Reed pulls measure from November ballot

The press release in its entirety is quoted below.

Mayor Reed Pulls Proposal to Place Downtown Ballpark Measure on November Ballot

Decision comes after Major League Baseball offers to help cover the added cost for a possible special election and hints that a decision on territorial rights may come in time for a spring vote

San Jose, Calif. – Mayor Chuck Reed has announced that he is pulling his request that the city’s Rules Committee place a downtown ballpark initiative on the November 2, 2010 ballot, following a discussion with A’s owner Lew Wolff. The decision comes after Major League Baseball (MLB) President Bob DuPuy, speaking on behalf of MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, also agreed to help cover the taxpayer cost if a special election is required in the spring.

“I pursued a November election because I believe the citizens of San Jose deserve to have their voices heard.  We have strong community support to build a privately-funded ballpark, which would be a catalyst for thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in revenue to fund vital city services,” said Mayor Chuck Reed.  “After discussing our options with Lew Wolff, other elected officials and members of Pro Baseball San Jose, we have decided to forgo a November ballot measure.”

Mayor Reed will still be asking the City Council to adopt a resolution of support for allowing the Athletics to move to San Jose that incorporates the Mayor’s proposed amendments to the city’s ballpark Negotiating Principles.

Lew Wolff praised the strong leadership of Mayor Reed. “I’m grateful that San Jose has shown a gritty determination to help us build a new ballpark for our franchise. We appreciate the strong leadership of both the Mayor and Commissioner Selig,” Wolff said. “We look forward to a final decision from the Commissioner, and will vigorously pursue an election next year if that decision is a positive one,” he added.

Since April 2009, city leaders have been working in partnership with the Athletics on a possible relocation to San Jose. In that time, the city has developed a set of negotiating principles for a new stadium, completed an economic analysis and environmental impact review for a downtown ballpark, and met with members of a special MLB Committee formed to study ballpark options for the Athletics. However, city leaders have been waiting for a response from MLB regarding territorial rights that currently prevent the Athletics from moving to San Jose.

“The initial push to hold a November vote sent a strong signal to league officials that San Jose is serious about attracting a Major League ballclub and that it’s time to move forward with the process,” said San Jose City Councilmember Sam Liccardo, who represents downtown. “The Commissioner’s offer to help pay for a possible election in the spring was the first indication that the league is inching closer to a decision on territorial rights.”

Mayor Reed and Councilmembers Rose Herrera, Sam Liccardo and Nancy Pyle had originally proposed placing the San Jose Downtown Ballpark and Jobs Measure on the November 2010 ballot to avoid the added expense of a special election. Placing a measure on this November’s ballot would have cost several hundred thousand dollars while holding a special election is estimated to cost more than one million dollars.  Specific estimates are set by the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters when a measure is submitted for placement on the ballot.  Voter approval is required to use city land or funds in conjunction with a downtown ballpark, and after this November, the next regularly-scheduled election in San Jose is not until June 2012.


The San Jose Downtown Ballpark and Jobs Measure required that the A’s would be responsible for 100% of the cost of building, operating and maintaining a new Major League Baseball ballpark. No new taxes could be raised to bring baseball to San Jose.

Ballpark Economic Impacts

A September 2009 Economic Impact Study commissioned by the City of San Jose states that the estimated $490 million private investment in a new downtown ballpark would bring positive economic benefits to the City:
–          More than 2,000 annual jobs (full, part-time, seasonal) of which 970 would be new jobs in San Jose as a result of the project
–          $2.9 billion total economic output for the local economy over a 30-year period
–          128 million in annual net economic impact as a result of direct spending on operations (that is partially re-spent in San Jose)
–          $5 million in annual revenues for local governments, including approximately $3 million to the City of San Jose’s General Fund and Redevelopment Agency

Following a discussion with Athletics owner Lew Wolff, Mayor Reed informed MLB President Bob DuPuy of his decision this morning and will rescind his request that the Rules Committee place the ballpark ballot measure on the agenda for the August 3 City Council Meeting. The Rules Committee will still decide today whether to place the proposed ballpark Negotiating Principles amendments on the August 3 agenda.
The Rules Committee will still meet today to discuss four other proposed ballot measures:
1. Reforming binding arbitration for police officers and firefighters;
2. Instituting a tax on medical marijuana;
3. Raising the sales tax by ¼ percent; and
4. Changing minimum benefits and contribution formulas for employee pensions

Now I can have lunch.

107 thoughts on “Reed pulls measure from November ballot

  1. Smart move Chuck Reed and Lew Wolff.

    Let’s face it Selig and DuPuy hold all the cards on this t-rights issue and the last thing you want is to alienate these two.

    I am surprised Selig and DuPuy just didn’t sit back and stay mum like the previous 16 months and wait and see if the ballot passes or not.

    This is a good sign that MLB does care about this and is doing due diligence across the board to secure this in the “right way” as Selig puts it. Even offering to pay for the March election shows their goodwill that this will get resolved in the next few months.

    Also I am sure when it does go to a March election; MLB will make sure the Giants or anyone affiliated with them will not sue to delay the process. That had to be the “carrot” MLB put in front of them to delay.

    It also shows that they see San Jose as a viable option. I am sure Selig laughed at Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums’ letter to Selig about a site near JLS. On the next letter make sure to write how much Oakland is putting up for this new place as a public subsidy so Selig takes you more seriously. ..I still can’t believe Oakland is even trying still after how many failed attempts?

    Kudos to Chuck Reed for getting the ball moving again on this and the progress made in the last 5
    days is more than the past 16 months combined.

  2. @Sid–I’m sure Bud is laughing at Chuck for caving in so easily.

  3. The MLB didn’t hold ALL the cards. The ballot measure was a huge one for San Jose. If it were to pass not only would it have undercut the Giant’s arguments, but it would have put the MLB in the unenviable position of telling San Jose residents “No, you can’t have the ballpark you voted for,” should the commission rule against San Jose.

    If caving into Selig and giving up San Jose’s biggest trump card was the right move, time will tell, but you can sure as hell bet Selig will actually return Reed’s call next time.

  4. Sid:

    What progress has been made? Where did Dupay promise a March ballot initiative? This is pure spin. The reality is that MLB has made a smart deal for themselves and it doesn’t seem to bode well for SJ. MLB will pay for an initiative only after they are convinced SJ’s site works, that the A’s have a iron-clad financing plan to build the stadium, and a deal with the Giants is in place. Unlike what SJ backers write here, that seems like a lot of work left to do and some of it may even be impossible. So MLB may never pay for an initiative b/c it might never find SJ to be viable.

