Will reason win out?

In light of the big redevelopment news, it might be easy to forget that there was plenty of other news from earlier in the week. Susan Slusser’s article featuring Peter Magowan had a poll attached. Normally I don’t bother with polls (notice how there haven’t been any on this site for a long time). In this case the poll had over 2,000 respondents, plus the question and responses were well-phrased, so I’ve been following the results (it’s still up if you haven’t voted).

Results as of 12/30, approximately 11:00 AM

The three camps are pretty well delineated: the pragmatists/realists, the Giants-only crowd, and Oakland holdouts. At this point, the pragmatists hold a sizable lead over everyone else, albeit a plurality, not a majority. The holdouts are in the Quan position, though there’s no instant runoff here. And the SF-only voters simply need to have some sense knocked into them because they’re greedy dickheads.

Sure, there are a lot of people in the leading group who are not actually pragmatic, they’re really pro-San Jose. Many are longtime A’s fans, many are not. I can tell you that most of the people I correspond with are silent majority types – they are overly vocal or passionate about either San Jose or Oakland. They just want this whole ordeal sorted out so they can get back to cheering on the green and gold. The real danger is in losing a large percentage of these fans to apathy or disgust. At Mayor Quan’s press conference, Doug Boxer told me that among the parties working to move or keep the team, there is no one with clean hands, which is absolutely correct. It’s all this out-in-the-open maneuvering – done by A’s ownership, Giants ownership, and the cities – that is chipping away at the fanbase.

Do the owners of either team care? Obviously not, as ends justify means here for whomever wins. The cities? Sure, insofar as they’re buddying up with business and civic leaders, not so much citizens. I’ve mentioned before that the Athletics-Oakland saga is akin to a divorce, so it was going to get messy. Signs are pointing to some kind of resolution soon. After that, the big issue will be dealing with the mess all of this has created. It may take an entire generation to wash the stink out of this.

I don’t have children, but a lot of the regulars here have multiple kids that they’re raising as A’s fans. I want there to be an A’s in the Bay Area for those kids as much as for myself. That’s why I keep doing this. Compared to everything else that’s happening in the world it’s beyond trivial, I know. The A’s are still a big part of the community, and of my life. Hopefully 2012 will mark an end to the politics, one way or another. Here’s to hope. Catch you next year.

78 thoughts on “Will reason win out?

  1. Good to see the sensible option won out in this poll.

  2. well put…….indecision is destroying the a’s remaining fanbase!

  3. Talk about death by a thousand cuts.

  4. Whenever the 48,200 people on LGO is brought up on here it is dismissed, yet this poll of 2,000 is credible or worth mentioning? Color me confused.

  5. To bad the A’s could not get 48,200 people to show up to 2 games on the average when the team was good and winning in the early part of the last decade.

    If I was the A’s ownership I would be doing the same thing if I got private assurances that San Jose would be a go.

    Drive down payroll, save up $$, and stock the farm system as much as possible to field a winner in 2014 or the last year in Oakland before moving to San Jose.

    Then sign a FAs between 2014-2015 like the Marlins just did and go for a AL Pennant.

    The A’s cannot win it it all in Oakland in today’s baseball economics without going broke. Any sane business man would see that clearly.

    Beane said he would not make any moves unless he heard “some news” on the ballpark. Obviously it was good news because he is planning for the long term future in San Jose…..not short term in Oakland.

  6. Because LGO is on Facebook. People on FB join all sort of things just to join them not even knowing what it is or just to be able to comment on it. Take me, I’m a member of LGO so that I can comment on the articles there, but I’m not a supporter of Oakland the city at all. At this point I want Oakland to lose the team, they deserve to after the BS they’ve dragged the team through the last 17 years.

