CORRECTION: Apparently I misinterpreted the news wrong. From the LA Times:
The court issued an order delaying enforcement of most provisions of the new law until a ruling on the merits of the case, but said redevelopment agencies could not incur new debt, transfer assets, buy property or enter into new contracts in the meantime.
So that means that neither SJRA or ORA could make the land purchases. Ah, but San Jose created a new joint powers authority, SJDDA. Sounds like a truck-sized loophole.
It looks like the gambit being played by RDA lobbyists, San Jose and Union City has paid off, at least for a few months. The California Supreme Court ruled today that redevelopment agencies have been granted a stay, delaying their dismantling until as late as January 15, 2012, when the court is expected to make a final ruling on the constitutionality of Governor Brown’s plan (Chron/Merc).
That doesn’t mean that RDAs are dancing in the streets. Yesterday, Los Angeles committed to a $97 million payment to the state so that the agency could stay operational. In doing so, that means the top two RDAs (LA, San Diego) have chosen to pony up. That leaves Oakland, which hasn’t said much about its plans, and San Jose, which is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, looking to either continue activities as planned or negotiate a different payment schedule.
For San Jose, this probably means they can move forward with the final land acquisitions at Diridon, which were supposed to be wrapped up by the end of June. In Oakland, this probably means they can go ahead with the Coliseum/Raiders redevelopment plan, and if other expenditures were required for Victory Court (such as extra EIR work), those could get the green light too.
All right, cities. You’ve got up to five months to crank out some results. Get to it!
OT – On A’s Talk, Chris Townsend may have revealed that the Sharks may not be on The Game this upcoming season.
One more thing – Cisco rose 16% today on a better-than-expected earnings report.
newballpark.org 
Sucks that the Sharks might not be on 95.7 next year. I would have preferred them to be a winter anchor . Probably doesn’t matter in terms of talking Sharks but it’s more of a usage thing. Why leave them on the rock station when they could be on the sports station?
Doesn’t 95.7 come in fuzzy in the South Bay? Maybe, that’s why they aren’t carrying the Sharks.
Comes in crystal clear all the way south to Gilroy.
I’d much rather be listening to hot stove and football talk with Townsend than listening to a sharks game.
You’re obviously not a Sharks or hockey fan (more than entitled to your opinion).
@eb, the ratings for 95.7 have been higher in the South Bay than the greater bay area.
@eb – Not fuzzy for me.
re: For San Jose, this probably means they can move forward with the final land acquisitions at Diridon, which were supposed to be wrapped up by the end of June. In Oakland, this probably means they can go ahead with the Coliseum/Raiders redevelopment plan, and if other expenditures were required for Victory Court (such as extra EIR work), those could get the green light too.
…so San Jose, with no reason to be optimistic about ever getting a team, can bring its horse to the finish line while Oakland, which has had a team for decades, remains stuck at the starting gate when it comes to a new A’s ballpark.
Hmm, I guess I heard wrong. Maybe the station is going to make a run for the Warriors when their contract ends?
@eb – yes, you heard wrong…95.7 comes in clear in SJ and has been for decades. My guess of the possible sports radio realignment:
– knbr – giants, niners, sharks
-95.7: a’s, raiders, warriors
remember that the giants own a part of knbr and they’re trying to push this whole south bay bs, so it would make sense….
i think the sharks not being on 95.7 has been hinted for maybe a few weeks. they took the sharks logo off the first site and left the a’s logo on.
95.7 is gonna need to add another of the pro teams here locally. the station can’t survive long term with just the a’s on it who aren’t a huge ratings draw. now are the other teams that could be available like the raiders or warriors get huge rating draws. maybe but at least it’d add another foundation piece to this station if they really want to stay legit in the eyes of a lot of bay area sports fans.
If you misinterpreted the news wrong, does that mean that there would have been a right way to misinterpret it?
@Naveed – Sure, if I hadn’t been so lazy looking at it in the first place
Cisco, what a dog of a stock..lol. Still down 21% for the year and 1/5th of their all time high back in 2000.
In comparison, Oakland based Clorox is up 10% for the year and actually had their all time high just last month.
I wouldn’t touch any tech company but Apple.