    So, MLB will likely pivot back to Oakland now to try to get a deal hammered out so that (a) they won’t have to come up w/ the $1M on a ballot initiative, (b) get down in the weeds on a political campaign, and most importantly (c) they don’t have to negotiate a deal between the A’s and the Giants.

    If Oakland can’t deliver, then MLB could easily run back to the Giants and say we have no options left. But Oakland will get it’s chance. And by the way, you have no idea what Oakland is or isn’t doing, so any comments you make are pure speculation and make you look ill informed.

  5. @StanStan:
    Good insight. I believe Oakland will get it’s chance. New mayor wants it, unlike the old mayor, and there’s some political pressure too to keep them in Oakland.

    • @jk-usa – Can’t lean on Perata much. By the time he takes office we’ll be another 6 months in from now. Much of what needs to be done takes more time than pressure. Again, I have to point out that keeping the A’s is not a visible part of Perata’s platform, although it’s clear that he’d like to.

  6. @JK and Stanley

    Oakland will only get a chance if they can pony up “public money” for a stadium. The land and EIR mean nothing without a public subsidy of at least 150 million. This is because Oakland is small market and does not have the corporations or the investors like Lew Wolff has in San Jose to get it done 100% privately.

    Why would Lew Wolff or anyone build a 100% private ballpark in Oakland? There is no logic behind it period and that is something that Pro-Oakland fans such as yourselves need to understand and ask yourselves; are you willing to vote for new taxes in Oakland for this? No way that is going to happen in this economy.

    In San Jose, the population is far richer and 3 times the size of Oakland plus the corporate sponsorships in the area are so far beyond Oakland that it is hard to even fathom how these two cities can compete over this in anyway. That is why it makes sense for the A’s to move to San Jose and stay in the Bay Area.

    As for caving in? You need “go along” before you “get along” and they made the right political move here to continue to work with Selig and DuPuy on this in a orderly fashion. The good thing is that San Jose got their attention in a big way and now the committee sees San Jose is ready to move forward now and they will have to make a decision soon so a March election can be pursued.

    If that is not progress of MLB offering to pay for a special election in the near future then what is?

    At the end of the day it is either a privately financed ballpark in San Jose or the A’s are gone out of the Bay Area.

    Oakland is wasting its time unless they can find a buyer for the A’s who has the coin to build privately in Oakland. That man is not Lew Wolff…

  7. @ML—I meant the current mayor (Dellums) wants it over previous mayor Brown. Perata? I hope not.
    Rebecca Kaplan is my pick, even though I don’t have a vote on it. She loves Oakland and I think would fight for a stadium, the jobs, pride, etc..

    • @jk-usa – So far Dellums and City haven’t had to do much other than prep steps. EIR, private land acquisitions – that’s the ugly sausagemaking part. It would be nice if they started that ASAP. Oakland has done everything up to a point, waiting for MLB’s decision. Now’s the time for action.

  8. @Sid–you have to be the biggest SJ booster on here. I see your posts on other blogs with your buddy Tony D., saying the same old stuff over and over again, that SJ is the biggest, most richest, bestest place on earth for the A’s. If only it was that easy. We shall see in about 16 more months.

  9. ML–curious about your thoughts on when the clock could officially start ticking for Oakland–for SJ to put anything on the ballot in March 2011 they would need to have it approved by November/early December I am guessing—thats only 4 months away—and I would expect that Oakland will have more time than 4 months to deliver—at this point would you expect that there will be an official announcement that Oakland has xx months to pull it together or is the BRC final report going to continue to be held up until they gain a sense of what Oakland is truly capable of doing?

  10. My guess:
    Wolff is playing poker, everything he says indcates that he has the money lined up to build in San Jose. Not sure that’s true, but it’s the way to play the hand because it forces Oakland to come up with an alternative that involves public financing, and quickly.
    Reed is playing about as well as he can, but he’s not the major player.
    Selig is showing some weakness. He knows the committee is going to say San Jose and is stalling to get votes over the winter.
    Neukom is also playing strong, and ultimately will get a higher payoff than the Giants deserve on the merits.

  11. GoA’s – I’m not ML obviously, but that’s what I was thinking through in the previous thread. I can’t believe they’ll only give Oakland 4 months to make the kind of progress I believe they are looking for. I think they’ll get about a year, which would allow for a Nov 2011 SJ referendum. If it comes to that. Oakland could very well pull off a huge comeback and deliver a truly workable deal. The biggest question I have is what would be acceptable progress to MLB? An approved EIR? Control of a site? Financing plan in place? All of the above?

  12. All – You may think that public financing will be required. I don’t. Instead, corporate interests will be asked to pony up and make commitments (5, 10, 25 years). There’s a major distinction between the two. Oakland will need to be well along in its EIR work and land acquisitions. They’d also need to clear up any ROW/access issues that may be there depending on the site. Financing is a matter for the team, MLB is just setting a “fundraising” goal to meet the debt service.

    MLB can set whatever arbitrary deadline it likes and it can change the deadline whenever it likes. I used 12-18 months because that’s a reasonable amount, but it could be compressed – in part because some of the preparatory leg work has already been done. The important thing is that all of the work done for Oakland so far has been exploratory. Now they’d have to go beyond that.

  13. Very clear, logical and insightful as usual, ML. Thanks. Guess we just wait and see what Oakland can do at this point. How transparent do you think Oakland’s efforts will be going forward? It seems that will be the only source of meaningful news on the stadium front for the time being, so I hope it’s pretty open.

  14. ML what is the deadline for starting a March special election in San Jose?

  15. one of the things that Matier brought up this morning on KCBS is that the gints dont want to see a ballpark in the southbay that would also compete with their non-baseball revenues (concerts, football, etc). He implied that a stadium in Oakland isn’t a worry….given the choice between the 2 sites promoters would always choose SF—but having one in the south bay is a different animal. It did make me wonder how much non-baseball revenue is generated by AT&T—anybody have an idea of what this might be?

  16. @Jesse – I imagine it’s shortly after Council comes back from winter break in January.

    @GoA’s – Non-baseball revenue may be an issue for the Giants, which is understandable. I doubt they’ll have much to worry about because there will probably be a community agreement in place that severely limits the number and kinds of events that can be held at a SJ ballpark.

  17. @Sid, Silicon Valley is more than the (city limits) of San Jose… Add up the money in Orinda, Lafayette, Piedmont, Berkeley, Emeryville and Alameda. All these citiies are in play, for corporate money and fans at our new JLS Ballpark!

  18. The memo by Reed specified 10 community related dates per offseason. This could limit the non-baseball income for the A’s. As far as I know, the Giantshave no such restrictions. Combine this with the Pavilion so heavily used for non-sporting events, and I don’t see the Giants having any real complaint in non-baseball income loss due to this ballpark.