  7. EB: What’s the plan for paying for a new ballpark in Oakland, especially in light of yesterday’s death of redevelopment? Remember: Oakland said it would contribute redevelopment funds but not general funds for a ballpark. Now there are no redevelopment funds. Should Wolff/Fischer now be expected to pony up not just the original $500 mill for the ballpark in Oakland but add another $250 mill for the infrastructure, too? Unless the LGO people are raising $1 billion, I don’t see how a ballpark gets built in Oakland under the current political and economic circumstances. While just about every other city in the past 20 years, from Baltimore to Houston to San Diego to Seattle, got it done for their teams and got new ballparks built, Oakland did zip. Kind of says something about how much of a priority Major League Baseball is in Oakland, doesn’t it?

  8. @Sid You’ve said on here that you’ve gone to very few A’s games, yet you feel comfortable criticizing others for doing the same?

  9. The Oakland-only movement presents some real contrasts at the games themselves. A few people in the cheap seats, who are great fans, waving “Keep the A’s in Oakland” banners, but they are surrounded by acres and acres of empty seats. Right next to entire sections with not one person sitting in them, sometimes. Kind of says, “Keep the team here for the handful of folks that go to the games.” I used to really enjoy going to San Jose Rhinos roller hockey games at SJ’s arena – one of the big reasons I enjoyed them so much was there were so few people there and thus the games were not crowded or hectic like Sharks games. No concessions or bathroom lines, etc. Well, we still have the Sharks but the Rhinos bit the dust long ago. Tiny crowds simply don’t work long term in pro sports.

  10. @eb – The poll is the pulse of the community as a news item breaks. LGO is a movement. Even Baseball Oakland overtly tried to get people to vote Oakland in the poll. That effort didn’t change the poll results, which begs the question: how much momentum is there in the Oakland movement right now? Numbers mean nothing when there’s no action.

  11. @Dan It is just a facebook page, but to say most of the members “don’t even know what it is,” especially with all of the updates, seems far fetched. Anyway, I’m not arguing for the credibility of LGO’s impact, I was just making an observation.
    @pjk What did my post have to do with funding? I don’t know how a stadium could be funded. I wish I did.

  12. EB: You’re talking about this so-called support for the A’s in Oakland. But all we’ve seen is the election of politicians who did nothing for the A’s but ruin the stadium, and an expectation that Oakland is entitled to a free ballpark like Frisco got, regardless of whether or not it’s financially feasible for the owners, LGO page views won’t pay for a new ballpark. Big Big $$ will

  13. @pjk You seem to be misunderstanding my post, but if you need to rant, rant away my friend.

  14. @Ml So LGO is a movement and the SFGate poll is merely a smaller community response on a news website. Wouldn’t the larger, 48,200 movement be more of a signal of “action” than a poll that’s not on the front page, during the Holiday season? Believe me, I’m not saying the Oakland groundswell is some cohesive force, I just don’t get why it’s disregarded as unimportant by some on this site.

  15. @eb – Didn’t most of those 48,200 “Like” LGO in the first year of its existence? How active are they on the page now? It looks like the audience here, where only a dozen or so people consistently participate. Liking a page is the bare minimum action. Having meetings is action. Organizing protests. Working with and criticizing elected officials is action. LGO? When was the last LGO event? The opening night tailgate? Yes, I can dismiss LGO because it’s all surface, no depth. Oaklanders, if they really want the team to stay, should be demanding more of the movement. So far they aren’t, and that’s disappointing.

  16. A better measure of how much of an impact LGO is having is how many people are talking about it on Facebook. Only 400 have done so.

  17. I would speculate that a lot of the holdouts are sensible enough to side with the first option, but voted the latter because it’s a poll, of no consequence at that.

  18. First, I think it is impressive to have that many folks in a facebook group. But it doesn’t really amount to a whole hill of beans when it hasn’t really resulted in tangible progress of any kind.
    .
    I take internet polls with a grain of salt. I am not sure if sfgate makes sure folks can only vote once, if they believe they do how do they enforce it (user name and login? ip address? cookie of some kind?) and the fact that the only people who vote have a vested interest in the outcome makes it the very definition of a non random sample, so it isn’t exactly scientific.
    .
    It seems to me that there has been a softening of the “Oakland Only” stance amongst folks I know, with a few exceptions. It seems that is directly tied to the lack of progress in Oakland. They have been playing a PR game when they should have been getting stuff done. Kind of hard to say “Lew Wolff is wrong about Oakland” when they continue to rpove him right.