@jk- USA – CSCO might be a dog this year, but yesterday’s gain was larger than CLX’s entire market cap. That’s the kind of blue chip you need to bring home of you want to build a half-billion dollar ballpark.
Cisco’s quarterly profit: $1.2 billion
Clorox’s quarterly profit: $169 million….Has Clorox signed a naming rights agreement for an Oakland ballpark? Perhaps I missed that announcement? Has Clorox ever stepped forward to sponsor either the existing arena or stadium in Oakland? They haven’t?
@ pjk -Non that I hear of. In fact, Clorox is transfering hundreds of workers to its Pleasanton.
So the beat goes on: The South Bay ballpark project has had a corporate naming rights sponsor for almost 5 years. An Oakland ballpark? Zilch.
Talk about someone putting BOTH feet in mouth. Cisco vs. Clorox? Are you kidding me?! (maybe that’s what the “jk” is for)
“Cisco, what a dog of a stock..lol. Still down 21% for the year and 1/5th of their all time high back in 2000.
In comparison, Oakland based Clorox is up 10% for the year and actually had their all time high just last month. I wouldn’t touch any tech company but Apple.” – lol…remind me never to take stock advise from you!
a smart (day) trader would be milking the Clorox cow, while the teet is full! Cisco will be fine and bring good returns over time. One thing that i have learned from this whole A’s ballpark debate is – throw all logic out of the door.
There isn’t a force field around the Coli … folks from Pleasanton can buy tickets too! Last time I checked Silicon Valley wasn’t all inside the SJ borders.
@David – Or at least until someone buys Clorox out.
@Vince – Clorox moves some workers, while Sungevity adds more in new JLS office:
http://www.mercurynews.com/real-estate/ci_18663435?nclick_check=1
its been months since I read anything “bad” about SJ as a city on this board. Unfortunately, “the town” takes a beating on a daily basis …
@ David It’s frustrating, but it’s mostly confined to this site’s vocal minority. I guarantee most on here are A’s fans who don’t gain satisfaction or need to puff up their argument through tearing down Oakland. The few who do, on a repeated basis, well, it’s sad.
I’m just comparing each city’s biggest company’s stock, that’s all. If someone gave me $100k and told me i had to invest in one or the other, I’d pick Clorox in a heart beat. Just purely as an investment to make you some money in the long run.
Okay, Anon, where would you invest then? I’ll take Clorox and Apple any day of the week over Cisco. You like Cisco because of their naming rights?. lol…remind me never to take stock advise from you!
…It’s not OK to bash Oakland even though Oakland’s 15+ years of disinterest in the A”s could cause us to lose our team altogether. OK.
[Ed. – @Dinosaur Jr. – Only I get to name names here. Don’t like it? I’ll be at the game tonight if you want to discuss it.](@pjk) I know you can do better than that. You start more flame wars than anyone else on the board. Get over yourself.
@pjk–15+years of 2 ownership groups who have no real interst in keeping the team in Oaland doesn’t help things either. The city has messed up in the past, but the new leadership has taken an interest, but LW has his mind made up on SJ regardlesss. Hmm, last I heard, wasn’t SJ off limits, since like 1992?
jk: With VC probably not happening, what other option is there than turning over the entire Coliseum complex for the A’s to develop as they see fit? Wolff could turn the place into his own city. But Oakland wants that property for the Raiders. Anybody see the city turning over the complex to the A’s?
@pjk–that makes the most sense. I think the R’s and 9ers will wind up sharing SC, and maybe the Coli turned over to the A’s. I would much rather have the A’s at VC and the R’s in a new Coli, but I’m trying to be real here.
VC – requires moving 16 businesses, plus piles of infrastructure improvements needed. Coliseum – it’s a big empty lot with BART access, except for the existing stadium and arena. But could Wolff turn the place into a profitable Santana Row-like ballpark village in Oakland? I don’t know. The Raiders leaving Oakland might be the only way to possibly save the A’s for Oakland and maybe the Bay Area.
@pjk/jk-usa – Wolff made pretty clear in the interview that the kind of mixed development at the Coliseum you’re talking about has been ruled out.
…OK. It was a very long interview.