  19. @selig must die – Those community events are not what are normally considered non-baseball events because they aren’t revenue producing for whomever runs the stadium (A’s, SVSE). Concerts, extreme sports, other revenue producing events will be done by whomever runs the stadium. A community event could be a city/valley baseball championship, or the city using the stadium club for an event.

  20. “I can’t believe they’ll only give Oakland 4 months to make the kind of progress I believe they are looking for.” Uhh, Dude, Oakland’s had nearly 15 YEARS to make the kind of progress MLB is looking for! You should be thankful if MLB gives “The O!” an extra 4 minutes; seriously! Explain to me this Oakland-only supporters; strictly looking at this from a business standpoint, why in the hell would MLB want basically two “replica” ballparks a mere 7-10 miles from each other when San Jose/Silicon Valley presents an opportunity to separate two franchises by 40 miles?

  21. Maybe you wrote that poorly, but are you seriously calling me an Oakland-only supporter? If so, you haven’t been paying very close attention (and yes, I get the irony since I mistakenly did the same thing to LeAndre awhile back). Anyway, I know the history. But if MLB is telling SJ to hold off on the election to see if Oakland can get a real deal together — which is the entire point of ML’s last post and which I specifically referred to — don’t you think it’s logical that MLB would also provide more than a measly four months to do it? It’s not about how much time you and I think Oakland has had in the past or where we think the stadium should be. It’s about MLB’s apparent belief that there’s enough “there” there in Oakland’s latest proposals to give them a last shot at following through on them. It’s also therefore logical to assume that MLB has no problem with two stadia within 7-10 miles.

  22. Tony you really need to stop with this distance crap and what MLB would prefer. Of course they have no problem with how far apart two stadiums are within the same “metro” area. Last I checked Yankee Stadium is less than 10 miles to Shea Stadium and Wrigley Field is less than 8 miles to Soldier Field and no one seems to have a problem with either situations.
    In my honest opinion, I personally think it’s better to have two rival franchises in the same area to be close enough to each other so that it’s easier to travel to during the annual interleague match ups….especially when you have something like BART or a subway system already in place. It’s those few games out of the season (for the areas who do have a close rivalry with another team) that gives MLB a reason to keep interleague going even though there are those in the baseball world today who still oppose it. It’s good for baseball and it’s good not having to drive 45minutes to an hour to and from a cross town rival match up.

    In the end you and I both know that A’s fans will always be A’s fans and Giants fans will always be Giants fans no matter how far they were placed from each other. That’s just how it is with sports and favorites teams as a kid growing up. If anything the SB just has another option of choosing which side they prefer….either taking 101 and become Giants fans or taking 880 and becoming A’s fan. If anything MLB probably would love to see more of the “casual” fans attending games and spending money. Fans who actually likes both teams equally and will go see either team play….which is pretty much “geographically” a perfect location for the SB in my opinion.

  23. @David–I think Tony D is Lew Wolff!!

    Also, I love that SI article on the Raiders/Irwindale debacle from 1987. A blast form the past.

  24. For a March 8, 2011 special election, the city council must adopt the resolution placing the measure on the ballot no later than the 88th day before the election, or Friday, December 10, 2010.

  25. Going over the news of the past couple of days, I began to wonder, since it was never mentioned by Selig, DuPuy, MLB or Wolff: When did MLB say they were going to give Oakland another crack at a ballpark? To review: SJ Mayor Reed says vote in November, Selig/MLB shocked/disappointed, DuPuy/MLB request SJ take ballpark measure off of November ballot/state will pay for special Spring election, Reed/SJ abide and remove ballpark ballot measure. Where did the “Oakland will get another shot” stuff come from? Not saying it isn’t possible, but where is the actual news for this speculation? Oh well. For the record, Tony D. is Tony D. and I’ve been here for over 5 years. I’ve been to many an A’s game at the Coliseum and cheared loudly “Let’s go Oakland, Let’s go!” (bigger fan of the Raiders though). I was very supportive of Oaklands Uptown proposal in the early 2000’s, but we all know what happened with that. All this said, I’m an even bigger fan of my hometown SJ and look forward to seeing MLB in our downtown. Unfortunately for Oakland, it had its chances for over 15 years with nothing to show for the A’s. It’s long past time to move on southward my friends!

  26. Wow David, you actually wasted an hour of your life digging up that ancient SI article just to bash SJ? Very sad. I’m embarrassed for you

  27. While the ballparks in Chicago and NYC are geographically close, big difference from the Bay Area: they’re located within the same city! Chicago and NYC are the dominant cities in their respective metro area’s, while the Bay Area has two major population centers 40 miles apart: SF/Oak and SJ metro. It makes way more sense to have two MLB franchises separated in our region than it does in Chi/NYC. For better comparison, look at the situation in LA with the Dodgers and Angels. San Jose the new Irwindale? Wow, you people are so funny (sarcasm) and have absolutely no room to talk. In closing, and as a veteran of this blog, don’t be bringing milk up into this bar!

  28. @David- Too bad all those East Bay cities are not even close to Silicon Valley when it comes to corporate sponsorships…If that was the case when why in 42 years has Oakland not even finished an EIR for the A’s?

    JLS is a great site and I would love to see the A’s move there but over 70 businesses need to be bought out or relocated. 70 businesses?? Good lord that is lot of negotiating that would take years to finish.

    San Jose just has to relocate an ATT work center (very easily done since San Jose has land available) and re-do an electrical substation or move it.

    People in the East Bay need to realize San Jose is not that far and if you come down 680 in the evening it is a super fast drive to Downtown with minimal traffic near the Capitol Expwy exit as traffic flows the other way up to the East Bay in the evening hours.

    While San Jose is no San Francisco it is a far better location than Oakland period. Why do the Giants try so hard to stop the A’s from moving there? But could care less if they build in Oakland? It is because San Jose is a far larger city that would put the A’s on equal footing payroll and economics wise with the Giants.

  29. Tony, it’s all speculation at this point. No one here knows what’s really going on. But I think ML’s analysis makes sense and am just following that line of thought to it’s logical conclusion.

  30. @Tony D- Great points, it makes more sense economically to have one team in SF and the other in SJ as that is where the $$ are in the Bay Area for the most part. Not to knock Contra Costa County but they are a fraction of SF and SJ.

    Also your right on Oakland not doing anything for 15 years…They had their shot. Game over.

  31. San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed will be on Chronicle Live tonight at 5pm on CSNBA (I can’t believe I am announcing this because the show is an infomercial for the Giants). However, it should be interesting.