  19. I will be curious to see if there will be a more organized response this season and on, now that the situation seems more dire for Oakland. Starting with Fanfest. A little to late maybe, but the idea of losing all our teams in Oakland is really heartbreaking. Sometimes concrete actions and the realization of impending loss can be great motivators.

  20. Sigh. All of the “keep the A’s in Oakland” groups have failed. I know there are passionate fans behind them, but after a few years to mobilize and state their case, I still don’t see any cohesive solutions or most importantly– any impact whatsoever amongst A’s fans beyond the “stAy” shirts. I’m neither pro-SJ or Oak. I just want a ballpark in the Bay Area. The sooner the Pro-Oaklanders transition back to being Pro-A’s and support the best option we currently have (SJ), the sooner this fan base can begin rematerializing.

  21. I too am hoping reason wins out with most of the pro-Oaklanders. However, there are several regular posters around the internet who would support a move out-of-state to a move to San Jose. That’s just bat-shit crazy and these people will obviously never be won over.

  22. @Briggs I think the Pro-Oakland crowd is Oakland first, A’s second and that will be the case until the team is officially gone. After the dust has settled and the A’s have been established for a while in San Jose, then you might see the fan base gel once again. For me, civic pride is the determining factor as to why I root for a team, not colors, cool logos or players. I love the A’s, but my loyalty to them is because they were Oakland’s/East Bay’s team. Would those of you in San Jose have stopped rooting for the A’s if the Tigers had moved into San Jose? Would you not root for the Warriors if San Jose gets the Hornets? I just think that civic pride, especially for those in either of these two cities, is a hard issue to just dismiss.

  23. @eb- I have been to more than enough A’s games to understand the dynamic over the years.

    I see your point but as ML pointed out it is just sad Oakland does not do anything. An EIR would have shown something to MLB. Building in Oakland was always option #1 but the city and their ineptitude absolutely kills me.

    San Jose on the other hand had no guarantees of ever getting a team because of the Giants but yet still moved forward with an EIR, land options, SVLG support, trying to push a public vote.

    These small steps constitute a movement that Oakland has yet to do outside of some FB page? We have to be realistic here.

    You can blame the owners all you want, but if Oakland had a viable plan where regardless of funding options, it was feasible and MLB saw this…..You do not think they would turn around and tell Wolff “You overlooked this”?.

    Wolff has stated if he overlooked something in the East Bay he would gladly re-visit it and see if something could get done. The fact the BRC has take almost 3 years tells you San Jose is the only way but the Giants are stopping it and Selig has to “grow a pair” and let it happen even at the Giants behest.

    The fan base will come back in the South Bay once the team moves there. The spring board effect will last 5 years. After that the team needs to be competitive and the fans will sellout Cisco Field all day in San Jose just like for the Sharks.

  24. eb, to answer your questions, no if the Tigers had moved into San Jose I would not have stopped rooting for the A’s. I don’t root for the Warriors, but if the Hornets moved in to San Jose I would not stop rooting for the Kings.

  25. If this were a meaningful poll, it would be a No vote on San Jose by a fairly decisive 55-45 margin. The No folks just happen to be divided in their motives (half are pro-Oakland and half want the A’s out of the Bay Area).
    .
    But obviously this is NOT a meaningful poll, so I’m having a hard time understanding the concern expressed in this post. It’s a totally unscientific and unrepresentative online poll. As with all such polls, the people who care most deeply about the issue one way or another vote multiple times. The “silent majority” generally does not participate in polls like this.
    .
    Best wishes to ML and to all here for a wonderful New Year, which may (around May, I’m guessing) include happy news for future of the Athletics.

