A's On The Oakland Waterfront?
by Nico on Dec 10, 2009 6:21 PM PST
Email
PrintI don't know if this is news, or just "the latest maybe" in a series of "Oakland!!!111 Fremont!!!111 San Jose!!!111" rumors, but it suggests that Oakland is being proactive about possibly keeping the A's -- and lately that has been far more the exception than the rule.
This blurb doesn't get specific about exact locations -- where are 3 "waterfront" spots that could be considered viable for a new ballpark?
270 comments
|
9 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Sounds like Oakland
Is that one little kid among other little kids named Fremont or San Jose, those crazy parents, and saying, “I’ve got a plan too, and it includes 3 spots!!”
Follow on Twitter - @MAD_Marvin
Man talk about a blurb.....
That doesn’t really tell A’s fans anything at all. Maybe the brass has been taking a cue from jeffro’s write up’s over the last several weeks and are saying to themselves, “Hey, there really are some waterfront locations to build a stadium in Oakland after all!”.
We’ll see…
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
A bit more depth available
in the Chron article.
The artist formerly known as HigherPie.
by vegAN ryAN on Dec 10, 2009 6:47 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Well at least Dellums and DLF are trying to keep the A's in Oakland
Doesn’t mean it’s gonna happen, though.
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
Too little, too late?
More details are available in the Oakland Tribune as well. An overhead shot showing the sites is also on-line here; I’m not sure how to copy the image itself for posting here (although that might not be allowed anyway).
For those with short memories, the A’s identified a great downtown site to build a stadium back in 2002 (close to the freeway and BART), but they were rebuffed by Mayor Brown’s insistence on maximizing housing, despite the support of then-City Manager Bobb. See:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/05/28/BA125655.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/05/26/BA161811.DTL
As I understand it, the Forest City project (planned as a gated, 807-unit apartment complex next to the Sears department store), between Telegraph and San Pablo Avenues, has been more-or-less a bust, and the city is now awash in housing.
The A’s were basically left to look outside of Oakland for a new stadium. One wonders how much better things would have been for everyone if the A’s had gotten the green-light for a baseball-only downtown stadium. Oakland would have had a major downtown destination point, less of a housing backlog, and presumably some additional tax revenue. The A’s would finally have a chance to increase their revenue stream and hold onto more of their young talent. And even the Raiders would have benefited as the sole residents of a football-only Coliseum.
Anyway, it’s be nice if something actually comes of these new proposals, but Oakland screwed itself so badly seven years ago that they can’t blame the A’s for being extremely dubious.
As for the three sites, “The Jefferson Street site is composed of about 30 private properties”, so you can forget that one. They’ll never get them all to agree, and they won’t use eminent domain to take the land. The Howard site is right next to the Ferry Terminal on the waterfront (which is cool), but a long way from BART (looks like 8-10 blocks at least), which may pose a problem when it comes to doing an EIR & parking studies (the same stuff that got raised in Fremont). The Oak St. site is just 3-4 blocks from BART, which seems much more reasonable.
Every time I see those houses downtown I want to cry.
Hands down the best location.
No hope there
Can’t get excited about this because everytime you hear about a possible new stadium bad news follows. I feel like the kid who waited up for Santa Claus and fell asleep the last 2 years.
I think Santa is doing the tooth fairy.
That’s my theory anyway.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
True. I think about fanshots exactly as often as
someone mentions them in a fanpost. Sorry, didn’t occur to me.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Maybe Brando will buy the team and do the right thing
Hey, I just bought the team from Lew Wolff... who wants to play third?
Excellent. When I saw the title of the post, I went looking for this
I suspect that you think tilting at windmills means something other than what it does
Oakland coulda been a contender...
Could have been another Billy Conn.
"We've come a long way, and I'm not talking about Virginia Slims, either." - Art Howe
This is too little too late
These “sites” are all pipe dreams. They even quoted nearby property owners to one site saying they would fight a stadium project there. That’s the same thing that killed the Fremont deal. Sure it would be nice to have a waterfront stadium but it’s not gonna happen. These “proposals” are just a mirage.
Cust is the new Jaha.
by johnjahafanclub on Dec 10, 2009 9:25 PM PST reply actions
OMG I am praying this will happen, I esp like the JLS location...
I will be just blocks away and can sneak out of work to go to day games! Please please please let this come true!!
Cool
Take me with you!
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Dec 10, 2009 9:52 PM PST up reply actions
This is big news
The Mayor, the leaders of the City Council, Sen. Boxer’s son, and Clorox together saying they have three sites they feel they can assemble and pay for. Local corporate support, including large nearby land developers. Unified political will. Nearly perfect linchpin for Jack London economic development plans. Friendly zoning. Strong BART and freeway access, good existing base of parking, leveraged resources with existing Measure DD and Caltrans projects, a patron (matron?) in the Senate for more fed infrastructure help.
SJ has site control, an EIR, and the obvious preference of the current A’s ownership. That’s not going to be easy to beat. But right now, it’s not about arguing Oakland vs. San Jose…it’s about convincing MLB that Oakland is a viable option.
Preconceptions aside, it’s pretty tough to label all that was on display together today as not viable on its face.
Everybody's got a little light under the sun.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Dec 10, 2009 10:04 PM PST reply actions 10 recs
I don't keep up with Bay Area politics
But is Sen. Boxer’s son a political heavyweight on his own or does his power come from Mommy and his presence in the mix is meant to be at her bequest?
The monster at the end of this blog.
I think Barbara Boxer was born into money if not power
Though she is highly ambitious. Her son was born into the privilege she maintains.
"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King
by Buck Turgidson on Dec 11, 2009 12:11 PM PST up reply actions
Barbara Boxer's father was a lawyer
in Brooklyn, a Jewish emigree from Austria. She worked as a stockbroker to put her husband through law school, and then the two of them moved to California. Boxer’s career progressed gradually out of local activism and minor positions.
I assume her father had money and her upbringing was comfortable, but she’s not from a wealthy or powerful family in the same way as a Kennedy, Bush, Rockefeller, Bayh, Dodd, Udall, Pryor, or Murkowski. She really did build her political career from the ground up, without any special boost from family.
Her son Doug is another matter. I don’t know what his story is.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
No true blue blood would migrate to Cali
This story I’ve heard before though.
"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King
by Buck Turgidson on Dec 11, 2009 1:53 PM PST up reply actions
Howard Hughes?
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Seems like there might have been a newspaper man too...
Oh, and Corleones, who were in Nevada, true, but they lived in Tahoe, and I’ve always thought we should annex Tahoe…
Sock puppets have never been able to successfully attack castles. -NM
by Leopold Bloom on Dec 11, 2009 2:48 PM PST up reply actions
And now, I would like to introduce the Sierra Boys Choir.
(let’s you and me talk Michael)
alaska A residing in northern Idaho.
Yes, that would explain it.
Pelosi is scion of a wealthy political family from Baltimore, and she was groomed for power from an early age.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Balmer.
They got blue bloods there?
I thought they just had blue crabs.
Sock puppets have never been able to successfully attack castles. -NM
by Leopold Bloom on Dec 11, 2009 2:49 PM PST up reply actions
Rec'd as well
This is great news.
