A Case for Keeping the A's in Oakland
by rungood on Mar 24, 2006 6:40 AM PST
Email
PrintI won't mince words: I think Oakland will be making a big mistake if they let the A's go.
Sure, it's a lot of effort, land and money to deal with up front, but a new ballpark does a lot more than just give the team a better place to play. It not only will generate revenue for the city, but I believe it will go a long ways to improve the city in ways that are more difficult to measure in terms of sheer dollars and cents. For instance, it seems only logical that local businesses will step it up and improve their service if they know that they will have more patrons, likely providing more jobs on a number of different levels.
As a result of investing in a new ballpark, the city will have a new, expensive asset to protect, which will very likely inspire more effective policing of the area and a general "improvement" (in political terms) of the city. I'm not always a fan of police, but if they (and the message they stand for) are more visible in the community, it can and will likely have secondary (and perhaps unanticipated) "cleaning up" effects on crime, which will in turn increase property values throughout the city, in addition to providing a safer, more friendly community.
I have been reading Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point and he discusses the drop in crime in New York City in the 1990s, pointing out that there wasn't just one factor in reducing crime; in fact, it was due to a number of factors working together.
It wasn't just police presence. It wasn't just a better economy. It wasn't just a general aging of the population. It wasn't just the waning crack problem that had plagued the city in the prior decade. No. On top of all these things, Gladwell points to something called the "Broken Windows theory," the concept born by criminologists James Q. Wilson and George Kelling:
...crime is the inevitable result of disorder. If a window is broken and left unrepaired, people walking by will conclude that no one cares and no one is in charge. Soon, more windows will be broken, and the sense of anarchy will spread from the building to the street on which it faces, sending a signal that anything goes. In a city, relatively minor problems like graffiti, public disorder, and aggressive panhandling...are all the equivalent of broken windows, invitations to more serious crimes...Gladwell goes on:
This is an epidemic theory of crime. It says that crime is contagious-- just as a fashion trend is contagious-- that it can start with a broken window and spread to an entire community. The Tipping Point in this epidemic...[is] something physical, like graffiti. The impetus to engage in a certain kind of behavior is not coming from a certain kind of person but from a feature of the environment.Now, cleaning up graffiti or issuing more citations to non-paying subway riders are not identical to building a new stadium, and one might even argue that they're not even along the same order of magnitude. But regardless of how one views the relationship between these examples, they are all similar in that they can be very important parts of a positive Tipping Point for Oakland.
Improving a city, however, is not something that one (or even a city as a whole) can do overnight. It takes time, and as Gladwell makes clear, a number of factors working together simultaneously. But perhaps an investment of this magnitude (both in terms of money and of space) will "tip" Oakland upwards. Instead of trying to save Oakland in one fell swoop, our city must systematically improve itself, and keeping the A's in Oakland is a big step in this process. The money might not come back right away, but aside from the day-trading of 1997-1998, no investment reaps big rewards immediately.
This ties in to what I've never understood about the way cities (and often individuals) operate: they are extremely conservative in terms of making investments and taking risks. Granted, one cannot invest in everything, and there certainly risks in everything we do, but this does not (and should not) mean that we should sit on our hands as well as our assets. What it means is that we must consider all of the options and then make the best decision, or decisions, for the city.
At this point it's important to ask ourselves, "How many cities are clamoring for a major league franchise??" The question is obviously rhetorical, but Oakland needs to appreciate what we have in the A's, and not just say "Well, we've got the Raiders and the Warriors, so who needs them?" The reality here is that while we do have an abundance of franchises, one can only imagine that as the other Coliseum facilities age more, the Raiders and Warriors will soon be seeking alternate locations to play, from cities that are ready to step to the plate. And what's more is that the cities clamoring for a franchise are ones that will take any franchise (the Expos/Nationals?!?). Oakland would be losing a competitive team that many are predicting as possible favorites this year. Maybe there's an obvious answer to this question, but I can't find one other than "Oakland": What city wouldn't be concerned with losing a World Series contender?