  32. @ Tony D: Just b/c something isn’t mentioned in an article doesn’t mean it’s not true. You should also read the articles very closely, as should Mark Purdy. MLB’s commitment to pay for a ballot initiative is not an outright promise. It’s got a HUGE condition– MLB must decide SJ is a viable City for the A’s (viable means lots of things by the way). Something that SJ partisans seem to conveniently forget or omit. There is no promise to pay for an initiative outright. This is why ML is speculating that Oakland will have another shot. Otherwise, why would MLB be so upset over the Nov election?

  33. @SS–there is no doubt in my mind that the BRC came back to Selig with SJ as the best location for the A’s. BS realizing the battle with neukom over TR could be insurmountable has asked the BRC to see if they can’t get something done in Oakland–not because it is the best choice for baseball or for the A’s economically but because it is the easy choice with the TR challenge.

    With this, Oakland has another chance to see what they can do and personally I will be fascinated in what they are actually able to accomplish. If/when Oakland fails it remains to be seen whether bs has the appetitie to take on neukom—and make SJ an optioin. My bet is that he won’t and that the A’s will be sold to someone who moves them into another market—remember–community pride for some billionaires is much more important than just dollars and cents .

    My point being—the only reason a ballpark is not being built in SJ right now for the A’s is because of neukom/TR and bs not having balls and not because Oakland is more attractive economically to MLB–

  34. If San Jose is the best place for the A’s then in that case Selig has to be so detailed that he can sway 3/4 votes to convert the Bay Area into one shared market.

    Stripping the Giants would be a bad move and frowned upon by the other owners. By voting to bring the Bay Area in line with NY, LA, and CHI is the smart move and will allow San Jose to be opened up to the A’s.

    Problem….Bill Neukom is a beast Selig doesn’t want to mess with unless he is absolutely sure he has every corner covered in the report his committee is working on. Selig even said he want to “get this right” and stated “so that we we sit down for discussions, one club can’t say did you try this or did you try that.”

    On top of all this he offers to pay for a special election in March in San Jose? Wow….All signs point to San Jose but Selig needs to be detailed oriented here before setting a precedent.

    He needs to make it look like to all the other owners this is the “best way for MLB and for the A’s” as a whole. I think even Selig sees the Giants are being ridiculous in general but he has to abide by the rules and play by them.

    It is only a matter of time before Selig makes this happen….So funny I used to be a such a huge Giants fan from the South Bay…Now I hate their guts for claiming San Jose as their “territory” when Oakland is CLOSER to San Jose than SF is. Wow…

  35. Didn’t pick up anything particularly enlightening from the part of Chronicle Live I watched … Monte Poole said the Giants would want/get nine figures for territorial rights.

  36. 9 figures ($100+M)–even $50M seems high—any debate on which location–SJ or Oakland—is economically more attractive should end right there—gints would rather have a stadium 7 miles away and forgo a $50-$100M payment than have a ballpark in SJ…40+ miles away—-and be $50-$100M richer—

  37. According to an article in today’s Wall Street Journal, the unemployment rate in San Jose and Oakland is the same: 11.4 percent. That’s not good for either city. However, this is the only area where the two cities are equal. When it comes to median income, corporate presence, crime or any other indicator of civic health and prosperity you might care to use, Oakland loses every time. It’s too bad. I like Oakland. My daughter owns a home in Alameda. I lived in Oakland and Richmond as a very young kid. Oakland’s not nearly so bad as its reputation. Unfortunately, Oakland has one very real problem: the millionaires who own the A’s will not pay to build a new stadium in Oakland. They will do so in San Jose. I don’t know how you Oakland diehards can get around that. Both cities are broke, but San Jose won’t be asked to pitch in anything other than a small amount of redevelopment funds. That’s because San Jose is considered to be a far more viable venue. Conversely, if Oakland wants to keep the A’s, it’s clear that the city will have to make a substantial monetary commitment, specifically because it’s not so desirable a venue. And then watch the citizenry march on city hall. Oakland’s hurting and it would be the height of civic irresponsibility for any politician to try to spend multi-millions of dollars on a ballpark. I doubt that even the dumbasses who’ve traditionally run Oakland would be so foolhardy. Oakland just can’t afford to keep the A’s. And, no, you can’t force Mr. Businessman to put HIS money at risk to assuage YOUR civic pride.

    Oakland’s already lost the A’s. But what’s happening here with this latest fandango is that the cowardly Selig is desperately seeking a way out from the impending confrontation with the Giants. So he wants to drag it out. He wants to let Oakland either hang itself by committing money it doesn’t have, or to just finally call it quits. Selig and his owner buddies are all robber barons. They want to take your money. Wolff is probably the most honest of them all. He’s told you he’s willing to invest $500 million or so in San Jose (and Fremont) because he figures he can make money on the deal. He’s also told you he isn’t willing to invest that amount of money in Oakland. You think maybe that’s because he doesn’t think he can make money on the deal? What is there you Oakland guys don’t understand about business? Wolff would be more than happy to stay in Oakland. All you have to do is build him his new ballpark. He won’t.

    All Oakland is doing with this rearguard action is helping MLB dodge the needed confrontation with the greedy Giants; unfortunately, Oakland is also helping speed the departure of the A’s from the Bay Area and from California. They’re making it too easy for the cowards in MLB to say, “see, there’s just too much turmoil there, and besides, the Giants do have these territorial rights.” And if those bogus territorial rights are upheld, say goodbye to the A’s. Oakland isn’t going to keep the A’s. Not unless they find a money tree or Santa Claus comes through for them. Lew Wolff is not Santa Claus. San Jose is the only hope for all of you A’s fans to see the team stay in the Bay Area.

    I would hate to see the A’s playing out the string for years in that musty old Coliseum. But I fear that’s what could happen, with the A’s just waiting for the moment when the economy improves and some other dumbass city like Charlotte, San Antonio, Portland, whoever, goes after them with a sweetheart deal. The Giants will have won big time. The A’s would also win. The only people who would suffer are you A’s fans.

  38. Well said, Old Blue.

  39. “In my honest opinion, I personally think it’s better to have two rival franchises in the same area to be close enough to each other so that it’s easier to travel to during the annual interleague match ups….especially when you have something like BART or a subway system already in place.”

    With a stadium at Diridon both the A’s and the Giants would have stadiums within 3 blocks of a Caltrain station (I am taking the admitted leap that Caltrain will still exist by the time a San Jose stadium would be built). Diridon is also the eventual location for BART in San Jose though that’s a number of years down the line.

  40. Honestly, deciding where a stadium is to make it “easier” on the players for six games a year is absurd.

  41. I think he was referring to the fan bases. But as Nathan pointed out, we’ll still have that in SJ because of CalTrain. Plus, it’s a total reach for trying to justify keeping the stadia extremely close together, which is not obviously necessary.