"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King
by Buck Turgidson on Dec 11, 2009 12:11 PM PST up reply actions
Interesting tidbit from the East Bay Express
Sounds like the “Victory Court” site is favored by the MLB panel…
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/92510/archives/2009/12/10/oakland-details-new-ballpark-sites
It’s 3 blocks from Lake Merritt BART, 2 blocks from Amtrak, withint walking distance of the Ferry, right off 880 via the Jackson St./Oak St. offramp, and in an up-and-coming neighborhood. Not to mention, the city owns 6 acres of the site already. It’s as perfect a location as you’re going to find, considering that millions of Bay Area residents will have reasonably good access to the site, either via train, boat, are car. If that isn’t “viable,” well, I don’t know what is.
Some things to consider about that site
There are 3 right’s of way running through it. That can really screw it up.
Also, the “6 acres” is really only 4 because 2 of the acres are under 880. An MLB park requires about 13-15 acres.
Construction on that site will be more expensive than other sites because of the type of soil. Basically, look at all the pillars 880 requires in order to be elevated in the area and you can see what I am talking about. An Engineer I know told me that $500 Million in construction cost is probably a good estimate, but I am not an engineer so I can only take his word for that.
I like the site, but there are issues to address before it is “viable.”
I took a walk around the area earlier this week.
The OFD lot itself was smaller than I expected, but the area in general was more spacious than I expected. The lots on either side of Victory are quite large. On one side is a self-storage business and a trucking headquarters which is a small office and a big parking lot full of trucks. On the other side is several food industry buildings. I did notice the smell as soon as I got out of my car. Smells vaguely like Chinese food, like some sort of fishy soy sauce. It’s quite strong at first, but you get used to it after a while. (There’s also a slight ocean-y smell near the estuary, but that’s mild.)
You can’t get a good look at the OFD site from the gate at the end of Victory, but it’s easy to walk around the back side of the storage place, alongside the railroad tracks, and get a good look from that side. (They have a funny little tower that looks like just the fire escape part of a building, which I assume the firemen practice running up and down.) I looked for any “no trespassing” signs on that side but didn’t see any. There are, however, several signs warning about various buried wires, which I’m guessing has something to do with the utilities rights of way. If they all run along the railway tracks, then maybe that’s not so much of a problem, since you wouldn’t be building on the tracks anyway.
The railroad track is right there running alongside Embarcadero with no fence or anything. You could easily hop over and jaywalk across Embarcadero and end up at the Aquatic Center in Estuary Park. The other side of Embarcadero is lovely. I didn’t realize how nice Estuary Park is. The Cash & Carry building is blah, but everything else is very pretty and walk-friendly. I hope they connect that area somehow. If Jeffro’s idea of the park for quasi-tailgating doesn’t happen onsite you could still do it in Estuary Park. I assume they’d need to have some sort of overpass over the railroad tracks, since you wouldn’t want crowds of people just roaming over them.
I’d love it if they connect up the estuary as well, toward Laney College and Lake Merritt. There’s some sort of construction going on there now, near the freeway. I can’t tell what they’re doing, though.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
the freeway construction
Is retrofitting 5th Ave area/offramp. FSU linked it back in one of the other threads.
Yes
I always visit for a few weeks in December. I have a regular Christmas gig here.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Caroling through an agency
The last remains from my former career as a starving artist.
I do a few malls, but most of my gigs are private parties (office parties, country clubs, some individuals, etc).
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Oh, the weather outside is frightful...
Sock puppets have never been able to successfully attack castles. -NM
by Leopold Bloom on Dec 11, 2009 2:49 PM PST up reply actions
Oh yeah?
Well, last week I had lunch with the queen on that spot.
"Tonto think Billy Beane need to make team full of squirrels and bears."
by OptimistPrime on Dec 11, 2009 12:39 PM PST up reply actions
That was me.
You probably didn’t recognize me in my full regalia.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
You got a tiara?
Sock puppets have never been able to successfully attack castles. -NM
by Leopold Bloom on Dec 11, 2009 2:50 PM PST up reply actions
The Victory Court site
Is 2.7 miles from where I live.
That would be an awesome walk — mostly around Lake Merritt — to and from a Sunday game!
by OaklandSi on Dec 11, 2009 6:07 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Well, really it is 2 sites
Howard Terminal is no way, no how. Stadium construction there was estimated at $517 Million in the 2001 HOK Study. Adjusting for inflation, that is over $600 Million bucks all these years later. Not to mention that the City shouldn’t be interupting Port operations for a ball park.
I looked at OFD site in the ’ol Greener Grass series. I like that site. Not sure about viability, it will be expensive, but it is fun to dream and I am sure there is vetting underway.
The “JLS North” site is new. In my opinion, there are several hurdles there. First is the fact that there are over 30 different land owners who would have to be convinced to sell. Then, unless I am wrong, there is a Sprint Communications Central Office included in the footprint. That is a very expensive thing to move. It’s been a while since I have taken the fairy across the Bay from there, but I feel like there is a parking garage in there somewhere too? But I am sure the site is being vetted by people a lot more important than me.
I like "fairy" better --
It invokes images of you riding on the back of a Mark Ellis – unicorn like creature as you fly through the air and are deposited directly in your assigned seat.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I would pay way more for fairy rides!
"Tonto think Billy Beane need to make team full of squirrels and bears."
by OptimistPrime on Dec 11, 2009 12:40 PM PST up reply actions
Someone should 'Shop this pronto.
The funny thing about baseball is that people will believe what they want to believe. -Joe Posnanski 8/29/09
reminds me of that old joke, "How Did Humphrey the Whale Die?"
something about being “rear-ended by a ferry”.
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."-Plutarch
by One won lost won on Dec 11, 2009 7:39 PM PST up reply actions
Which rights of way?
Are you referring to the OFD property specifically? And are you referring to 880, Embarcadero, and the rail lines? I’m looking at the map of the site (as posted on http://www.facebook.com/letsgooakland) and it looks like those rights of way are taken into account. And my understanding is that the property located under freeways is typically state property, but perhaps there’s some easement arrangement for the freeway?
Yeah, pretty much any ballpark built near the Bay is going to need some soil work. AT&T needed some soil stabilization work too, I believe, and given the Coliseum’s high water table…
No, at least one fo the ROW's runs right through the site
It is a “railway safety” ROW that runs along Victory Court. Right through the middle of this drawing on county assessor maps.
The soil stabilization is important because it makes it more expensive to build the stadium here than in Diridon.
Seriously, I like this site. I researched it a lot and wrote about it here.
That link is a regular map
with the stadium site drawn in.
The assessor’s parcel map is here.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
sprint central office
mucho expensive to move, and the article hints at the current land owners’ disapproval with this idea. I still think your idea (OFD) is the best hope for Oakland, jeffro.
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
by cuppingmaster on Dec 10, 2009 11:35 PM PST up reply actions
Oakland to aquire land
If Oakland is footing the bill for land/infrastructure, would that legitimately open up Howard Terminal? I’m not a fan of interrupting the shipping biz because it’s so important, but does this work for the A’s to get a waterfront park?
Is there any argument to say, Oakland put the Terminal spot in there knowing they could figure out a way to get it done? Or is it the most likely idea, “hey we’ve got multiple sites, now pick the only one we know can work.”
I’m in favor of the Oak 3rd St spot myself, but a waterfront park would be Sweeeet. & it would become an instant extension of JLS.
It's just more exciting with Billy Beane running the team.
AND........