It sure would be irony for you, Oakland, to lose the A's to somewhere like Fremont or SJ and have them win the World Series in their inaugural year. And it could happen.
I must point out that I haven't lived in Oakland full time for 5 years (and am thus not 100% versed on all of the issues), but it seems that our city wants to improve. Any city should want to improve. But the vibe I've gotten from the all of the articles written about the pursuit of a new ballpark is that Oakland (wrongly) feels some sense of entitlement to greatness, or at the very least toward improvement. It's true, Oakland used to be a great city with booming industry (around the time of WWII), but it's not the case any more. We were a city full of energy in the 60s, 70s and 80s, but this energy over things like civil rights and equality has now virtually dissappeared in favor of pure crime. Instead of being a rising metropolis, teeming with possibility, Oakland is annually in the running to be the "Murder Capital of the World." Oakland is not a terrible city by any means, but compared with the Silicon Valley boom, Oakland appears to have fallen from grace.
Oakland didn't really have much they could do about the tech boom of the late 90s and early 00s, but what happened nonetheless was that Silicon Valley began emerging as the counterpart to San Francisco that Oakland had once been. People know SF and Silicon Valley now more than they know Oakland.
But it's not too late for the city I call home. A big reason people know Oakland is for the A's. If we lose them to Silicon Valley (or the South Bay in general), it will just be the next step in Oakland's decline from former greatness, particularly in contrast with the success of the rest of the Bay Area. Oakland needs to put its money where its mouth is and pony up some cash that will not only bring a ballpark to the city, but will bring a newfound resurgence to the city. The new park will create jobs and get people out of their houses, infusing the local economy with money that will get spent and respent. Furthermore, committing to our team will show the city and its citizens that Oakland is serious about becoming the place it once was. Someone just needs to step up and commit to Oakland, which will show the rest of the city that it is time to do so as well. It appears, however, that all parties are afraid. But with certainty I can tell you that if nothing is done at this juncture, Oakland will keep slipping as a city. Keeping the A's is both good for the fans, as well as for the city.
With all this being said, the Oakland government must end its apathy about the state of the city in favor of a proactive plan; our city must make a splash that is designed not only to deliver the city a high quality product to citizens, but to show the rest of the city that Oakland is serious about becoming a better place. I've said it before, perception is reality, so if people start believing Oakland is becoming a better place and act accordingly, it will become one. What better way to demonstrate the vision for the city than making a dedication to a franchise that has brought the city 4 World Titles over nearly 40 years?
The building of a new park, in conjunction with the continuation of city-wide programs like those relating to education and the reduction of crime, could likely serve as a Tipping Point for the city, or at least would be a massive leap in the right direction for Oakland. A new ballpark would help Oakland far beyond the simple measure of dollars and cents. I hate to say it, but one could argue that the A's deserve much better than they have received from Oakland over the years, and I'd be surprised if Wolff & Fischer aren't feeling this. There is no doubt in my mind that Oakland deserves the A's, but unless they do something to show the franchise this, both the city and the fans will suffer while the A's move on. Step to the plate, Oakland.
47 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Excellent analysis
Your point about calculated risk taking is very germane, but unfortunately, it cuts both ways. When asked why he was so gung ho for the Raiders deal, De La Fuente says that he believes in taking risks for Oakland. It is a credit to him that he stands by this today, when other pols have gone running for cover from the deal's costly fallout. Nevertheless, the Raiders deal was a staggering loss to City/County which will approach or exceed $200 million when the dust settles. Sometimes risk taking with the City coffers doesn't work out. But that's true of plenty of non-sports projects too, especially in Oakland, home of the ill-conceived public subsidy...did someone say ice rink? The question pols need to answer, seriously, is what would make the best Tipping Point. It could be an A's park, but they may conclude something else mught be even more effective, or less risky, or both.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Mar 24, 2006 7:25 AM PST reply actions
FSU,
I think we agree more than disagree, and Oakland has been home to some bad projects, which have left a bad taste in many people's mouthes. But what's different in my opinion between the A's potential deal and that of the Raiders is that the Raiders just brought themselves into the equation. They didn't bring housing, they didn't bring business with them, it was pretty much just the team, as far as I understand. The A's want a ballpark village, right?