  42. Well said Old Blue.

    You nail all the reasons why the A’s want to move to San Jose and Silicon Valley.

    The Giants are willing to forgo $50-100M upfront and another 20 million a year less they would pay into revenue sharing to stop the A’s from coming to the South Bay.

    That tells how lucrative the San Jose market is compared to Oakland.

    Oakland needs to pony up public money or the A’s need to move to San Jose to stay in the Bay Area.

    It is simple as that and Selig knows this which is why before he takes on the Giants he needs to make sure every possibility has been covered in his report.

  43. Bud and Lew, frat buddies till the end. In a perfect world, one should retire and the other should sell to a local owner committed to keeping them in Oakland where they belong.
    Okay, I’m ready for the bashing from the pro SJ folks/anti-Oakland folks.

  44. @jk-usa–you remind of the little kid on the playground running around saying shit just to stir things up–you never offer any logical support for your arguments–you operate out of an emotional lOaklan only level—personally I try to ignore your posts as they offer nothing–somehow on your latest post I couldn’t resist. You always fail to respond to the facts…such as—if Oakland is such a superior market to SJ—why would the gints forgo $50-$100M TR settlement to move the ballpark 40+ miles away to SJ? If LW is such a villian for not wanting to invest his own money in Oakland how come no other individuals/potential owners have stepped up and said that they would buy the A’s and invest $500M in a downtown Oakland ballpark? If SJ is eliminated at some point its not because Oakland is a superior market—but rather the gints aren’t willing to give up SJ—-and if this is the case—as Old Blue stated above–true A’s fans lose–because we will have a one team area—which is the ultimate outcome neukom is trying to achieve–

  45. Why do the Giants need to get a territorial rights settlement? I thought the MLB team owners can just vote to have the territorial rights overturned without any money being involved.

  46. @Chris – You are correct. However, Selig like to smooth things over so the Giants will get something out of it.

  47. Marine Layer – If that’s the case, why can’t MLB just give the Giants X million dollars and say “here’s your compensation, take it”?

    Thanks for answering my initial question so promptly. I love this blog, I don’t know what I would do without it.

    • It’s a bit of a Pandora’s box. If you ask 10 people what proper compensation is you’ll get 10 different answers, ranging from zero to $100 million or more. Part of the panel’s charge is to determine what compensation is proper based on the teams’ relative economic performance. Once you do that you get the other big market teams interested because it could set a precedent in determining what it might cost to “invade” their territories. If there is a way to do it without affecting the big markets, MLB would rather do that.

  48. @GoA’s–PLEASE ignore my posts and don’t reply then. No love loss over it.

  49. @Chris- Everyone wishes is was that easy. Territorial rights are a big issue with MLB owners. Just ask Peter Angelos who wishes he owned Washington DC which is far closer to Baltimore than SF and SJ are in proximity.

    MLB gave Angelos the TV rights to the Nationals to appease him for them moving a team so close to him. He had a 7.5-8 million person market to himself and he is kicking himself for not having MLB write Washington DC into his territorial rights in their charter.

    Difference here is the Giants in the charter have SF, San Mateo, Marin, Santa Cruz, Monterey and Santa Clara Counties. While the A’s have only Contra Costa and Alameda Counties.

    In LA, CHI, and NY their territories are shared except NY who is allowed to have a 3rd team in Brooklyn.

    Now the A’s gave the Giants Santa Clara County in 1990 for the them to move there. It got shot down twice and Giants pocketed the rights and it was put into the charter at their request. Before Santa Clara County was shared between the teams.

    So one wonders why is Bay Area not shared? It is because when the A’s move to Oakland in 1968 the Giants were pissed and requested the Bay Area be split up except for Santa Clara County which was prune-yards at the time.

    The other territories LA, CHI, and NY had all their teams born out by expansion with the exception of the Dodgers. Not one of them had a team move into their territory from the outside like what happened to the Giants and now the Orioles.

    Now the Giants complain that they have a big fan base and sponsors in the South Bay and that those territorial rights were included as part of the sale of the franchise in 1993 and in 2008.

    Now we all know this is BS but the South Bay is so lucrative and the fact they know the A’s cannot do anything in Contra Costa?Alameda Counties by holding the South Bay hostage they will force them to move out of the Bay Area and own the market.

    San Jose is a larger and more lucrative than San Francisco and the Giants know it. They would rather not take the money and force the A’s to move despite the fact the A’s gave them Santa Clara County for nothing.

    Plus the A’s in San Jose would have more corporate support and a higher payroll than the Giants. They know it….otherwise why not take a 50M-100M payment, plus pay 20M less in revenue sharing a year and run?

    Now Selig needs to make sure before he takes on a big time lawyer like Bill Neukom to get the other owners to see San Jose is the only way is to make sure his report is so detailed that no way the other owners vote it down.

    At the surface it seems like an easy argument the way you put it. But the Bay Area is very unique in that it had a second team come from another market.

    Eventually Selig will make it happen and the A’s will be in San Jose in 2014-2015. San Jose is too lucrative of a city to stay locked out by the Giants.

    I hope this answers the question for you.

  50. Also I forgot to mention since Peter Angelos did not have “hard territorial rights” but just weaker “tv rights” to Washington DC.

    MLB gave him the Nationals TV rights and would reimburse him through revenue sharing for any money revenue he lost on a per year basis after the Nationals began play in Washington DC a few years ago.

    The Giants have “hard territorial rights” which makes this tougher than the case above. But I say a simple adjustment of the Giants revenue sharing on a per year basis of some type is more than fair. TV rights are already shared in the area so that cannot be included.

    Ex: Right now the Giants put in $35 million per year or so in to the pot. If that got reduced to $10 million per year and the A’s instead of getting $35 million a year put in $25 million.

    Isn’t that a -25 swing for the Giants and a +70 swing for the A’s

    MLB as a whole makes an extra $45 million a year to move to San Jose.

    How is this not a no-brainer for the other owners to vote on? Even if it was +20 it is still worth for MLB to be in San Jose.

  51. If SJ does get the A’s, no WS flags or retired jersey’s from the Oakland teams should be displayed at the new park. They will be the San Jose A’s with their own history. So #9, #27, #34 and #43 could be given out to any of Bean’s Money Ball guys he brings in. The Oakland A’s have a such a colorful, great history. It will NEVER be like that in San Jose. Might as well change colors too. Teal and magenta sound good.

  52. Whereever the A’s build a new park they should retire the numbers of the great Philly players. It is a travesty that Mack, Foxx, Simmons, Cochrane, Grove, Bender, Baker, Collins, and Waddell are pretty much ignored by the current franchise.