Back here in D.C. there is much talk about a “Jobs Bill.” This would essentially be a second stimulus package (because we all saw the political handouts to boosters in the first one) which would focus on infrastructure and construction.
With the Oakland delegation’s powerful connections to Senator Boxer, I think there is a huge amount of money which could be directed to Oakland. Considering there is an unemployment rate of 17.2% – almost 2x the national average – as of October 2009 (http://www.business2oakland.com/main/laborforce.htm), they would have the political cover to push for a line item to address construction in a city that is hard up.
By pushing one of the sites close to JLS it would boost the “destination” in a huge way that could revitilize the area.
It's just more exciting with Billy Beane running the team.
http://www.business2oakland.com/main/laborforce.htm
It's just more exciting with Billy Beane running the team.
Sounds like the city's willing to help with site acquisition...
…and infrastructure improvements (via redevelopment grants and possibly stimulus funds), leaving the team to finance the construction itself.
If they can get this thing buit, I think it would be a boon for the team and the city. The Jack London/Waterfont District is up-and-coming. In many respects, it’s a lot like the South of Market/South Beach area of SF was when AT&T Park opened. And we all know how that went down.
Me? I’m cautiously optimistic. It’ll take a lot of work to get this done (as would building in San Jose or Fremont or Dublin or Portland), but it could get done, and it could be a very good thing.
I think the one in red in the picture linked above would be a good spot.
it seems to have the most space available, and would displace less people/businesses. Hopefully it would be built to have a nice view of the bay. I do not want them to build it so that the outfield is next to the water causing homeruns to land in the bay.
Is that just because you don't want to see a "splash meter"
and realize that after 4 seasons the A’s total is 5?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
All baseball stadiums face some form of east.
Or, at least, not west. Games are played somewhere between the early afternoon and night. The orientation is for the sun—fielders fighting the sun is one thing, but a batter having to look into the sun is another. The new ballpark, if it’s constructed somewhere on the waterfront, would probably end up facing downtown.
Your day breaks, your mind aches.
You find that all her words of kindness linger on
when she no longer needs you.
One thought I had which would give them a view of the water is to build in Alameda across from JLS
Add to that a foot bridge across to JLS
It probably wouldn’t happen as Alameda wouldn’t want that traffic and the parking would have to be increased on the Oakland side.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
It seems like Oakland has essentially been trying to bypass the A's in ballpark negotiations,
working exclusively with the MLB appointed panel. I think Oakland knows this is to its advantage: the MLB panellists might be a little more mindful of the Giants territorial rights than Wolf is when he lays down his head on his pillow. The Commissioner’s Office could also play the role of a third party between the A’s and the city when it comes to hammering out the details of financing, planning and construction (they managed to swindle a billion dollars of federal tax payer money for the Yankee’s place, and while the A’s are no Yankees, MLB could be key in tapping some outside revenue sources, or redistributing old ones). I have a feeling that a plan involving any of these sites is going to be somewhat garrish to both the A’s and the city – less than what either had hoped for – but it might, all the same, accomplish MLB’s goal of having a shiny new stadium and a few hundred million dollars worth of free socialized debt. All of these proposals look significantly more pricey than those from San Jose or Fremont, so I can envision a drawn out process involving a couple work stoppages and some finger pointing between the A’s and the city, with the public coffers ultimately relenting, because what good is half a ballpark after all?
I’m being hyper-speculative and maybe a bit cynical. Still, I think Oakland’s seeming ability to negotiate with the MLB commission, while at the same time remaining on non-speaking terms with A’s ownership speaks volumes about the situation, Oakland seems to feel the MLB commission is its best chance to get back in the game, so it will be interesting to see if the January report offers a definitive plan, and if the A’s will be compelled to adhere to this plan even if its not their first choice.
"When you get that nice celebration coming in the dugout, and you're getting your ass hammered by guys, there's no better feeling than to have that done." -Matt Stairs
Huh
You can’t bypass somebody who has already bypassed you.
The City realizes that there won’t be any movement in talks with the A’s without signigicant pressure on ownership from all directions.
"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King
by Buck Turgidson on Dec 11, 2009 12:15 PM PST up reply actions
Fair enough.
The city needs to hire Morrissey. The more you ignore him the closer he gets.
"When you get that nice celebration coming in the dugout, and you're getting your ass hammered by guys, there's no better feeling than to have that done." -Matt Stairs
If we all chip in $5 per unique site view
we can get this done.
"I'm disappointed Ziggy didn't pump his fist towards the sky 100 times and scream like a hooker." ~Nico.
Excellent idea!
Everyone please send me $5.00 in unmarked bills immediately.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
As long as I can leave it in a clear bag
Dropped off by a garbage truck in the middle of downtown LA, with Keanu Reeves in hot pursuit.
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
by cuppingmaster on Dec 11, 2009 2:31 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
If we all pitch in our 400Ks and IRAs we can get a real nice stadium built
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
You haven't depleted your 401k yet?
"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King
by Buck Turgidson on Dec 11, 2009 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
I still have about $25 in it.. .
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
KQED's Forum is discussing new stadium possibilities today 9-10 AM Pacific time
88.5 in the Bay Area, or streaming at http://www.kqed.org/radio/listen/. Both the A’s and 49ers search for a stadium will be discussed. Marine Layer will be a guest in the studio and listener calls will be taken in the second half of the hour. Audio should be archived here after the broadcast.
It's the fans that make the game fun. -- Rickey Henderson, July 26, 2009.
by Englishmajor on Dec 11, 2009 6:02 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Good link, EM!
Rec’d for giving me something interesting to listen to on the way home.
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
by cuppingmaster on Dec 11, 2009 1:25 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Some bullet points from the show as I'm listening
It’s kind of a combined discussion about the A’s situation and the 49ers’.
The person mentioned that pointing to some tracts of land and saying ‘a ballpark could go here’ is really only the very first step, saying that the newly-proposed sites haven’t had any work done on them yet.
Also notes that Wolff has a lot of connections and people in San Jose, whereas he’s not really on that sort of footing in Oakland.
After a break,
they’ve sort of pulled back to mostly discussing the general economics of ballpark financing. Three callers, the first one pretty much using his soapbox to complain about environmental cleanups that haven’t been done yet, one basically saying “why should public money be spent for private profits”, the third from an Oakland residence who wants both the A’s and the Raiders to go away.
Anyway,
Mike from Alameda basically said keep the A’s in Oakland.
Another caller was getting some pretty basic details wrong.
…like jeffro just said.
Caller who lives on one of the sites
“My back yard would be in left field. It’s a great sight-line, but…” He wants to keep the A’s close (in Oakland), but not THAT close.
Thanks for the play-by-play
I spent the drive to the office wondering how much ground I didn’t cover. Apparently it was a lot. Still, good hour.
To clarify
He said the sites are mostly on public land, only Howard Terminal is and that site is not really feasible (the other two: one has 30 private owners, one has 13 private owners), he said the city would use eminent domain (which I really doubt it)… It was really an uniformed opinion.
That's MarineLayer
He’s here in person, I’m going to go say hi!
It's the fans that make the game fun. -- Rickey Henderson, July 26, 2009.
by Englishmajor on Dec 11, 2009 9:58 AM PST up reply actions
Are you talking about Victory Court?
Looks like only four or five private owners to me. Am I missing something, or are we defining the site differently?
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Probably defining it differently. Are you using oaklandexplorer.com?