In my eyes, the latter village seems most appropriate for Oakland, as it brings a number of things to the table, where as the ice rink and the Raiders deal were more singular.
Like I said, we can't change the city overnight. But over time we can build pieces. Jack London Square is a great piece. The Ice Rink is another piece. Other landmarks like the Grand Lake Theater and Lake Merritt are other pieces. A new ballpark would simply be the latest, and arguably the greatest, piece of Oakland yet. I know it's much easier said than done, but passing this opportunity up because we've been burned before would be a grave mistake, IMHO.
Frankly put, we must realize that improving the city is a journey that takes time and evolves as we move into the future, rather than a box that must simply be checked off of a to-do list.
The God...
by southofcruiseamerica on Mar 24, 2006 9:53 AM PST up reply actions
I think nearly all your assumptions are wrong
But your fundamental assumption -- that a new ballpark spurs economic development -- is at very best contentious, at worst a flat-out falsehood.
I'd also argue pretty strenuously that no one should ever, ever cite Malcolm Gladwell in a serious argument: the man's an intellectual flibbertigibbet. His "tipping point" (and his various other insights/locutions) are pretty shallow (but broadly appealing) metaphors, not genuine insights gleaned from in-depth analysis.
As for the "broken windows" theory, that, too, is the subject of contention among experts. Plus, a new stadium, even if built without direct public monies (instead using Wolff's "outside-the-box" land-development giveaways, which may ultimately cost a municipality more over the long run while saving public funds in the short term), would require extensive outlays for new infrastructure -- at the expense of the very services and facilities that could help turn the city around.
Agreed on all counts
by tblazrdude on Mar 24, 2006 9:23 AM PST up reply actions
Oh, crap!
hmm
{reconsiders}
I'm not saying don't read it ...
(To clarify, I kinda think Gladwell is the Ray Ratto of the New Yorker: extremely skilled at spinning one [or one-half] idea out into a highly readable, quasi-counterintuitive-yet-complimenting-what-you'd-always-suspected-in-your-heart disquisition that fills the allotted column inches.)
Ballpark:Econ Dev't as Flu Shot:Winter Health
And this is a big reason I worry about a City of Oakland attempt--its recent history of anchor projects contains a lot more failures than successes.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Mar 24, 2006 9:42 AM PST up reply actions
"Economic Development"
While I despise Bud Selig's extortion tactics, I think the city Oakland needs to consider some of the non-economic benefits building a new ballpark.
by Mission1929 on Mar 24, 2006 10:14 AM PST up reply actions
"Quality of Life"
In addition to crime rates and education, quality of life also means "thing to do" for its residents.
I live in Fremont look at where I go for the following things:
Shopping: Newark, Milpitas or Pleasanton
Movies: Union City or Dublin
Sporting Events: Oakland or Berkeley
Nightlife: Anywhere but Fremont (except for the rare occaisions I'm at the Saddle Rack, but that's it)
Cultural Activities (Opera, Theatre, Symphony, that kind of stuff): San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Walnut Creek...
You get the picture, right?
-Colbert Report 3/15/05
by secret ASian man on Mar 24, 2006 10:40 AM PST up reply actions
Gladwell may be all
OK, fine, but ...
(And yes, I say "downtown," because the current stadium in a blighted/industrial section of town doesn't exactly seem to be keeping Oakland citizens from machine-gunning one another, does it?)
Right you are....but you gotta start somewhere.
Agreed (but not greedy)
Sad also when enthusiasm can remain high but buttressed against political/economic inertia of catastrophic proportions in which no one really knows heads for tails about the direction toward a solution from a political standpoint.
And generally just disappointing when the possibiltiies of change (for the better) are met with emotions that range from excitement to fear. Somehow this entire process will continue to keep many AN faithful on an extra-ordinary roller coaster ride. It will be okay as long as the roller coaster finally stops somewhere near home.
a-ha.