    • @simon94022 – That’s a bold assumption to make. There are plenty of Oakland supporters who aren’t Oakland only. The response is “holding out” not “Oakland or leave”. The three choices are a sensible way to break down the public, even though everyone who is interested fits on a sliding scale of concern/empathy.

  26. ML question, not A’s related but Wolff and San Jose related. Did the Earthquakes stadium survive the 10 business day appeals period from the December 14th planning meeting? If I’m not mistaken 11 or 12 business days (depending on if the city took the Monday Holiday) have passed since that planning meeting and we haven’t heard anything about an appeal yet (ostensibly by the Newhall Neighborhood Association).

    • @Dan – Sorry, haven’t been keeping up. City Hall has been in recess so I wouldn’t expect to hear anything until after The first.

      @bc – Credit where credit is due. Thanks for your work as well.

  27. Thanks for the nice words, ML (I wrote the that poll). I’ve been telling people at the office that this is the blog to follow if you want to find out about the stadium and redevelopment situations.

  28. @ Sid – “San Jose on the other hand had no guarantees of ever getting a team because…” I agree with you from a “public” standpoint but privately… I’m not so sure about that.

  29. This thread prompted me to go voer and read the let’s go oakland facebook wall. Talk about “groupthink.”
    .
    It’s amazing that so many people are so in denial about the actual real steps that need to be taken to get something done. The death of RDA’s makes Coliseum City more likely? Really? Pass me some of whatever they are smoking…

  30. Critical analysis at LGO is looking at land and saying “THAT WOULD BE A GOOD SPOT FOR A STADIUM.”

  31. I love it. LGO now has a post dismissing the poll while coyly saying, “Vote if you want.” If the Oakland option were leading, what do you think they’d be saying?

  32. Wow, I just had to see the nonsense on LGO for myself. The lack of reason there is astounding.

  33. Hey ML, I wrote on that FB page the exact same thing about an hour ago. I would say all great minds think alike, but on this issue, your mind is much greater than mine!

  34. How come none of the Oakland only writers have contacted Jean Quan and asked her what this decision on redevelopment means for Oakland VC site? Also, blown away that Oakland was using $60M annually of redevelopment funds to support the general fund budget- it was this type of abuse that ultimately is responsible for the elimination of redevelopment-

  35. Hey ML, the fact that LGO never pumped up this poll in the first place is interesting to say the least. I have always respected, and continue to respect the intellectual underpinnings of your blog. But you’ve got me puzzled by drawing any inferences from an SF Gate poll now has me questioning your “objectiveness” here. This is not a comment on Oakland vs. San Jose but rather this one post by you. This type of poll is totally and utterly useless to draw any conclusions about how an entire community thinks. And I know you know this. I’d say the same thing if the Oakland side was ahead.

    • @stanley stanson – What exactly am I inferring from the poll?

      @GoA’s/TW – San Jose and many other cities have followed the same practice for years. Oakland is not alone there. The one thing SJ did differently is they shut their RDA down ahead of time.

  36. >>>GoA’s writes…..
    How come none of the Oakland only writers have contacted Jean Quan and asked her what this decision on redevelopment means for Oakland VC site? Also, blown away that Oakland was using $60M annually of redevelopment funds to support the general fund budget- it was this type of abuse that ultimately is responsible for the elimination of redevelopment-<<<

    Good point about RDA being used as a crutch for poor general fund spending. That is one reason why, even with the positives RDA brought, RDA being dead is a good thing.

    As far as the media calling Quan to task, puhlease. Very few in the media have been logical about the issue. What they have done, for instance Monte Poole, is allowed what they want to affect doing their job (resulting in appallingly bad writing). The sad thing that the media rarely seems to understand, if you did your job properly, you could affect positive change. Oakland needed to hear the din of their failings. Maybe this would have steered Oakland on a better course. Instead being cheer leaders for a poorly lead ship allowed them to steer onto a sandbar. Good job Monte Poole et al!