The site would be From 880 to Embarcadero and then from Oak to the estuary channel. That gives you 20 Acres.
Or I could be confusing the fact that there are 13 private lots and some have a singel owner. It’s been a while since I looked it up and in my spreadsheet I only not “private” as the owner of a parcel, not the name of who owns it.
Ah, that's it.
I was counting just from Fallon Street. For some reason I was thinking that’s enough. The block between Fallon and Oak is more settled, with at least one nice office building, as opposed to just warehouses.
I’ve looked at both Explorer and the County site, and found neither satisfactory. I guess I’m spoiled since both my home counties (Snohomish and King) have very nice user-friendly pages with lots of information. I can’t find ownership information on Alameda Co at all. Not sure if it’s because I’m not looking in the right place or they just don’t list it. The Explorer site is a bit wonky. Several of the fields are cut short, which seems to be just truncation from bad coding, as opposed to intentional privacy. This is disappointing because Explorer does show ownership info, but it’s often incomplete due to the truncation.
As for the lots, the OFD site is public, of course. 25 Fourth St belongs to BART. From Explorer, it looks like 39 and 49 Fourth St owners are related in some way, though not the same entity. But hard to tell for sure.
I haven’t looked at anything on the other side of Fallon yet.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
I have felt the same way about Nico
"Tonto think Billy Beane need to make team full of squirrels and bears."
by OptimistPrime on Dec 11, 2009 12:42 PM PST up reply actions
"I never explored that man...Mr. Prime."
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
The property owners for OFD/Victory Court/Best Possible Site in Oaktown
Solomon
Block Living Trust
Bales Properties (2 lots)
Vukasin Family (2 lots)
100 Oak Street Corp
Cattelus
Kyuak Family
Breznikar Family (2 lots)
BART
Harris Family
City of Oakland
Peralta Community College District
This totals 22 acres, with 6 being City owned (though 2 of the City owned acres are under the freeway).
Oops,
I hadn’t seen this when I posted above. The Breznikars are the two lots I was discussing.
Where do you find the ownership information?
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Looks to me like you could fit AT&T Park here easily
Even if you only go to Fallon Street. Not sure why you need to include all those lots on Oak Street.
Even if it's not ideal, it would be useful
if it’s at least plausible to build just up to Fallon Street. That would give extra leverage in bargaining with the owners between Oak and Fallon. You can say, “Look, we’re going to build the stadium anyway. You can either sell to us at a good price, or you can be the one stupid little office building surrounded by our parking garage.”
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
A fe reasons
First, AT&T Park is a special circumstance. It si shoe hroened into a very small lot. Travel up to Safeco and then go to AT&T and look at the vast differences in the footprint and the ease of motion. AT&T Park should NOT be emulated.
Second, the City of Oakland’s presentation included all of those lots.
Third, this.
My question is.. where is the parking.. for the other 25000 who will not come by Bart?
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
I think the leverage idea is good though, to have a 14 acre fallback
plan, lilke at Diridon to drive the process more rapidly out to Oak. Have you guys walked the backdoor of this area? The Laney College parking lot on the other side of 880 extends underneath the freeway into that far right triangle between the channel bridge and the freeway. This site would be the end of the legendary Laney College flea market though…
Right now that area is blocked off
by construction on the freeway entrance. I wanted to walk it but couldn’t get through.
What time of year is the flea market? They could still hold it in the stadium parking lot if there’s no game on.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Not sure of the schedule, I haven't been there in years
since I moved out to the San Mateo coast. But it was mostly year round, every weekend, in years gone by, that I can recall.
Summing things up
Not a lot in this discussion that wouldn’t be familiar to most people here. The guest (MarineLayer, I’m told) finished up by pointing out a comment Lew Wolff made that ‘everything runs on baseball time, and baseball’s famous for not having a clock,’ noting that there’s really no hurry for things to get done, (and implying that haste is decidedly unlikely in any event.)
The callers/emailers on the subject were either starting from uninformed positions, (like the caller who was sure the sites were all slam-dunks via the magic of public ownership and/or public domain,) or were just pretty much opposed to spending public money on sports teams. Those folks might be uninformed as well, but it’s hard to tell when it’s a pretty simple position being espoused.
A topic I’d like to hear about some time are the other side of things. We had the guy discussing the real effects of a sports facility being built on a city, economic and otherwise, I’d like to hear some discussion about what are the effects of a team leaving a city or region, especially a baseball team that was hosting eighty-plus games a year before. The caller who wanted both Oakland teams to go away seemed to feel that way because of traffic. I wonder if there might not be real negative impacts even to residents who aren’t fans of the team?
Also, I wish it hadn’t been mashed together with the 49ers. Aside from the fact that they’re both sports teams that want to move to Santa Clara county, the situations are completely different, and both complex enough that you’re going to cut out a lot of fairly important information about what’s happened and is happening.
The guy who wanted to have the teams go away
was complaining about the fireworks after A’s games keeping him up at night. Four times a year! As opposed to the serenity and quiet that normally characterizes any other large cities?
And I think maybe the guy who thought his Victorian house in West Oakland was going to be in the infield may have been thinking of one of the earlier proposals — it didn’t look to me like any of the three proposals from yesterday would get into the residential parts of West Oakland.
It's the fans that make the game fun. -- Rickey Henderson, July 26, 2009.
by Englishmajor on Dec 11, 2009 10:24 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah
The “I live in Left Field” guy, I was confused by that as well. I am looking at the JLS North site to try and understand the value of land and structures, I will make sure to note any residential property. There is none at the OFD site (which they are calling Victory Court)
Upon Further review
the JLS North site includes Single Family Residences on Brush Street. There are two of them, and there are also a few old houses that are now considered “COmmercial Lots.”
Needs to happen
I would love it if the Athletics stayed in Oakland AND got a waterfront ballpark. I hate to say it but I really do like Pac Bell/SBC/AT&T Park. Not that I want to copy their park or anything but a waterfront ballpark would awesome. There is just something really special about it.
First and foremost KEEP OAKLAND GREEN AND GOLD!
24 is my age 22 is my gauge
by catfishunterSthompson on Dec 11, 2009 9:40 AM PST reply actions
That thought has been in the back of my mind this whole time
Bud wants a bidding war… which is why I mentioned public funds in the “How it Could Work in Oakland” post. I would hope Oakland would say no, even if it means the A’s move to San Jose. But I understand other folks have different opinions on that.
If it comes to a bidding war,
there’s no contest. San Jose has far more money, public and private. Any “bidding war” is just a way to try and squeeze a few more shekels out of San Jose.
On the JLS North Site
Using the drawing from newballpark.org and oaklandexplorer.com I tried to piece together the facts of JLS North. There are 57 parcels in that area. There are 33 individual owners of those 57 parcels. 31 of the owners are private, with 1.4 acres being owned by the City of Oakland and a half acre owned by BART. There are two SFR’s and a couple quadplexes. It is mostly commercial.
The strange thing is that the parcels only add up to 14.3 acres, though that doesn’t take into account streets that would be covered over by the development.
My take
It’s obvious that if A’s ownership really wanted to stay in Oakland, a new ballpark deal could be worked out somehow, somewhere.
The problem for those of us who’d like to see the team stay home is this … Wolff/other owners are convinced they can make more money elsewhere (San Jose) — so this is what they’re gunning for.