In reference to my diary, you use the variants of the word 'contention' twice. For the record, the word 'contention,' when used in reference to a position one advance, or an idea that one puts forward, has to do with a subject that is up for debate. What better place to debate than here on AN?
And just because a subject is contentious doesn't mean one view is right or wrong. It means that the sides haven't yet reconciled with one another, and the jury is still out on this particular topic. It's a bit silly to use the very contentiousness of my diary against me, particularly when you don't offer concrete examples in your rebuttal, don't you think? I mean, I'll be the first to admit there is a lot in this world I don't know; anyone who believes that he/she knows everything and then says so has just proved themselves wrong by making this very assertion.
But I digress. I must say that I'm always happy if my thoughts/suggestions/arguments/contentions are subject to debate and discussion, and with this diary it's no different; this bit of writing only reflects my opinions and ideas that I'm putting forth for constructive criticism and feedback. I'm not issuing decrees from God, ok? So for you to come in here and attack me (in what I consider to be a slightly rude and blunt way) is frustrating. Let's have a debate, not a "who's-right-and-who's-wrong"-finger pointing session, ok? Maybe you feel the need to be the cock of the walk on AN-- and that's fine if that's what you want-- but it's really not what I'm trying to do right now. I'm just putting forth some ideas that I found interesting, and maybe some other people will find them interesting too.
Perhaps you would like to elaborate on some of the topics you touched upon. I'm all for expanding my horizons and reading more, as I believe I can always be learning. If you have any suggestions of books that I should read (ones that you'll approve of when I later cite them), please feel free to share.
I will note, however, that I do agree with you on one point; Gladwell's "tipping point" is not infallible, yet is broadly appealing. All the time people yearn for a theory of everything, and I am no different. If we get one theory pitched at us that seems to make some sense, it's only normal to want to apply it elsewhere if we see connections. This is the reason I chose to explore the situation facing the A's and Oakland with it as one reference. Even if it's not perfect, it's another way to explore the situation that our city and our team are facing. And as FreeSeatUpgrade has pointed out, there have been situations where building new stadia have both helped and hurt the cities in which they were built, respectively.
So sure, my argument may be contentious at best, but that is all one could hope for with an issue that is still developing, particularly on a fan-blog like ours. To say I'm putting forth a "flat-out falsehood," though, is just rude, particularly when your evidence to support this assertion is calling the author of two #1 national bestsellers a glorified word for scatterbrain (good word choice, however, I will concede).
points certainly taken
Seriously, though, I meant the compliments -- and not as back-handed ones.
But I think you're conflating things: I didn't say your arguments themselves were contentious, but the assumptions they were grounded on. And by "contentious," as you imply, I only meant subject to contention, or unresolved.
And I certainly did not say that you were putting forth a falsehood, but that one of your assumptions (that new stadia per se spur economic development) has been described by many independent economic analysts (i.e., those not being paid by MLB) as an assumption that is at best contentious and at worst a flat-out falsehood. That is, the range of crediuble expert opinion on the matter runs from, at the low end, that it's simply not true, to the high end, that any evidence indicating that it even might be true is inconclusive at best.
And I did not cite my (admittedly blunt) opinion of Gladwell as evidence for the falsity or truth of new stadia spurring economic development.
In any event, I certainly do apologize if my comments were rude. I didn't intend a personal attack on you.
But I don't apologize for disagreeing with your assumptions -- which, for someone supposedly looking for a debate, you seem mighty touchy about.
thanks dude
I mean we post here on AN because we enjoy the community and the dialogue. We come here to write, and we like to write. How many kids in today's schools would ever say that? Writing something that isn't for a grade or anything-- it's a pretty rare thing these days. So when I (and others) come here and take our time to think up what we post, we do because we hope people will get something out of it, that's all. I know you agree with that- I see the effort you make.
This might sound irrational, but hear me out: I over-reacted because I know other people on this site look up to you and read your posts and poetic interludes and stuff-- I'm one of them. People see you post so often, make witty comment after witty comment that sometimes has to be read twice to understand the level you're on with punning, and they understand the role you have carved for yourself in this community. Like any tribe-like society, it only figures that that most people give you the benefit of the doubt-- more than to others-- because you have proven that you usually should be given this benefit. I guess I reacted the way I did because I felt that you deserved to give me more of an explanation than simply expect me to give you the benefit of the doubt as many posters often do.
