January is getting closer. We might actually hear some good news. We should hear one way or another.
The Merc’s Tracy Seipel exposed Stand for San Jose as a farce. I’ve written enough about them. Read down in the Facebook comments for a statement from the plaintiff Eileen Hannan, who is now crying foul as she claims she was ambushed by Seipel in her questioning. If you can’t take the heat… Just a reminder, the A’s coming to SJ doesn’t necessarily mean the little Giants have to leave. If that happens, the decision will be made by the big club in SF, the owner.
On a sad note, Tony Lima, the artist responsible for all of the hand-painted artwork at San Jose Municipal Stadium, is in failing health due to cancer. His work was always endearing, sometimes whimsical, and helped make the family friendly atmosphere at Muni.
The Orioles announced changes to Camden Yards to enhance the fan experience, including a new centerfield viewing area, dropping the height of the rightfield wall a little, and six sculptures of great O’s of the past.
Sports Business Journal’s Daniel Kaplan reports that the 49ers sold a “low nine figures” share of the team to a Silicon Valley exec in order to help finance the Santa Clara stadium. In a followup, he thinks it’s someone at Facebook though he can’t confirm it. If the Raiders want to build their own stadium, they may have to do the same even though they’ve been selling off shares for some time.
Later today – a BART article.
facebook eh? many people have mentioned it before but could the venue be facebook field.
I’m sure the Mercury News got the story right – “Stand for San Jose’ is a sham and an abuse of our court system. Giants are dead-set against San Jose having self governance, obviously
I’m also have a lot doubts about the validity of “Better Sense San Jose” as well. It seems all their venting has been directed at the A’s new stadium. Further research reveals that some of the organizations founding member lives close by Diridon and is vehemently opposed to it. In other words, it’s a NIMBY organization and not necessarily a grass roots government watchdog organization….
@Anon – I’ve met some of the people from Better Sense San Jose. They are a legitimate organization who have opposed the ballpark from the start. I have no beef with them.
Maybe they should check out all the new homes being built within a few hundred yards of ATT Park. Yes, people actually choosing to live right near a ballpark. It’s not the horror some make it out to be.
ML: Did you ask them if they were opposed to the arena and if they think it’s a failure? I’ll bet they won’t answer either question.
Baseball San Jose is just as much an astroturf sham as Stand for San Jose.
@pjk – Yes, many were opposed to the arena. Yes, it’s refighting the same battle.
@Dinosaur JR – I did some volunteer work for Baseball San Jose years ago. Am I a sham?
How so? Baseball San Jose is San Jose interests promoting major baseball for San Jose. “Stand for San Jose’ is Frisco interests pretending to be looking out for San Jose but really just protecting the Giants’ financial interests. FYI – San Jose losing doesn’t mean Oakland keeps the A’s. Still no solution available for privately funding a ballpark in Oakland. And Oakland insists it won’t pay for the thing.
ML: Like I figured. People don’t like to admit when they’ve been proven 100% wrong. The arena is a runaway smash-hit success by any measurement.
Ignorance is bliss.
Don’t worry, guys. I heard that the validity of any cause is measured by Facebook likes and Stand For San Jose has only 33. They also identify as a “local business,” oddly enough.
I love how Hannan is outraged her talking points didn’t make it into the story, but her comment about not knowing she was named in the lawsuit did. What’s the real story, Eileen? You’re a die-hard Giants fan looking to expand their hegemony at the expense of our team. I wonder if you supported bringing the Giants to San Jose?
Most ballparks/arenas deal with opposition similar to Stand For San Jose so it is not something to worry about in the long run.
It would take a miracle for them to get an “injunction” as bartleby pointed out and I say take this in stride as the Giants see the end is near of their T-rights to San Jose.
Once MLB votes to share the entire region between both teams things will move really fast with San Jose. A vote will take place in 88 days and Baseball San Jose along with SVLG will lead the charge to get the votes to move forward.
Those two organizations have deep war chests and SVLG is the big one. Also MLB will help fund the election and Wolff will be campaigning with SVLG and Baseball San Jose to make this happen.
Wolff has aligned himself nicely with the right people. That SVLG letter I think was the key to this whole debacle.
Stand For San Jose will go down similar to the opposition for the SJ Arena back in the late 1980s. That was a publicly funded arena and it passed barely…..The Giants were not so lucky a few years later and lost barely both times.
As they say…..It is only a matter of time.
@ML. No, but It does lead me to question your objectivity.
@Dinosaur JR – Question away. I stand behind every word. I’ve received kudos from local and national media, even baseball insiders and countless fans. What do you have?
Don’t you have some rendering of Coliseum City to salivate over? Leave us alone already! By the way, just my prediction (nothing more): MLB approves A’s move to SJ and Lew Wolff announces he will pay full-market value for the entire Diridon plot, with the caveat being NO REFERENDUM for the ballpark.
re:.The Giants were not so lucky a few years later and lost barely both times.
…the Giants Agnews ballpark was going to be funded via a utility tax – a tax on water, at least. Didn’t happen.
@ ML – glad to hear that BSJ is not another front, however I still have issues with them only concentrating on the A’s Ballpark without talking a jab at the Quakes, RDA, or even the remodeled Airport…..