  53. People need to realize that territorial rights, whether “hard” or TV, have changed and been altered in the past to accomodate relocations/expansions. Heck, the last territorial change (geographic) was probably when the Giants territory was expanded in 1992 so that they could relocate to San Jose (we all know how that went). Last TV territorial “invasion” was Expos to DC (Baltimore). So let’s not all pretend (or act) like this thing is sacrosanct. Besides, no single team “owns” a territory; they’re individually licensed. Will the Giants be compensated when the A’s move to San Jose? Most likely, but it won’t be the extortion some are portraying. $100 million? Yeah right! By the way, per the MLB Constitution, it’s the “Best interest of baseball” clause, not the “Best interest of the SF Giants” clause.

  54. good idea, gojohn. jk, your post just shows bitterness, no team would do that. One of the best thing about being an A’s fan is the franchise’s storied history in two of its three locations that can be passed along generation by generation. We really enjoyed our Cooperstown trip, partly because there’s so much about the A’s compared to most other teams.

  55. @gojohn10–Hell yeah I’m bitter. Baseball gone to hell run by a bunch of greedy creeps. Just a simple ballpark downtown/waterfront with no luxury suites or naming rights will do. BUT NOOOOO!! Have to have all this luxury crap to make the owners/players even richer. The greed is sickening! BTW, your new SJ fans wouldn’t even know who those old Philly A’s players are, in addition to Catfish, Eck, Rollie and Reggie.

  56. @jk-usa- We all see you are a big Oakland guy and it is OK to show passion for your city. I am from San Jose and feel the same way about my city.

    You can always hop down 880 South or 680 South and come to San Jose to support the team. Too many Oakland fans have this notion the A’s are moving far away to San Jose.

    San Jose is still in the Bay Area and having lived out here I have traveled up to Oakland and SF for baseball, basketball, and football over the years.

    Just because you and other Oakland fans have to do what us South Bay people having been doing for years is far better than seeing the A’s in San Antonio, Portland, or Charlotte.

    A 1 hour or so drive to San Jose to watch a game isn’t as bad as you think. We are all after all residents of the Bay Area.

  57. @Tony- Totally agree it is in the best interests of baseball to move to San Jose and not the best interests of the SF Giants making more coin.

    The charter states only with a 3/4 vote of the owners can territorial rights be changed. Time for a vote and if it gets shot down then the A’s are screwed and Giants would have won it all.

    I pray the other owners see it makes sense to be in San Jose.

  58. @Sid – Thanks for your response. You answered a lot of my questions and I think other newbies probably gained some knowledge as well.

  59. @jk-usa
    You continue to overlook the small matter of actually paying for a $500 million ballpark. Your shiny new waterfront ballpark with “no suites or naming rights” would represent a massive new ongoing liability for the team with little or no new revenue streams to pay for it. Why not, they’re rich, right? They should run the team as a public charity! (For myself, I’d rather see their charitable contributions go to abused children or medical research or something, but that’s just me). Furthermore, their refusal to lose huge sums of money to subsidize your entertainment and biased sense of history makes them “greedy.” Mr. Pot, please allow me to introduce you to Mr. Kettle.

  60. @bartleby–I know you need all that luxury crap and corporate money to field a team. I guess I’m living in the past. My folks grew up in Pittsburgh (moved to the east bay in1958) and told me about the neat old ballparks they’ve been to like Forbes Field in Pitt, Crosley Field in Cincy, Shibe Park (Connie Mack) in Philly. Then the concrete multi-purpose stadiums of the 60’s/70’s took over, including the Coliseum. All rather bland. The A’s do need a new park to stay competitive in this expensive hobby the owners are in, but to move in an area that’s so removed from the eastbay is hard to swallow.

  61. @jk-usa

    How can you say San Jose is so removed from the East Bay it is hard to swallow? My brother and I live in San Jose but work in Alameda County (Hayward and Dublin)

    You will be able to still go to a game in San Jose living in Alameda or Contra Costa County. In many ways it is easier to travel to San Jose than Oakland for several East Bay folks as traffic goes other way for the most.

    I have several friends from the East Bay and it is not as removed as you think. Better San Jose where you can drive to then San Antonio.

  62. If traffic is minimal, it takes about 30-35 minutes to get from SJ Airport to the Oakland Coliseum. Or, you can drive to Union City or Fremont BART in about 20 minutes and then take another 20 minutes to get to the game.

    But some people think anything more than 20 miles away might as well be the next continent.

    I can assure you San Jose is closer to Oakland than San Antonio and Las Vegas.

  63. I feel like an outcast on here, being one of the few Oakland supporters on this blog. Well, I’m hoping or a miracle, that BS and his cronies give Oakland one final chance to pull off a stadium deal. Oakland can’t get a break on anything it seems like for the last 20+ years. Sweeping the Giants in 1989 was nice, but it was bittersweet after the big quake. Good news is over due for this town.

  64. @jk-usa:

    You do realize that Oakland is the third stop for the A’s, right? They hold the record! And now they’re going for yet another relocation, this time—fortunately for Bay Area fans—in the same geographic area. They broke peoples’ hearts in Philadelphia and in Kansas City, but I’m hard-pressed to understand why Oakland folks would be broken-hearted if they could still see their team by only driving an hour or so. It’s business. You have an emotional attachment to the A’s; the A’s are a business. They have to make money. They’re not doing so in Oakland, just as they weren’t in Philadelphia or Kansas City, where, no matter how rabid their fan base might have been, it just wasn’t enough. The team has to make money, and, despite the impassioned pleas of those who post here, the folks in Oakland do not support the A’s to the point where they can make money.

    Forbes Field, Crosley Field, Shibe Park. Let’s not glorify the dirty, rat-infested relics of the past. Each of those parks deserved to be torn down. Yes, the replacements were less than desirable, but that was the tenor of the times. The same times when the Coliseum was built. The Coliseum was once OK, but now it is not suitable for modern baseball, especially given the “improvements” made for the Raiders. I think the Coliseum is fine for the Raiders, but then, that’s me and that’s the Raiders. But they’re not going to stay there, either. The Coliseum is a relic and the unfortunate reality is that there will be no new baseball park in Oakland. The A’s won’t build one, and the city can’t afford to build one.

    There also won’t be a new football stadium in Oakland. And the Raiders will leave, for who-knows-where, given their demonstrated loyalty to all of you Oakland fandom. The A’s actually want to stay in the Bay Area, albeit an hour’s drive south of Oakland. I think you Oakland folks should be pleased as punch; your team actually wants to relocate to an area where you can still go see them. What is your problem with that? Despite what your civic leaders say, you know there will be no new stadium in Oakland. The A’s won’t pay for one in Oakland, and Oakland has no money to help out.