  37. @eb re: civic pride

    Civic pride is good (though I have my doubts that it is best expressed through rooting for a professional sports team… ). However, the A’s are aiming for a pan-Bay Area civic pride movement. They HAVE to. Oakland has only ~400,000 people. If the A’s were to rely on Oakland-specific civic pride, they would not be able to keep up with the Yankees and Red Sox of the league, where regional pride carries the day. The numbers simply don’t add up.

    For the pan-Bay Area-ists like myself, this is not about moving to SJ, this is about getting a new ballpark, and SJ just happens to be the place that is ready to get it done.

  38. @ML- to my knowledge SJ never did use RDA funds to support the GF- there were many council members that tried but it was unsuccessful-

  39. @ML – got it and agree- Guess Quan will need to embrace some pension reform sooner than she expected-

  40. @Al I was in no way saying that professional sports is the best conduit for showing civic pride, just that it was what made me follow my teams. Oakland may only be 400,000, but the East Bay is around 2.5 million, however I get your point. I know the argument is that it’s only 30 miles away, but the loss of the A’s will hurt Oakland as a city and the East Bay as a region, while giving even more of a boost to one of the wealthiest areas in the world. I must admit, it’s a struggle for me to ignore that reality and just shrug my shoulders and say “They’re still in the Bay.” Though if they have to move, I agree that somewhere in the Bay certainly is the best option.

  41. @Columbo- Your theory may hold true since why would a city in another team’s T-rights work so hard for their freedom without any assurances? Interesting thoughts.

    Then again San Jose is the only city where another city “smaller” than themselves owns them via T-Rights.

    No other city has another city larger than themselves in their assigned territory….then again the only non-shared 2-team markets is the Bay Area as well…….so retarded.

  42. ARRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!

    Rick Tittle is subbing on Chris Townsend’s show right now, and gaak I am so frustrated. He just had Tom Flores on who said that there is basically no future for the Raiders in Oakland (even with the sellouts, they can’t sell out the suites), and it appears that Flores thinks they are headed back to LA…

    Then Tittle says that his greatest sports memory being at the 1984 Super Bowl with his dad —– now nothing wrong with that, but krikey mate – the Raiders were in Los Angeles then – and Tittle is NOW ranting that the A’s are going to abandon Oakland, while five minutes prior he was waxing orgasmic about the LOS ANGELES Raiders.

  43. I am one of those Oaklanders who accepts the likelihood of the move to SJ but is disgusted with the way this whole thing has been handled. Ownership has chosen to tear the team apart with no regard for the fans, blaming the fans all along for the A’s failure in Oakland. The City has blown it by not doing, for whatever reason, the EIR for Victory Ct. Selig acted unethically from day one when he handed over the A’s to his old buddy knowing that his plan was to get out of town, after turning down other prospective owners who wanted to keep the team in Oakland.

    I adopted the A’s as my team soon after moving here in the 70’s because I wanted to support my hometown team. I suffered though a lot of dismal seasons (as well as some great ones, of course), but stuck with them since they treated their fans respectfully and tried to win even if they couldn’t put good teams on the field. I raised my kids as A’s fans – we had a lot of great times at the Coliseum.

    If things had been handled right, I might have begrudgingly gone along with the move. But ownership has shown utter disregard for the East Bay fans and has coldly calculated that it would be better from a “business” perspective to jettison the majority of the existing fan base and to strip the team of its still young talent. And all the while there has been a barrage of mindless, hateful anti-Oakland comments from other A’s fans. So yeah, I’m pissed right now.

    I’ll still follow the team, but from a distance and with far less passion and enthusiasm. Maybe I’ll go to a game when BART can get me there (right!).

  44. Hey may not be wrong. The Raiders won’t be in Oakland for much longer, but the real question is Santa Clara or LA.

  45. @gojohn10 – I just posted that to the Baseball Oakland fb page as an alternate to the Poole and Kawakami columns.