Perhaps you'll say that what I'm saying is at best contentious ;), but it's just the sense I get. It just caught me off guard that you came down on my post so hard, and at the time I thought it was more unwarranted than I do now. Your recap helped. I am serious about always wanting to learn more, and the best way to do this is to discuss. I'd love to hear more or be pointed toward some material on this topic, as there is a lot I don't know. I never have claimed to be an expert on this subject, and I'm sorry if it appeared I was advancing any one agenda as "the truth." I was more just trying to come up with a legitimate argument for why the A's should stay in Oakland, because the argument "BECAUSE I WANT THEM TO STAY!!" just doesn't hold water to guys like Lew Wolff or Jerry Brown.
Maybe the Tipping Point one doesn't either, so let's keep discussing! It was just a shot I took, and I'm still not very convinced that intangibles like 'quality of life' and 'safety' can be measuremed very well by numbers or by dollars and cents. I'd love to see some numbers on what ballparks do to property value...got anything?
Anyways, I'm sorry that I appeared more standoffish than I really am, and I do respect your views of Gladwell. He's not perfect, but some of the stuff he talks about is at least topically interesting...to me at least...
I found your article
You have to look up to monkeyball....simians prefer the foilage in lofty areas. He is one dang smart monkey though...maybe it's the prehensile tail which allows him to type so fast?
be careful looking up ...
Flying mud pies....
Your proclivities remind me of a true story involving residents of those institutions I mentioned earlier. Both failed the legal definition of insanity, but were nonetheless predisposed to prove the courts in error. Their hatred of the court was exceeded only by their venom for each other. One dreamed up a method for intesifying their vendetta against each other in a very imagitive way. They both had to share a common shower in which they were locked inside during their respective shower times. The shower produced a voluminous amount of steam in a fairly small enclosed area. The roof of the shower consisted of stainless steel perforated by small circular holes. One day "John" was placed in the shower, and after hurriedly completing his shower, he shoved fecal matter into the small holes throughout the shower room. He then notified authorities he was finished and requested to be returned to his cell. His nemesis was immediately placed in the shower just as John planned. Poor Tom is minding his own business tending to his personal hygiene, totally unware that the steam filling the room and condensing on the ceiling and falling back on his body was also loosening the crap stuffed in the holes. He literally had a shitty rain falling all over him.
I always remember that incident everytime I think I'm having a really crappy day....
yuck
<blushes>
Thank you very much for your kind words, rungood (note appropriate elision of space!).
But even more so, thank you for your initial criticism. Really.
I often forget the principle rule of posting (emailing, talking to one's boss/spouse/etc), which is don't post ... well, the usual formulation is "mad," which I wasn't -- let's substitute "all riled up." And it's very important to have folks calling each other on intemperacy.
Quite honestly, I'd love to see a new baseball-only stadium/complex in Oakland (Jack London, Lake Merritt, Auto Row) or even Alameda or the decommed Naval base. And I agree with HollywoodOz and FSU and yourself that there could indeed be both tangible and intangible benefits to the City/County in pursuing such a project.
However, as FSU points out elsewhere in this diary, changing that "could" to "would" is a potentially dangerous sleight of hand practiced by Wolff, Selig, and their merry band of frat brothers.
Furthermore, given the parameters of Wolff's proposal (and his playing hardball with the city), I don't see how Oakland can realistically pursue a new stadium deal with Wolff, who, in my opinion, has tailored his requirements pretty specifically to exclude Oakland without quite saying so.
Could not disagree more.
Added to which, unlike the NFL, in which a city can, at best, hope for 12 home games per year (and will likely get less), baseball brings a city **81** home dates per season, which means an absolutel boom for surrounding businesses, from car parking lots to bars to hotels to cab drivers to retail outlets to hot dog sellers to the illegal immigrants who come through with hoses and trash cans an hour after the park has emptied.