I’m not trying to say that “making more money” is unethical or wrong – if you own the team, you have the right to do with it what you will — just don’t look me in the face and tell me you’ve “exhausted all options” regarding staying put. This would be a bold-faced lie.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
by Vacafan on Dec 11, 2009 1:32 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
+1
I would just say that “making more money” as a first priority sure does lead to alot of ethical greyness.
"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King
by Buck Turgidson on Dec 11, 2009 1:57 PM PST up reply actions
to be fair
This recent push by the city itself (not the fans, facebook pages, or what have you) seems 11th hour. The original plans shot down by Brown were before Wolff’s time. Say what you want about him, but if a city leader said “no” earlier, it’s logical to cross that option off the list
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
by cuppingmaster on Dec 11, 2009 2:27 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Thank you.
I just don’t see what the city has done to make the A’s want to stay. At some point they have to start looking elsewhere.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
"Making the A's want to stay"
I don’t think that’s the city’s job, frankly. Now, don’t get me wrong — I certainly don’t want the city to chase the A’s away … but “wanting to stay” ought to be a priority of ownership. That should have very little to do with the city of Oakland.
Personally, if I purchase a team in Townville, then Townville should always be the home of that team barring some extreme circumstance. Especially when I can make millions of dollars in profit regardless of where the team plays.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
Even when Townville made your ballpark a LOT worse than it was when you moved in
because they wanted a different team to come play there as well?
Then when the team tried to look for other spots in Townville, the mayor said no, so instead of the Townville location they started looking to the bigger city down the road who actually wanted the team.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Hey I'm pretty good at making shit kindergarten level.
Dumbing things down is a specialty of mine!
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
fool your friends!
fun at parties!
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Shit. wait.
you didn’t see the video, did you? If not, nevermind.
If you did I was young and needed the money. :-(
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Great points ... I hear what you're saying
But the mayor that said “no” is gone. Brown couldn’t care less about sports. Be it in Oakland or wherever.
I just think that if the city is willing to deal at this point, the A’s should listen. Why does the fact Oakland made little effort to begin with disqualify them now? A lot of us are acting as if because the city did little 5 years ago, this should automatically eliminate them from consideration now. Why?
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
Well
Some of them were built on — notably the sites the A’s really wanted and were most viable and valuable. Big problem.
The unfortunate truth is that if you ranked these sites in 2002 they would be somewhere between 3rd and 7th in desirability depending on who you ask. Having the original sites shot down makes a huge difference in where you should locate a team. The question is, then, do you locate a team in the third best site in it’s current city and hope it works or go for the best site in a new, larger city?
I’m all for the A’s being in Oakland if it can happen — but not to our long-term detriment.
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
by cuppingmaster on Dec 11, 2009 4:11 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Even if this is a good site... the San Jose site offers big business which is needed.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
Per the press conference, Oakland's been working with MLB
for 10 months. MLB was presented with these sites months ago. Dellums noted how Oakland deliberately chose a non-public approach (not negotiate through press), and how remarkable it was that the large group (Mayor, Council, their staff, City staff, Clorox, Signature, Chamber of Commerce, and all the people on the MLB side) did so much work for so long without any public leaks. The homework on display Thursday was significant, and hardly “11th hour.”
Everybody's got a little light under the sun.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Dec 11, 2009 7:54 PM PST up reply actions
11th hour when compared to the totality of the A's quest for a stadium over the last 8+ years, yes
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
by cuppingmaster on Dec 11, 2009 10:49 PM PST up reply actions
actually that's not quite true
there have been other attempts over the years, well documented in numerous other discussions (I have to go to work so I can’t dig them out for you). Besides former city Manager Robert Bobb, councilmembers such as Dick Spees among others have worked on various proposals.
Reality Check
Sure, if the A’s were willing to spend huge sums developing a problematic site, something could be built. But if they have to spend an extra 100-200 million to get a project done, that means more debt, which means less income for the team, which at some point defeats the purpose of a new stadium. The best sites for the A’s were rejected years ago by either the city (the Telegraph and San Pablo Avenues site; which became the Forrest City project – see my post at the very top of this fanpost) or the property owners (the site directly across from the Coliseum).
Of the three sites presented by Oakland this week, one has already been reviewed and rejected, and another is highly unlikely due to the large number of private landowners (at least 30). The OFD/Victory Court site is the only one that may be viable — and as others have mentioned it would still be costly due to the need for soil stabilization, etc…. At one time, there was also talk of a site on the lower half of Laney College’s property, which would have most of the same advantages of the OFD/Victory Court site, while possibly being more stable. But I believe Laney College totally nixed that idea.
Ironically, with the NUMMI plant in Fremont closing, the A’s project could have been located there. It’s right off the freeway, near the already approved BART extension to Warm Springs, and has fewer environmental and political concerns than the original Fremont site (further from the water, and the ballgame traffic would be replacing the existing NUMMI traffic). NUMMI was a significant opponent of the ballpark in Fremont, but as it turned out they shouldn’t have been given any say at all. They screwed Fremont and the A’s quite nicely.
by andyinfremont on Dec 11, 2009 2:32 PM PST up reply actions
A note on Howard Terminal
The sound bite that it was previously “reviewed and rejected” hardly does justice to the site. First, it was “rejected” by Lew Wolff in his pre-ownership role with the team as site consultant. Believe what you will, but it’s hard to take Lew’s work then as a sincerely open-minded approach to Oakland sites (in fact, it would’ve cost him a lot more to buy in to the A’s had a ballpark plan been deemed frutful back then). More important, the “rejection” of the site at the time was more like an “that’s intriguing, but too much hassle.”
And that site’s bigger than the other two put together. If one still pined for a next door development as an on-site way of helping pay for the ballpark, Howard Terminal’s the one.
Everybody's got a little light under the sun.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Dec 11, 2009 8:02 PM PST up reply actions
Can't buy it
I saw memos from Port officials. A ballpark was incompatible with current Port uses. Extremely costly improvements and cleanup would’ve necessary. That’s the great thing about putting out these sites. There’s no price tag attached to any of them.
In my opinion
Any site in oakland is a dead end opportunity. The politicians are doing this to play the victim role that they at least tried. Where were they 4-5 yrs ago? They were too busy kissing the rear end of al davis and the raiders. They already made their choice when they allowed the raiders to destroy the coliseum, since then the A’s have been overlooked by their own city.
Take the perspective of Fisher and Wolf, why build a palace in a run down, ecnomically declining, and crime ridden city like oakland. When just down the road you have the largest city in CA w/ 1 million people basically begging for some baseball. The only resolution to this is san jose, now its up to selig and the owners to make this happen. The harsh reality is that the city of Oakland is considered the pit stop of the Bay Area. Time to move onto bigger and better opportunities. Oakland had their chance, now its too late. The fans, money,and a new era in A’s baseball leads to San Jose.
Look, if you want to highlight the positives about San Jose, that's fine
but please spare me all the nonsense about Oakland being a “run down, economically declining, crime ridden city”. You obviously have a particular portion of Oakland in mind … no sense in trying to educate you about the rest of the city.
By the way, please tell me when San Jose got rid of their crime “problem” or suddenly became “economically booming.”
When I consider the “pit stop” of the Bay Area? Sorry, but I think of the South Bay, but that’s just me.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
by Vacafan on Dec 11, 2009 2:53 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Are you friggin' serious, man?
Are you that naive? Do you honestly think San Jose is gang-free? How bout Chicago or New York?