  46. @Jerry- Piccinni says that it was the gints who destroyed his chance for owning the team-because- they want the A’s out of the Bay Area- knowing how useless the city of Oakland has been on the ballpark issue over the past 15 years LW is a hero in my mind for working as hard as he has to keep the team here in the Bay Area- I wold prefer to have a competitive team in a new ballpark around 2015 than pretend we can compete with Texas or LA in the same shitty hole with the same shitty support-

  47. eb,

    It is what it is….to use a tired phrase. SJ is a behemoth that looked out on the landscape and came to the inevitable conclusion that they are the safest bet for MLB. And you know what? They’re right. As mentioned, a community with a 400K population is at a serious disadvantage when playing the “civic pride” game. The East Bay may have been a cultural touchstone in the past, but things change. SJ is most definately ascendant, and nothing in the forseeable future will change that fact. The A’s are merely seeking a mutually profitable arrangement with the best suitor. So it goes.

    One thing that is overlooked here is how SJ will react if they are thwarted by MLB. If anyone truly has nothing to lose if they are denied the right to the A’s is SJ. They could very well make life very uncomfortable for MLB if they are denied. Talk about an entity with the capability of the nuclear option….why wouldn’t they challend the AT exemption if they are denied? Civic pride and all….

  48. i still think raiders end up with the niners in the santa clara stadium. nfl i think wants two teams in that stadium so the niners themselves aren’t just the only tenant there. wouldn’t the nfl chip in more money themselves too like they did with the nyj/nyg when they decided to play again in the same venue with metlife stadium. the raiders sign a ten year lease meaning they’ll play from around 2014/15 until the early 2020s. by then will they look elsewhere to build a stadium or remain at the niners stadium. neither teams fanbases will like it but that’s i think the most realistic option out there.

    la? chargers likely will be moving to la and i’m guessing the nfl one of these teams in the rams, jaguars, or vikings move there too. said it before but it maybe tough for the nfl to schedule a home game for a team that plays in the same division together if they decide to move both the raiders and chargers in to that single la stadium.

  49. Jerry,
    As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, I understand the passion of wanting something can override calm, logical and collected thought. I believe that happens to everyone at points in their lives. With that said, you and the rest of the Stadium in Oakland No Matter What are a frustrating group, Time and time and time again with the posts that are contrived and, at best, leave out facts to suit your ultimate motive (again, at best). IMHO these types of posts are wasted effort here. There are too many factual posts that speak to the facts and reality of the situation. These posts drown out your dis/misinformation.
    If you can’t look at the situation and say the following: ***I can’t believe how appallingly bad Oakland leaders/pols handled the A’s stadium situation*** then you have voluntarily chosen to close your eyes to the truth. Consequently, you will continue to waste your energy on writing posts that I suspect even you, deep down, know are lacking a honest and realistic basis.
    Sorry if that is less than cordial…..

  50. Civic Pride for someone who lives in Pleasanton has nothing to do with Oakland. That is not a criticism of Oakland. Regional pride, which is sort of nebulous, has people identify with the cultural center of the region. That is San Francisco for most people in the Bay Area. Walk around Walnut Creek and count A’s hats and Raiders gear and do the same for Giant’s gear and 49ers. Hardly scientific, but I think those who beat the “Oakland as East Bay cultural center” might be surprised.

  51. Will reason win out? YES! Happy New Years! 2012’s gonna be awesome!

  52. @Tony D.

    I concur

    ——-

    and short the Euro.

  53. @Jefferey Walnut Creek or Pleasanton, maybe not. San Leandro, Alameda, Berkeley, Richmond, etc. yes. I get your point though.

  54. Although, I have noticed a distinct us vs them East/West Bay mentality among long time East Bay residents even if there is no Oakland connection. Maybe, it’s not as apparent in places like WC where there are a lot of commuters to SF or there are recent transplants. It’s definitely there though. Just like there is a lot of San Jose vs. SF posts put on here.

  55. I’m just happy if the A’s remain the anti-SF team.

  56. Happy New Year, bitches!

  57. @Al

    —-

    Since the day that the meglomaniac John McGraw nicknamed the then Philly Athletics the “White Elephants” – long live the anti-Gnats franchise!