@ JK : “Okay, Anon, where would you invest then? I’ll take Clorox and Apple any day of the week over Cisco. You like Cisco because of their naming rights?. lol…remind me never to take stock advise from you!” Um, where did i ever say i like Cisco because of “naming rights”? You pro-Oakland guys are so sensitive that you associate any logical discussion as an attack on your city! Cisco has a very strong history of high ROI, especially now that they’ve reorganized and regroup. If you look at the major network players (Juniper, Brocade, Cisco, etc.), only Cisco posted a profit and didn’t tank 30% this past quarter and is back on track as the Goliath of the industry. As for Apple, yes, they have huge profitability and are on track for the short term, but long-term is questionable due to the attack on the iPhone / iPad / Mac ecosystem through the exploding Android / Honeycomb / Ultrabook market (if you don’t believe me, ask yourself why Apple has started litigation in place of innovation). It’s good to stash cash there now, but i would short long term as the industry reaches back parity with Apple in design. Clorox seems to be a good safe steady investment now, but will not net you the return as say nVidia (when Ka-El explodes with Honeycomb), AMD who is continuing to gain momentum as its Fusion line gets wider adoption. Stocks in general are about long term outlook unless you’re a cynical day trader in to make a quick buck, which is dillusional unless we get a dot.com bull market all over again (and you saw where that went).
@Anon – (puts Apple fanboy cloak on) There is an exploding Android phone market. The Android tablet market barely has a pulse based on current sales figures. No new processor is going to improve that. Better implementations of Honeycomb/Ice Cream Sandwich can. More apps can. Major price drops (cutting into profitability) can. Apple isn’t interested in making commodity products. They put money into R&D and supply chain so that they are at least an entire product cycle ahead of their competitors. As long as they maintain that kind of focus and discipline there’s no reason to think they can’t maintain such a lead. Intel just started a $300 million Ultrabook development fund to get other manufacturers going. By the time that bears fruit, Apple (pun intended) will be onto the next thing.
re: You pro-Oakland guys are so sensitive that you associate any logical discussion as an attack on your city!
…Amen. Factually state all the things Oakland has done to disrespect the A’s and it’s labeled an attack on Oakland.
Did someone say they’re trying to be real here? Problem with that is, when we inject reality into the discussion we get slammed for trashing The O.
Another thing is that this thread went off topic (again) when someone slammed Cisco, a SJ company. Yet we respond with reality and its trashing The O?
You gonna dish it out you’d better be able to take it back.
@ ML – Love these rationale discussions! 🙂
As a present owner of 7.5 apple items (3 iphones, 3 macbook airs, 1 ippd, and former owner of an ipad2 to boot) and a hardware engineering background, I can understand and appreciate the allure of apple: unparalleled fandom w/ good hardware and integrated software solution w/ a lot of developer support to boot.
However, as you pointed out, the subscription basis of andriod phone activation is phenomenal with almost 2:1 in favor of google and its andriod army. Yes, i agree with you there’s still a lot of fragmentation in the andriod market and there still much to be done on the os side (i am still a diehard iphone fan albeit it must be jailbroken or i wont use it), but android has even out-accelerated iphone in its adoption (look at the early 1g-3g iterations).
I look for something similar to happen once honeycomb and its vendors get some maturity on its platforms, hardware and software wise, because it is just the first iteration of its release as opposed to Apple’s 2nd. When i had my ipad, there was still much to be desired from it and most people i talk to share the same sentiments but bought one because they thought it was kool. Too bad they later just stashed it away until they needed to go to the bathroom for an extended period of time! :X
Now think of the same functionality as the ipad, but with much more horsepower (Ka-el el with hardware T&L on a mobile platform), better apps (in the sense that it can use that hardware), and in a much more budget friendly price . That in a nutshell to me is the honeycomb future that Apple cannot compete with.
I also agree with you that apple’s supply chain is 2nd to none because they have billions in cash to guarantee supply of components (SSDs, LCDs, etc.), but apple cannot move on the same accelerated cycle time as the many other companies they are competing against, so it will put a lot of pressure on their operations + r&d and depreciate their costly hardware too quickly for customers to be comfortable with (think BMW).
So in summary, as I said, i agree that apple is in their golden age, but i don’t see their explosive growth continuing past the next 5 years, although they should still outpace their competitors that are eroding their market share.