Cities spend a fortune building NFL parks that will be used for little more than a collective week per year, but then haggle over whether it's worth putting money into a facility that will be engaging in its primiary use for almost a collective THREE MONTHS per year ?
Makes no sense whatsoever.
And then when you take into account the elevated public profile (worldwide) for any city in the majors, there's quite simply no loss involved in spending money on a ballpark. Whatever you spend, you get back threefold.
I can't speak for Gladwell, but the broken windows theory makes sense to me. Having watched areas in the city of Sydney go from crap to utopia and back again, it sure as heck seems to me that there's depth to that theory. In fact, in my old Vancouver neighborhood of Main and 11th, which was only five years ago one of the most dire parts of this city, the residents got together and started a beautification program. Every corner had resident-planted flower beds and vegetable gardens and locally-created benches made out of tree trunks and people going out on a weekend to paint streetlights and pick up trash..
Within a year, that corner was hopping. Businesses were opening there, cafes and restaurants popped up everywhere, tourists started stopping by to take pictures, and home prices started to roll upwards. In the five years since, they've doubled, and police levels didn't change one iota. It was all to do with civic pride, a little local effort, and some time and money invested in making the placce look liveable again.
And might I just add... Ka-Ching. I bought a 2BR condo there when it was $195k. Two years later, a 1BR place across the street just sold for $369k.
I'll never look at flowers the same way again.
Amen, brother.
Sydney is a wonderful city. I lived in NSW for 6 months back in 2004, about an hour south of you in Wollongong, and I loved taking the train up there whenever I wanted. Aside from King's Cross, the city was great!! :) Certainly jealous of your warm weather (I'm now in Estonia)! And well done on your apartment!!
I can't claim to be the expert ...
But my understanding of the stadium/development question is that stadiums do spur development - but it his unlikely that they will spur as much as other projects of a similar cost would have.
At that point, while one might not believe the A's provide enough public non-economic good (in the form of entertainment, etc), the public good, combined with the economic development might make it a net benefit.
I dunno ... but I hope Oakland concludes that.
Yeah...
I guess my feelings were just that the city of Oakland might be undervaluing the worth of the A's to themselves, by looking only at dollars and cents.
Just as debate rages between statsheads and baseball traditionalists as to how to evaluate players, a similar debate could obviously ensue regarding the net effects of the investment in a new baseball stadium/village for the A's.
Gladwell appeals to me because he tries (with questionable success, as some in this thread have pointed out) to extract meaning from what others have determined to be purely subjective matters.
All I'm saying is that even if it appears that there will be a smaller gain from building a ballpark than there might be from using our assets in other ways, perhaps we must look harder at what a stadium/village would bring the city:
-The continuation of a legacy
-Keeping a competitive team (and likely an increasingly profitable team) in Oakland
-The profits from condo sales
-Cash infusion from retailers
-Cash infusion (and multiple levels of reinfusion) from shoppers
-Name recognition of Oakland as a city, associated with A's
-A prominent, beautiful physical structure that would very likely be the jewel of the area
-increased civic pride
-enhancement of recreational activities in Oakland
-likely secondary and tertiary effects throughout neighborhoods surrounding the ballpark (and ultimately the entire city) that I detailed above, a la the Broken Windows theory, but in reverse.
Could argue it either way
Take Fremont. Fremont has two big reasons to build: get on the map and keep entertainment dollars within the city. Neither reason has much to do with urban renewal since there's no "urban" in Fremont to speak of.
San Jose also wants to keep entertainment dollars in house, but it also wants to attract more potential residents back into the city. The neighborhood where the ballpark site is located isn't blighted or neglected. It's simply a transitional area that has other big plans.
Oakland is a different story. Its downtown is undergoing an urban renewal of sorts, but since residential development is scattered all over the area, commercial development tends to lag behind residential as they wait and see the community come together. A ballpark at the Uptown site would have kickstarted the work, and that would've been the best selling point. Now that most other sites (including JLS/Howard Terminal) are caught up in other development, there are few other opportunities to build elsewhere in downtown Oakland.
