal has more people and is therefore more capable of supporting professional sports.
Would Lew Wolff or any other businessman rather be running the Dodgers in LA than screwing around with trying to keep it together for the A’s? What do you think?