    You know the A’s are leaving Oakland. You don’t support them. San Jose is the best possible outcome for a small city that talks big, but ultimately isn’t a player. Oakland is a little bitty city with many pressing problems—e.g., schools, crime, etc.—that make keeping the A’s pale in comparison. If you’re an Oakland resident, sports fan or not, you should wonder why it is your civic leaders even care about major league sports when the city has so many other issues. If you’re an A’s fan, you should be happy that your team wants to move just down the road to San Jose. Get off the sour grapes. You keep your team. You still get to see them. And maybe your city can get its act together if the politicians aren’t chasing the chimera of major league sports. You don’t want Oakland paying out any more money for major league sports. What does that do for the citizenry’s quality of life in a desperately poor city?

    Let the A’s go. It’s over.

  65. Interesting quote in the Merc from a firefighter being laid off:

    “Wardall said it was unconscionable that San Jose was closing fire stations but appears to be willing to spend millions to try to lure the Oakland A’s to build a new ballpark downtown.”

    I don’t want to politicize this too much, but I will say that he is very much misinformed on what “millions” are spent to lure the A’s, especially pertaining to any RDA funds (which I’m sure these unions would love to get their greedy hands on also).

  66. @ST–agree–what strikes me most is you have a union worker complaining because his other firefighter union buddies with seniority wouldn’t take a compensation cut to help keep staff at its current levels—someone needs to inform this guy that the Construction Union with 30+% unemployment would benefit nicely from $500M of private investment to build a ballpark–

  67. @Old Blue — you really don’t like Oakland, eh? Do you hold your nose and drive into “the town” to watch the A’s currently? When SJ loses its attempt to move the A’s to the SB, will you become a Giants fan?

    You have a dream, but i have the A’s… and i will be driving from my lovely, neighborhood in OAKLAND to watch them whoop on the Royals!!

  68. @David – Curious, why do you persist with personal attacks and discourage other *A’s* fan on the basis of geography? Seriously, what do you think this will accomplish, besides further alienating the fanbase and causing even lower attendance? I’m a SJ resident as well, and yes I do hope the A’s come down here, but I will support them where ever they go. But my sincere hope is that I get to see them have a first class venue in the Bay Area within the the next 5 years, so i can give a big middle finger to ATT Park. Right now, the greatest realization of that dream is in SJ, but can always change if the Mayor and people of Oakland are willing to step up and pay the price ($130+ million) which i’m also kool with.

    Now also ask yourself, if the A’s do move to SJ, would you turn into a Gnats fan altogether because they moved 40 minutes down south? Let’s not be so abrasive with each other, as we have enough problems as it is in terms of diminishing fanbase….

  69. Another quick thought….as I was glancing the business section the other day, I noted that our GDP numbers were down quarter over quarter causing some concern in the financial sectors about a possible double dip recession. Given the volatile nature of the economy as it is, waiting until next March may kill off all the options (SJ, Fremont, Oakland, etc.) and have the A’s remain status quo at the Coliseum indefinitely. This would really be the worst-case scenario but certainly very plausible as even overseas, I can sense that there is uneasiness about America’s recovery. IMHO, MLB should put this on the fast track now or risk shooting itself in the arse whether it be any of the sites. Slowing the pace down can only cause further uncertainties.

  70. More interesting is At&t saying the land within the ballpark site is not for sale. What effect does this have?

  71. @ Bay Area A’s – anything can be bought for a price. I highly doubt that AT&T would sit on potentially valuable land that they could probably double their money on. It’s not like they would be moving their operations yard to Watsonville.

  72. AT&T can say whatever it wants. The city can use its condemnation powers to take the property for public purposes and give AT&T fair market value. And the public purposes extend beyond the ballpark. Even if a park is never built, the city wants the land for an expanded transit hub, I believe. Most definitely a public purpose.

  73. Is the AT&T site really “smack in the middle” of the proposed ballpark site? I thought it was in the corner and may not even have to be moved.
    Anyway, it’s all trivial and will be worked out in the end. I’m not worried. I’m more interested in how Oakland is going to purchase the land from the dozens(?) of owners at their proposed sites.

  74. The ATT site is easily moved with the city claiming eminent domain. No matter what they are going to force ATT to move for either the ballpark or other Downtown Development or a transit hub as mentioned above.

    That site has been earmarked for years and ATT knows it. They like the Giants are holding out to get the best deal possible and it is the “only” business that needs to moved or relocated.

    While the JLS and Victory Court sites in Oakland have several businesses that need to be moved or bought out. Close to 70 or so at the JLS site.

    San Jose is still has far fewer hurdles. Too bad for the JLS site too, that would be a very good location (not as good as Downtown SJ by any means) but still impressive if it was possible.

  75. Old Blue– The A’s don’t hold the record, they share it with the Braves (Boston, Milwaukee, Atlanta).

  76. @baycommuter–that’s one record I don’t want the A’s to break!

  77. jk– no kidding. I don’t think San Jose would count as a new location, otherwise you’d have to count the Angels twice since they moved from LA to Anaheim and nobody does that.

  78. @All Oakland supporters
    -If you all want the A’s to stay in Oakland then go and get a petition started to “Tax yourselves” to provide the A’s 150 million for a new ballpark in Oakland.

    It has been done before for freeways (85 in the South Bay) and other commercial developments.

    As Old Blue said earlier in this thread Lew Wolff has stated he will pay $461 million to build a ballpark in San Jose but won’t in Oakland. If you all get together and get enough signatures and get a City Council member to endorse it you can put it on the ballot for vote.

    We all know how this would end up….That is why the A’s are going to San Jose or out of the Bay Area.

    I think most people in Oakland would “slap you” if you asked to sign such a petition. Ha!

  79. If lew wolff is asking $150 mil from Oakland taxpayers and not SJ taxpayers than Lew Wolff really is an asshole who hates Oakland.

  80. @A’sobserver – Lew Wolff isn’t even talking to Oakland. If anyone’s going to ask Oakland for money, it’ll be MLB. I sense they will – though it won’t be taxpayers, it’ll be East Bay corporate interests.

  81. No public money= No stadium in Oakland.

    Why would anyone build privately in Oakland period? When you can do the same project in San Jose? Regardless if it is baseball or not.

    No way East Corporations foot the bill; they are businesses after all and there are so few large ones on the East Bay side.

    While San Jose has all the corporate interests to get it done privately. Hence why Wolff will pay for it in San Jose and not Oakland.

    Sad truth

  82. @Sid–These great southbay corporations can’t even get the SC county fair out of the red. The biggest county in the Bay Area, and it’s down to only a weekend of 4H club type stuff. Sad. Alameda County fair is the biggest in the BA, bringing in people from all over the county and beyond.