You’ve obviously spent very little time in Oakland, therefore you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Unbelievable. Get out more, would ya?
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
Oakland
Come on… everyone gets murdered 2 times a day in Oakland?!?!?!?
But seriously. You can’t deny that there is a crime problem in Oakland that is higher than other cities. This is based on per capita crime stats, not headlines or misunderstandings but reality.
That said, a ballpark in Oakland can work. As long as ti isn’t built int he middle of a gang war zone, what is the difference?
I'm not trying to deny that Oakland has a crime problem,
I’m trying to dissuade uneducated people from implying that “everyone gets murdered 2 times a day”. Your tongue in cheek comment, unfortunately, is perceived reality for a lot of people. It’s ridiculous.
I felt 100x more nervous going to games at Hunter’s Point than I ever did in Oakland. There are horrible, crime-ridden neighborhoods in SF, Philly, NY, Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit … the list goes on and on, including San Jose — but I rarely hear they hype that you constantly hear about Oakland.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
by Vacafan on Dec 11, 2009 4:00 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Everyone gets murdered twice a day in Oakland... the part of the city were they play now can't afford to only kill you once.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
Well, if they wouldn't spend so much on the medical services to bring you back the first time...
The monster at the end of this blog.
Oakland's crime rate is bad, but
it is not worse than that of Detroit or St Louis, and the Tigers and Cardinals are not fleeing those cities.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Poppycock.
"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King
by Buck Turgidson on Dec 11, 2009 6:30 PM PST up reply actions
Having lived near downtown Oakland for 10 years, I can tell you, it is not in decline. In fact, it is on a huge upswing. The Uptown is becoming a mecca for artists and music. Jack London has been transformed into a great place, you should check out the Farmer’s Market there on Sundays. Downtown bars are opening and the Fox Theater and Paramount fantastic! A stadium near Jack London would really compliment what is already occuring.
by roscoe on Dec 11, 2009 7:32 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Nice Kielty troll
My kid had one she loved so much that once she lost it, I secretly bought one on eBay to pass of as the original, to much long-lost toy rejoicing.
Big, huge echo on the Uptown Oakland resurgence. It is by far the most encouraging development in Oakland in decades.
Everybody's got a little light under the sun.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Dec 11, 2009 8:06 PM PST up reply actions
Not to defend Dellums, but..
4-5 years ago none of these particular politicians were in office. And the people responsible for the Raiders/Coliseum debacle are long gone…
This is not true, partially
Ignacio De La Fuente, a huge part of bringing the Raiders back, seems to still be around.
Also, Wasn’t it Don Perata who had a lot to do with that? Isn’t he running for Mayor? I am asking, not being facetious.
2005 statistics
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934323.html
MLB cities with higher murder rate than Oakland include: Baltimore, Washington D.C., St. Louis, Detroit, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Cincinnati and Cleveland.
" Sleepy Floyd is Superman!!!"
Murder isn't the only crime
Actually, type 1 crime is down over 13% from 2008 to 2009
Oakland is in the middle of a flourishing transformation. Uptown, Lakeshore/Grand, Temescal, Rockridge, Dimond, Laurel.
Yes, there’s crime. But when people pull out the ‘crime’ angle in the manner that MagicMike just did, it always seems like there’s a subtext in their arguments for the types of people that are supposedly committing these crimes. And that kind of blanket judgement is just not something I’m interested in.
by cityplANner on Dec 11, 2009 6:05 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
oops
forgot to include the link. …and it’s actually down 15%
by cityplANner on Dec 11, 2009 6:08 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
exactly jeffro
everyone has their own perceptions of our U.S. cities… i doubt many people realize the St. Louis statistics.
… and don’t get me started on Detroit … that place is worse of than New Orleans and they have a nice downtown stadium – in a city with insane unemployment and not one major grocery in the city limits!
" Sleepy Floyd is Superman!!!"
Crime comparisons
I’ve got to say, when someone brings up crime in Oakland, comparing the city to Detroit and St. Louis is a bit disingenuous. Last I heard, the A’s weren’t looking to move to Detroit or St. Louis. Compare Oakland’s crime rates to San Jose’s if you want to discuss it honestly.
It's not disingenuous
The people who eagerly point out that Oakland has a worse crime rate than San Jose are implying that crime rate is a major factor in determining which city is the better site. We are saying that crime rate of the whole city makes little difference to the baseball team, and we cite other cities to help demonstrate that.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Dec 12, 2009 8:29 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree. The argument seems to go,
“Oakland has too much crime to support a major league team” and a fair rebuttal is to cite Detroit and St. Louis as examples that this just isn’t true.
Shall we move the team to Blackhawk and expect it to thrive?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 12, 2009 9:27 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Here's an idea:
Let the team play in Oakland, but let all the players live in Danville.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
um, that's where they do live
a lot of the time. many (e.g., chavy) bought (and now sold) houses in blackhawk, and many rented out there too, a tradition that goes back to the days of canseco & mac, and maybe further back than that.
Gosh, I must be psychic!
How could I have known that?
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
I don't think that's the argument
I think the argument has been that the Coliseum (unlike Comerica Park and Busch Stadium) is in a bad neighborhood (it’s not really bad but it is kinda rundown. It’s certainly not a good neighborhood,) and since the city wouldn’t (in the past) consider sites closer to downtown/JLS, Oakland wasn’t an option going forward.
And whether you consider crime to be a major factor or not, it is a factor. It keeps people away from your ballpark. Even if the reality isn’t nearly as bad as the perception, the perception can keep someone wanting to take their kids there.
AND THEN THOSE KIDS GROW UP TO BE GIANTS FANS. DO YOU WANT THAT, NICO? DO YOU WANT A GENERATION OF GIANTS FANS ON YOUR CONSCIENCE???
wait, like how SOMA and China basin were a really *bad* neighborhood before the Giants moved in?
Oh
….
right
by cityplANner on Dec 12, 2009 4:55 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Extremely valid comparison
what with the billions in urban renewal Oakland is planning for the Coliseum area.
And that
Even if the reality isn’t nearly as bad as the perception, the perception can keep someone wanting to take their kids there.
is why it’s not helpful when you come on here and post things that reinforce the perception.
I agree about the Coliseum neighborhood, by the way. I’m a big fan of the waterfront sites. If there were a proposal for a new stadium at the Coliseum site, I wouldn’t really care about that, since I don’t see it doing anything for Oakland.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Well first off
I’m not employed by the city of Oakland. I don’t have any responsibility to spin for them, whatever others’ preferences are.
Besides which, saying that Oakland’s crime problem is worse than San Jose’s and that the Coliseum’s not exactly located in the East Bay’s garden spot are simple facts.
Oakland Gang Wars
Where is the show San Jose Gang Wars or Fremont Gang Wars? That show is on natl cable television on the discovery channel and portrays everything what is wrong with oakland. Whether its fair or not, that is the national perception of the city. If Lew is promoting a potential move to the A’s he should include that video fotage in his presentation, the owners would immediately support him. Why would FIsher and Wolf build a $500 million palace in a run down slum, when the technological center of the world wants them. Its an easy choice.
there is so much more to oakland than gangs
its not even funny. gangs are a product of poverty and broken families; they function as a form of family to the less fortunate. san jose has less g warfare? so what. tooting the horn of the more fortunate makes me want to barf.
But the earlier points are valid.....