When Wolff proposed his plan last August, he didn't get much support from the City Council members other than Larry Reid. Ever thought about why? Besides the oft-mentioned reasons (uprooting existing business, unpopularity of the move in an election year), if Wolff had been able to build, the development would have stunted Downtown Oakland's renewal, perhaps by several years if not decades. That renewal is something the next mayor wants to be able to claim. Retailers would have flocked to the ballpark area instead of downtown since it would have had a newer, cleaner look to it. There are two examples of that in the Bay Area currently: Bay Street in Emeryville and Santana Row in San Jose. Bay Street was a new retail development that was close enough to Oakland to service Oakland residents without having to be downtown. Lew Wolff thought that Santana Row choked off Downtown San Jose's development, since the only thing the neighborhood is really missing is retail. Wherever the A's move, it's guaranteed there will be an entertainment/retail district there.
There's a really well-balanced article on this that the Boston Globe put out last Sunday. Definitely recommended.
it is hard to see success
by oaktownredneck on Mar 24, 2006 6:12 PM PST up reply actions
Why wouldn't it?
Another great link, thanks
OTOH, his and the Globe's job creation analysis is of permanent arena jobs only. They don't speak to construction jobs, which for Oakland could be a really big deal, especially if done with extra consideration for local and minority-owned firms, as is a common goal on City and Port projects.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Mar 24, 2006 7:24 PM PST up reply actions
Interesting article...
''Few people get real excited about a new plant (and they should)," he wrote in an e-mail, ''but we have to recognize [that] for several thousand years sports has occupied a unique place in virtually every society."
Gamely, a few economists have decided that if they can't persuade fans, they'll at least try to understand them, and have set out to quantify how much, exactly, having a sports team is worth to people. In a 2002 paper written for the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, for instance, economists Gerald Carlino and N. Edward Coulson found that people are willing to accept a 2 percent decrease in wages-and an 8 percent increase in rents-to have a National Football League team in their city.
Those gaps, if they're correct, represent the market price of fandom, the little bit extra we're willing to pay to have someone to root for.
This got me thinking....what do -2% in wages and +8% in rent to keep a sports franchise in town actually look like, in reference to Oakland?
(The following statistics from Oakland's Wikipedia Page and an Oakland/Alameda Country Real Estate Database):
-- 59% of Oakland's population is between 18 and 65 = 243,268 people (412,318 * 0.59)
-- Oakland's median income for men is $37,433 versus $35,088 for females --> estimated median income for all people (for argument's sake-- the real number would vary with the amount of men/women in the workforce) = $36,260.50.
-- The average rent in Oakland is $547/month (and assuming this is shared between 1.5 people/apartment-- I'm estimating with no real sense of what is accurate here, FYI-- just a guess that on average 1 out of every 2 people lives with someone else, though it could be more or less...), this breaks down to $364.66/person/month, or 4375.92/person/year.
So, a 2% decrease in wages? In Oakland, this seems to translate to -$725.21/person/year.
And an 8% increase in rent? In Oakland, this seems to translate to -$350.08/person/year. According to the numbers put forth in the article that Vertig0/Marine Layer presented us with, the average citizen, then, would sacrifice $1075.29/year to have a team to root for. As I mentioned before, there are 243,268 people in Oakland in the 18-65 year old range-- which we can assume relatively captures the "workforce."
-- $1075.29 * 243,268 = $261,583,647.72 --> the estimated total market price of fandom in Oakland.
Now, I must issue a number of caveats, that admittedly don't help the case I'm trying to make, but should be pointed out:
- This estimation is made based on 1 NFL team in 1 city, not an MLB franchise, and not in a city with 2 other sports franches.
- The estimation of median income between men and women is not 100% accurate, as I'm unsure of the breakdown between genders of the percent of the population in the workforce
- In considering rent and income, I used individual income (as opposed to household income-- because I was unsure of how many people a typical household holds) and rent/month (as opposed to total price of a home-- because I was unsure of the breakdown between people who rented and who owned, and what the effect of home ownership v. renting would be on this study.