I gotta agree with Tony…..If Wolff pays full value for the land it is only a fraction of the entire project so why deal with the lawsuits?
7M-10M more for something that is going to cost 450M anyways?
@all – The original argument levied by Stand For San Jose was a challenge of the certified (twice now) EIR. Even if the land deal were corrected they’d still pursue the lawsuit. I don’t think Wolff and the BBSJ people are terribly worried about it.
Can’t wait for your BART article RM. With Berryesa opening by 2016, hopefully the downtown/SC section will now open by 2020.
@pjk, I always thought the San Jose “MLB” Giants ballpark was going to be at Zanker and Brokaw? Oh well, obviously a moot point.
That and there was of course the Giants Santa Clara park which was going to be right where the Niners new stadium is going.
Wow, this Hannan lady is so incredibly clueless. You have your name, the only San Josean, on a major lawsuit, and you’re surprised that a reporter chases you down? I’m glad Seipel questioned fellow co-workers. Whether she likes it or not, she is a part of this story, and any editor worth their salt would tell a reporter, “Get me something on this.” I know as a reporter, I absolutely hated knocking on doors when a major story broke, but sometimes that’s when you get the best pieces for a story. So glad that this group is being scrutinized.
Correct. When your name is on a very public lawsuit like that, expect to become a public figure while the thing plays itself out. Want anonymity? Don’t want to be bothered? Then don’t get involved. Can’t have it both ways.
Public figure is a legal term as which has been defined starting with a case called NY Times v Sullivan. Hannan will get publicity, but she won’t actually get to Public Figure status.
What kind of demented superfan actually sues their own city to protect the financial interests of their favorite team from somewhere else? She deserves whatever hell comes with this, especially for pretending to be looking out for poor families that would supposedly be locked out by the jet-setting A’s (ha!).
As I told her in the comments section, she should have aligned herself with a real group like Better Sense San Jose if she wanted any credibility and/or anonymity in the matter. They already seem to have a spokesfigure in that Wouters fellow, so poor Eileen wouldn’t be thrown to the wolves by the Giants who want to deflect any/all publicity in this case.
Why don’t we get rid of the Sharks and bring in an ECHL team like they have at the Cow Palace? Should be more affordable. Who cares if we don’t get all those hundreds of thousands of people dropping big bucks in San Jose before and after Sharks games? If the SJ Giants go, that will the Frisco Giants’ doing. Why would anybody want to keep San Jose minor league?
@ NT – Wouters unfortunately seems just to be A’s NIMBY and no so much really concerned with how SJ goes about allocating redevelopment dollars. You’ll see continuing coverage of everything A’s related (including baseball matters) and ignore all other relevant issues like the Quakes stadium and such….that’s the only thing that bothers me about BSJ. If you’re against the A’s, that’s fine, just don’t try to make it sound like you’re some sort of government accounting watchdog group that is looking out for the best interest of the city and its citizens. /rantoff
@Anon – Have you met the man? Ever had a discussion with him about these issues? There’s a great irony in that the critiques and feedback given by Better Sense San Jose and related groups helped to strengthen the final, supplemental EIR. That wasn’t possible without BSSJ’s input. The EIR is now better able to withstand a legal challenge. And yes, they have legitimate gripes that I agree with. There’s a litany of developers overpromising and underdelivering on community benefits. This isn’t just a black-and-white, no-baseball-ever stance. There are many who understand that the ballpark is a distinct possibility, they just want to ensure that the A’s don’t run roughshod over their neighbors in the process. If you don’t have an appreciation for that or your response is, “Don’t live downtown”, you’re just as much a demagogue as the Stand for San Jose “people”.
Anon, reason they’re not going after the Quakes stadium is four fold. One, Wolff paid market value for the land at Airport West so there’s not even a hint of city subsidy for them to latch on to (in fact the city is being done a favor by having that blighted land taken off their books to the tune of 7 million a year). Two there’s no where near the NIMBY sentiment in that area of the city (4 people to be precise at Airport West and only 1 really causing any kind of ruckus). Three there are no unwilling landowners at Airport West (since the city was the sole landowner) unlike Diridon which has 2 unwilling landowners. Four, it’s much more low profile and not nearly as much of a media magnet and thus not worth their time.
@ ML – Admittedly, I have not met the person and can only speak to which i have read from their comments. However at face value, attacking the A’s only diminishes their cause as some consumer/citizen advocacy group as they continue to label themselves. I applaud that they have taken the time to critique the A’s stadium, but again do no agree with their angle as an all encompassing group aimed at overseeing our civic leaders on ALL issues (not just the A’s). That is my only gripe.
@ Dan – but they are attacking the Quakes, albeit much more quietly. If you look at their FB page, it’s all A’s and nothing else. They even touch upon baseball specific related issues that are not at all relevant to SJ redevelopment at all.
Anon, if they’re attacking the Quakes they’ve been doing it much too quietly. The Quakes stadium has already been approved completely. The development permit will be issued in approximately 5 days and after that they really can’t do much of anything.
On another not, nice reminder tonight on national TV or why the Niners are getting the hell out of dodge. Candlestick has now become a national embarrassment twice in the same night on Monday Night Football.
Pingback: newballpark.org | San Jose to start Autumn Parkway work + Coliseum sign restrictions