Crime exists in SJ, too and there is definately a gang problem there as well. I think it’s just a difference in how the police forces handle the issues. I work in schools and the police officers that work with us say that the force in SJ is not as forthcoming with reporting some of the gang activity in an effort to supress it by not glorifying it.
I think the development that would occur in WHATEVER city is selected will be a positive enhancement. I will go to either venue as I have been going to the Coli. I just hope they stay in the Bay.
MLB is a big city sport
Fremont and San Jose = meh.
Gang wars, so friggin’ what. New York is full of gangs, Los Angeles has a SERIOUS gang problem. That’s what big city life is like.
The NFL is looking to get out of Jacksonville. Little, wanna-be cities like Fremont, SJ, Irwindale, Saaremento and Jacksonville, are second-rate sports towns.
SJ got a hockey team because hockey is a forth or fifth rate sport. so they sound an irrelevant city to do business in. The NHL is in several 2nd/3rd rate “safe” cities.
" Sleepy Floyd is Superman!!!"
Uh, San Jose has like 2x the population of Oakland
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
the A's are the Bay Area's AL team
with a fanbase from throughout the Bay Area.
So Oakland was and still is a good choice for the team, among other reasons because of its location and ease of access for the whole Bay Area.
I understand that
and now that the city of Oakland has obviously “chosen” the Raiders and NFLs big money instead of MLB and the A’s, this last 11th hour deal notwithstanding, it makes tons of sense for them to look at a bigger city with more money that’s right down the freeway.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
do you mean Oakland chose the Raiders instead of the A's
when the Raiders came back to Oakland over a decade ago? Some people believe that particularly because of Mt Davis. I wouldn’t call simply renewing the Raiders’ lease recently as choosing NFL over MLB. After all, they have also renewed the A’s lease.
San José is certainly not easily accessible to the entire Bay Area, as is Oakland. In the past Wolff has said he hoped to replace the lost fandom from the rest of the Bay Area by increasing attendance from the South Bay. He also has stated that he doesn’t really need more than 25,000 attendees at games – the corporate bucks is what he has said he is after.
A good team can and has drawn average attendance of at least 25,000 to ga,es om Oakland. Hell, they drew 25,000 to various Fan Fests in January, even with charging entrance. As for corporate bucks – there is plenty in the Bay Area, both present and projected, to go around…and with downtown Oakland experiencing increased and projected growth, there’s no reason why creative and committed ownership can’t increase corporate support for a team based in Oakland.
by OaklandSi on Dec 12, 2009 10:42 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
How is SJ not easily accessible?
A major freeway runs through the middle of it
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
you really want fans driving from all over the Bay Area to San José?
I can assure you it won’t happen.
Maybe they would get enough South Bay fans to satisfy them. I’m not saying that can’t happen. But Oakland – with existing BART, Amtrak, freeways, etc., not to mention its geographic location in the middle of the Bay Area – is clearly more accessible to the entire Bay Area than is San José, located at the southern tip.
by OaklandSi on Dec 12, 2009 10:55 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Oakland is more central.
My experience with this is traveling outward rather than inward. If I’m in a situation where I’ll need to drive to locations all over the Bay Area (ie, like right now), Oakland is the most convenient place to be based. Oakland to San Jose is not bad. Oakland to Peninsula is not bad. Oakland to Walnut Creek is not bad. Oakland to Marin is not bad. Oakland to Napa is not bad. There’s really nowhere in the Bay Area where it’s a truly awful drive. That’s not true coming out of SF or SJ.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Dec 12, 2009 10:55 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I understand that, but we're not talking about traveling FROM Oakland or FROM SJ.
We’re talking about traveling TO each city.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Oops, hit post on accident.
The only part of the Bay Area significantly affected by an A’s move to San Jose would be the North Bay.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
I would think the difference isn't that great.
Distance is the same either direction, and total travel time isn’t going to change that much just because you’re going the other way, does it?
Anyway, you have to go home afterward, right? So it’s the same two one-way trips, just in reverse order.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Dec 12, 2009 11:46 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Oakland to SJ is bad
"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King
by Buck Turgidson on Dec 12, 2009 11:50 AM PST up reply actions
Only if you live in Oakland
What is the % of A’s season ticket holders actually from oakland? With bart is it more accessible I can agree there. Optimistically lets say a new SJ stadium is ready by 2014/2015, will the south bay connection of bart be ready by then? This accessibility issue might be fixed 5 yrs from now. Even then, they would be moving to the 10th largest city in the US w/ over a million residents, to Wolf having a new fan base might actually be his preference.
BART will definitely not be in SJ in 2014/2015
they’ve barely started work on the Warm Springs station, which is already approved, (partially) funded, gone through the reviews, etc. The Warm Springs extension is currently scheduled to be completed in 2014. Completion of the proposed extension to San José is not projected to occur until 2025 – and that’s from an optimistic source.
As I’ve said, a move to San José assumes that increased South Bay fans would make up for losing fans thoughout most of the rest of the Bay Area due in great part to less accesibility. Again, from Wolff’s comments it doesn’t appear that attendance is the prime motivator for his apparently decade-long desire to see the A’s in San José.
by OaklandSi on Dec 12, 2009 2:05 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Shooting from the hip???
We must be in Oakland!!!!111
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Sports attendance is not about city population, it's about metro area out to about 20 miles
The one million people of San Jose would be the puniest of all major league markets by themselves. With hardly anyone living near Lick Observatory, in the Santa Cruz mountains, and down in garlicville, San Jose will need vast numbers of people funneling down from San Mateo and Alameda County to resemble a typical MLB market.
by buildang on Dec 12, 2009 4:59 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
They seem to do just fine with the Sharks.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
HP Pavilion
also has a capacity of less than 17,500
apple, meet orange
by cityplANner on Dec 12, 2009 5:10 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
So? The trends suggest that
Lew Wolff will probably build a new stadium with seating capacity of around 16,000.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Yet the sharks have more revenue and a higher payroll than the A's.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
okay, so the city with a larger population
and more big money businesses and already has one successful pro franchise is not sufficient for an MLB team.
Okay.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
The warriors also have higher revenue/payroll
It’s nice to be the only team for 7 million people.
I like that plan.
Get ’er done!
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
I didn't dispute any of those facts
but then again, none of them were present for your first argument
success of a hockey franchise =/= success of an MLB franchise. I could just as easily point to the Earthquakes v1.0 or the Sabercats for SJ not retaining a franchise. Then you would counter that their leagues had extenuating circumstances. Then I would counter by asking how their extenuating circumstances make them any different than the extenuating circumstances that make NHL different from MLB.
Then we’d end up right back where we started.
by cityplANner on Dec 13, 2009 1:13 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
No, not really
I’d probably counter by saying that the Earthquakes were immediately given an expansion team and arena football sucks.
If SJ wasn’t a valid spot, MLS wouldn’t have immediately awarded them an expansion team after the Quakes were basically stolen from SJ.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Oak/SJ are comparable
Both Oakland and San Jose have roughly 2 million within 20 miles of city centers/ballpark sites. Almost have of Santa Clara County’s population is from outside San Jose.