- This is intended to measure the market price of fandom, not the effects a ballpark/village will have on a city. Thus, the estimated figure of $261,583,647.72 is only 1/2 of the equation, and we must consider this amount in addition to what possible economic development might bring to the city.
Oh and if I'm wrong in any of my numbers or analysis, please point it out. I promise not to take (too much) offense....kidding of course; any suggestions to make a potential model are welcome!
Easier to find failures than slam dunk successes
I happen to be pro-Oakland ballpark, and do think it could help the City, and do credit the other intangible benefits. But to say it would be an easy win, especially compared with the alternative (continued housing development Oakland's already benefiting from), is not supported by the facts, and in my opinion damages the credibility of the case.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Mar 24, 2006 3:56 PM PST up reply actions
good points, FSU--
I just don't understand the rush
Let's not rush them out of town.
He probably doesn't expect to live to 300!!
Fact is zero MLB teams stay in Oakland they all stay in the city and we all know why.
Fact is Oakland has huge, huge violence and school issues......and no money to solve their most basic problems.
Fact is if a CEO were to select Oakland as the place to move his company his board would fire him......it is expensive and crapy all at the same time for a business.
I live in the bay area --Oakland wasn't on my short list.
If Oakland isn't interested why should the A's be interested in Oakland? It isn't like Oakland hasn't screwed the A's. Recall the season that started in Vegas cuz the Colisium was getting rebuilt for Al --and was under construction for half that season. I just hope Lew can find a place they will let some development magic work and we can have more than we are expecting.
Open for business
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Mar 24, 2006 2:51 PM PST up reply actions
Dude, seriously...
Answer: most.
I'm coing to Oakland next week, and part of the information my hotel forwarded to me was what parts of Oakland to steer clear of. That's the reality of the city.
I doubt San Jose is dealing with the same shit.
Successful baseball cities have no bad 'hoods?
by AlamedaAphid on Mar 24, 2006 3:41 PM PST up reply actions
Including San Francisco, too.
-Colbert Report 3/15/05
by secret ASian man on Mar 24, 2006 4:09 PM PST up reply actions
Well, since you asked
A couple months ago I put together some comparitive Oakland/East Bay versus San Jose/South Bay econ stats, if you're interested.
And in case you roan when in the area, there are plenty of SF and SJ areas of which the unwary or unsavvy should steer clear. SF topped Oakland's murder tally last year, for instance. It just doesn't happen to fit most folks' preconceptions.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Mar 24, 2006 3:47 PM PST up reply actions
Uh-oh, y'all see this?
SJ Councilmember and mayoral contender
Dave Cortese spoke with local mag The Wave about the speculation, by Merc-News columnist Mark Purdy and others including me, that the Fremont prospect was but a step on the way to San Jose. The conversation produced this:
"They're going to lose the market either way, so would they prefer it with or without money?" Cortese asks. "We know the stage is probably being set along those lines. As we speak, wheels may be in motion to set up that quid pro quo - and if that happens, ultimately that's the kind of scenario that would quite possibly result in the territorial rights issue being resolved in one way or other..."
To me, the big surprise is that consumate insider Cortese would say this out loud at all.
Again, all credit to vertigo's blog for finding and reproducing this and many, many other excellent ballpark pieces.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Mar 24, 2006 7:03 PM PST reply actions
The Giants need the money...
When Bonds retires, they'll be lucky to be half-full at BALCO Ballpark.
Revenue has already gone down for the Giants and it will keep going down, but they still have a large annual debt service on their shiny toy box. If Wolff and Fisher could be persuaded to give the Giants, say, $2 million a year for 10 years in exchange for waiving any territorial rights claim to Santa Clara County, it would be very hard for the Giants to leave that on the table.
Vertig0: love the blog.
I think that Oakland is the best place
That said, I suspect that the A's ownership may not believe this, and that Oakland's politicos may not have the political will to push hard enough for it.
I bought a season ticket for 2006 (and convinced a friend to do the same) in order to do all I can to show my support...and while they are in Oakland I will treasure every moment. I am well aware that should they leave it may be very difficult for me to go to as many games as I do now.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