    • @jk-usa – Really? The county fair? What relevance does that have when it comes to a major league ballpark? If anything, it’s a sign that Valley citizens want more than quaint county fairs. You’re really reaching on that one.

  83. random question but where is the south bay sponerships lining up for the quakes? with all the heavy hitters in the region one would think they would have a bigger sponsorship than amway, and have construction started on the new stadium.

  84. @A’sobserver – That’s the rub. MLS isn’t as high profile as MLB. Nevertheless, I hear that demolition is scheduled to start in the fall, with construction to follow shortly thereafter.

  85. @ML–with all due respect, it has a lot to do with it. If SJ and SCC are the epicenter of the Bay Area, how come they let the fair go to hell? How embarrassing. It’s more affordable than a baseball game and very family oriented. The valley has changed. Techies aren’t into the fair and not really into baseball too. They would bring their laptops, i-phones and twitter all through the game instead of watching the game. Just watch out for them foul balls!

    • @jk-usa – I grew up in the Valley, when the agricultural era was coming to a close. I helped my dad plant corn in a field next to a parking lot where he worked. So I fully understand the changes the region has gone through. I am saddened that the Olson family can no longer farm cherries in Sunnyvale, but they made out like kings in the process. The Del Monte and Mariani plants are beautiful examples of adaptive reuse. Demographically, a fair is now a bad fit. People here want more cosmopolitan types of entertainment. If people want a taste of agriculture, they can go to the Gilroy Garlic Festival instead, which is much more popular. Interests and priorities change. Remember the past and move forward.

  86. Painting the valley as purely a bunch of gadget-obsessed techies is no less ridiculous than saying Oakland is 400,000 thugs.

  87. @jk-usa, the fair? Really? 2 weeks out of the year versus 81 games a season. That is sort of a lame apples and oranges thing. The Fairgrounds make a lot of money from people/organizations putting on events there year round, and that is what sustains the place, not boatloads of corporate sponsors. The amount of revenue required for the Fairgrounds is not exactly the same as an MLB club.
    On the moving tip. I am not sure the A’s share the record, but if they do they share it with more than one team. Not only did the Braves play in Boston, Milwaukee and Atlanta, but the Orioles were originally the Milwaukee Brewers, then the St. Louis Browns and then the Orioles. Also, the Minnesota Twins originated as the Kansas City Blues, then moved to Washington DC (in the year the Western League changed it’s name to the American League) and then moved to Minnesota. Other interesting things to note about franchises, the Yankees were originally in Baltimore. Really, of AL teams that existed before the 70’s I think the Red Sox, Tigers, White Sox and Indians are the only teams that still play in their original city. But I don’t have time to look that up, so it is probably an untruth :).
    I think of an A’s move to San Jose more akin to that of the Jets moving from Shea Stadium to the Meadowlands or the Pistons moving to Auburn Hills.

  88. jk – You’re right. The valley has changed. You are wrong, however, when you project your own imagination onto the reality of the valley folks. How do you know techies aren’t into baseball? I happen to know people from all job descriptions who are very much into baseball. Your description of the ‘techie’ fan also shows how little you actually know about people who work in the tech industry. Will people bring their laptops? Will people twitter? Sure, some will. Is that all they will do? No, of course not.
    Be very careful when you speak in absolutes. They’ll come back to bite you.

  89. @NamTurk—whatever.

  90. Jeffrey, that’s exactly how I see an A’s move. The fans who see the games in SJ are going to be the same fans who saw the team in Oakland. I think that’s one of the most important aspects of continuity when taking into account a franchise change like this.

  91. @ML–Absolutely!!!

  92. LS, I forgot one. The Warriors move to Oakland from San Francisco.

  93. @Jeffrey You forgot the cubs, pirates, cards, reds, and phillies. I think that’s all of them.
    @jk It took me awhile to respond, but I wanted to wait until last night, when I attended a cubs game at wrigley. I can now say with great certainty that, despite large and devoted fanbase, a large number of fans there wouldn’t know Ernie Banks from Harry Caray. They are there to party and maybe watch some baseball. The A’s need to attract these casual fans regardless of where the new ballpark is built. These fans don’t threaten my devotion to the  A’s, they help subsidize the teams future success. That’s a positive. And if some fan of another team wants to challenge my devotion to the A’s because the team has attracted a large number of hipster followers, I welcome that discussion.

  94. JK-USA, as someone who used to work at the fair when i was a teenager, I am very familiar with it. I am glad to say that it’s spirit is alive and well. How you may ask? Because it was broken up into much bigger cultural venues like Tet, Cinco De Mayo, etc. As ethnically diverse as SJ is, it only makes sense to approach it this way.

  95. @GJ10, them be National League clubs. See, I qualified my misinformation with “AL.”

  96. @Jefferey—but the Warriors didn’t change their name to Oakland Warriors. If they move south, the A’s will definitely change their name to SJ A’s, and not some generic name.

  97. @jk-usa, so if the A’s play in San Jose and call themselves “Golden State” you are cool with that?
    I can sympathize, and I do often, with the Oakland First crowd. It would be hard to say anything other than “Oakland A’s” after saying “Oakland A’s” for as long as I could talk. But these sort of lame arguments, the type that have no logic but drip emotion, they don’t do much to help the Oakland cause.
    What if they stay in Oakland but call themselves the San Francisco A’s?

  98. @jefferey–SF A’s in Oakland? Probably sell more tickets. SF always gets more attention than Oakland. It’s been that way for 150 years. All the visiting teams stay in SF instead of Oakland, because the players like the big city amenities and all the strip joints downtown…lol. I wonder if SJ got the A’s if they would stay in SJ or SF?Oakland needs more hotels.SJ not too bad in hotels. The Fairmont is nice.

  99. @jk-usa, I imagine they would stay in San Jose. Though it ain’t like they couldn’t just jump on a team bus at 11 am and be at a yard in San Jose in 30 minutes if they stayed in San Francisco.
    I think that was the plan in Fremont, meaning they would stay in Fremont at a hotel built in the village.

    • My guess is that visiting teams would stay at either the Fairmont (Wolff’s hotel) or the Hotel Valencia @ Santana Row, which is really popular for athletes. The new Four Seasons in PA/EPA is a possibility, since that’s a 20 minute drive to downtown SJ and it’s almost equidistant to SJC and SFO.

      Now that I think about it, having visiting teams stay at the Four Seasons could partly solve the airport curfew problem, since the drive from either airport to the hotel is fairly short. That only helps visiting teams. And SJ/SCC officials wouldn’t be happy with the loss of hotel taxes. I’ve been preparing some material on the curfew issue, that’ll be tackled sometime in the offseason.

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter 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.