  58. Have a great new year everyone, be safe out there. Go A’s!

  59. Another national sports writer talking about the A’s situation–I like how he summarizes the situation-

    “It has been nearly three years since MLB Commissioner Bud Selig commissioned a panel to figure out if the Barons of Baseball, the 29 owners who don’t own Lewis Wolff’s Oakland Athletics franchise, should allow Wolff to relocate his team from Oakland to San Jose. In what should have taken no more than a day to decide, Selig’s panel was dragged their collective feet because they cannot figure out certain questions such as is San Jose a better corporate community than Oakland? The answer to that is yes. Would an Athletics franchise move from Oakland to the southern part of the San Francisco Bay change the San Francisco Bay Area television market? No, Wolff’s A’s share the TV market with the San Francisco Giants. Is there government support for Wolff in building a stadium in San Jose? Yes.”

    http://www.examiner.com/business-of-sports-in-national/is-california-dreamin-still-a-sports-reality

  60. Not the best article actually. He’s got tons of things wrong including dates and basic facts…

  61. His point on the A’s is on mark–an easy decision when you look at the facts logically—

  62. Something that I have never really understood, is what exactly happened to the Fremont Project? It seems like Lew gave up on the project very easily, but maybe I am missing something? I understand that there were some NIMBY’s who were opposed to it, but did they have any legal standing and even if they did, wouldn’t the A’s have been able to overcome the objections?

  63. The Fremont project was going to be funded by selling housing alongside the ballpark. But the housing market died. Also impacting it were objections by some Big Box retailers and Warm Springs homeowners

  64. The NIMBYs in Fremont at Pacific Crossing had contractual standing as I understand it that made that deal unworkable. And the neighborhood association near 680 had enough clout to make the city very uncomfortable moving forward politically with the NUMMI north site. Not to mention the years of lawsuits they’d have brought to block it. On top of the financial reality that the funding model in Fremont collapsed with the housing market.

  65. But dont those same threats of years of lawsuits exist with the current San Jose sight, I am guessing that they dont give up so easily in this one…

  66. @wacchampions – Not really. The EIR has been certified twice, covering instances of a large stadium and a small one, and addressing additional concerns about traffic and parking in the process. Considering how many large projects get multiple lawsuits, the fact that the San Jose project only has one – and a shaky one at that – puts it on good footing.

  67. Do we know there will only be one lawsuit? Is there a sone sort of deadline for filing lawsuits on this project?

  68. No there’s no limit of when they can be filed. Anyone can attempt to sue anyone else at any time for any legally relevant reason. I mean look what happened in San Diego. They got 15% of the way built and then were shut down for over a year due to a lawsuit. There’s always someone out there who can gum up the works. What really matters is can they ultimately succeed. Because even though anyone can file a suit it doesn’t mean they’ll succeed in the end, particularly against someone with more money than them (Wolff and MLB).

  69. Cool….I understand, but Marine Layer, what were the actual reasons that they bailed out on Fremont so quickly, without much fight, or was there a big fight that I just missed? It seems like Lew complains a lot about the money that he spent in Fremont and it not getting done, but it doesn’t seem like they pushed very hard once they got a small bit of resistance.

  70. @wacchampions – Let’s just say there were plenty of convenient excuses for Wolff to bail on Fremont when he did. The real reason was the economy.

  71. Should we just start bombarding Selig’s office everyday until we get an answer?

  72. The examiner article mentioned above states
    “Because the Supreme Court of the United States gave the National League an antitrust exemption in 1922, the Lords of the Diamonds don’t play by usual business rules and that has blocked Wolff’s attempt to enter San Jose”
    This is not accurate because the AT exemption was given to Major League Baseball, not to the actual teams,
    MLB is not trying to block the move anyway, the Giants are…. With the Exemption,.MLB can dictate where teams are placed, not an individual club.The author also mentions that the Giants can’t hide behind the ATE, but that is really because it has nothing to do with them anyway.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s