13.3% of A's tickets are bought in San Francisco though
The A’s actually have 1/2 of a 4+ million person metro area (give or take), currently divided by 2 teams, while San Jose is a 2+ million person area (give or take), currently divided by two teams… It’s hard for me to enunciate the pith there I need to run to xmas thing with the kids, maybe you can gistify it here from this: half of 4+ million is 2+ million, half of 2+ million is 1+ million.
here's a question
What do territorial rights really mean in MLB? It says in the MLB constitution that (I think) jeffro posted that the A’s have Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and the Giants have everything else when it comes to the Bay Area counties.
Aside from locating your minor league team in your territory, what does this practically mean? It’s not like the A’s aren’t on TV or radio outside of those areas. Is it about media revenue sharing?
Nevertheless, the larger question here is where do A’s fans come from? For those who would no go less or not at all to a potential SJ stadium, are there enough new fans who don’t already follow the A’s to make up for that?
Personally, I think we’ll be just fine attendance-wise in SJ. It’s too simplistic to say that San Jose has fewer people immediately around it than Oakland therefore less people will show. I’ve met several people from Modesto, Sacramento, and farther areas at weekend games.
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
by cuppingmaster on Dec 12, 2009 6:18 PM PST up reply actions
Terrible straw man
Is there some established fact that some percentage of fans are A’s fans, the other Giants fans, and there can never be a shift?
Look at it this way. Let’s say 20% of Giants fans who regularly go to games come from SC Co. That’s at best 5,000 people, or 0.25% of the population. Is there no room for existing A’s fans to fill in a gap because of convenience, for Giants fans to convert, for new fans to be built out of casual fans?
Did I say
There was no combination of shifting fanbase + casual fan conversion * higher ticket prices that could work out well for the A’s? It remains to be seen. Let’s at least be reasonably clear about the actual population, proximity issues, and competition we’re starting out with.
I'm not sure what you're arguing
First you try to make the city of San Jose its own market when such a measurement doesn’t exist. Then you conveniently ignore how AT&T Park has effectively siphoned East Bay fans from the A’s for nearly a decade.
The point is not to compete for 4 million people, because the A’s have lost that war. The point is to expand the pie by making it 6 million and establishing a stronghold in the new area, while hopefully maintaining some fans in the legacy area.
No point in arguing
I never tried to “make San Jose it’s own market” so we clearly are just fumbling around. Maybe when I mentioned how “puny” San Jose by itself would be (as an example of why you shouldn’t look at San Jose in isolation, but should look at the surrounding market instead) you just misunderstood that?
too bad BART to SJ is going to cause cuts in VTA funding
when false ridership projections don’t pan out and the revenue shortfall comes partially out of VTA’s budget.
Actually I think they're considering
siphoning Measure A BART funds to keep the doors open at VTA, so BART may not actually happen this century. Public transit in the South Bay is just about the most comical aspect of life in Northern California. And I say this a someone who works in SV in an office building surrounded by more parking spaces than there are cubicles in the freaking building.
and the Oakland Airport connector is going to siphon even MORE funds
away from that. So yeah. Nothing good will get built in public transit because BART is retarded. Ever.
It gives me a sad.
That connector I don't get
A 15 minute ride being replaced by an 8 minute ride? At what cost? wow.
I don’t know, you seem more on top of BART things than me, and I know every transportation expansion has fudge ridership numbers, but I never care because I see it as an 80 year project rather than 5-10 years. I always guess its better now than later. With just a little care into how it gets done.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - danmerqury
Come on
When Schott and Hoffman bought the team, they proposed redoing the Coliseum in a way the mirrored what was planned and shortly thereafter executed, in Anaheim.
Oakland chose bringing the Raiders back over making the Coliseum even better for baseball. It is what happened.
That time is pretty painful for A's fans, but also
For the City of Oakland. Still digging out from Loma Prieta and the firestorm (the new 880 was not finished until 1998), I think people overestimated the pride and importance to the community of a big project to get the Raiders back. “Turn a multi-purpose stadium into a baseball-only one? meh. Let’s get the Raiders back!” Oh well, A mistake was made, but in it’s context, it just doesn’t seem to me quite like the “giving the A’s the finger” that some people like to characterize it as.
dude
This is 7 years after Loma Prieta. I remember Carl Peterson’s column about how Steve Young couldn’t hold Kenny Stabler’s jock. “Long Live the Raiders.”
Irrational exuberance at it’s finest. The city screwed the A’s at the the Raiders behest.
Well, let's not forget that the Coliseum is a taxpayer funded
facility. And there are more than just baseball fans in this community. Same in San Francisco, same in San Jose. Every city makes mistakes, let’s not live our lives playing the victim card at every opportunity.
Victim card?
Tell that to Dave Newhouse. He’s running the same bashing column every 6 months.
Dave Newhouse
is a great Bay Area writer. He was all-sports for decades, now he branches out to other types of news.
" Sleepy Floyd is Superman!!!"
You're right, I was unfair
I only meant to say I find his overuse of the “evil owners abusing fans” theme to be idiotic. His body of work is better than that shortcoming.
I think Dave got a little too emotional about
the Raiders towards the end, and especially Al. I noticed it.
He’s a pretty nice guy. Last we talked he was doing features about Oakland companies that are trying to improve their neighborhoods.
Anaheim was already planned back then?
The Rams were still in Los Angeles too then?
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
Yeah so the Angels wouldn't have already been planning to renovate
the stadium to baseball only. Wasn’t like Oakland had the choice of saying well we can follow in Anaheim’s footsteps and improve to a great baseball-only stadium OR build a Mausoleum for Al Davis and chose Al Davis.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
Actually
They did. There was negotiations between Steve Schott and the JPA at the time he (and Ken Hoffman) purchased the team for renovating the Coliseum to a more baseball friendly configuration. They never went anywhere because the City made the decision to bring the Raiders back instead.
Jack London
Its got a nice hotel it just needs a police station and a ball park
I kinda like this idea....I like the idea of the park on the water - it would make more sense for a ballpark village type developemnt.
I think ppl would be drawn to a waterfront location.
Dreaming
I would love for these to happen but the fact is they are just dreams.
There is no solid location yet (still choosing between 3), no land already purchased/site control, and no completed EIR.
Oakland is light years behind San Jose right now, Oakland doesn’t stand a chance. Not even a one in a million Loyd from dumb and dumber “so you’re saying there’s a chance” chance.
Cust is the new Jaha.
by johnjahafanclub on Dec 13, 2009 11:07 AM PST reply actions
Light years behind San Jose...
But based on the fact it will take years to wrestle teritorial rights from the Gigantes, Oakland is about even with San Jose.
not years
All it would take would be a majority vote from MLB owners to allow the A’s to move.
It would probably be a 31-1 vote in favor. None of the owners are going to vote against increased revenue.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Not quite that simple
Most owners, being in single-team markets, consider territorial rights sacrosanct, (well, technically they all consider their territorial rights to be sacrosanct, but it works out to the same thing,) and none of the teams in large single-team markets are entirely comfortable with the idea that another team could just move into their area. The Orioles were compensated quite heavily for the Nationals’ move to DC, and the A’s aren’t remotely the drain on league revenues the Expos were.
The Orioles and Nationals
Is not the same as this. For one, the Nationals didn’t move into a county that was within the Orioles designated Territory.
The Nationals move was announced well before there was a deal in place, because the Orioles had no way of blocking them move anyway.
And, there are only 30 MLB team mikev… you saying 29-1? Damn NFL.
It was late and I was drunk.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
A monkey wrench?
Came across this article on SFGate this morning
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/14/MNBA1AVCK2.DTL
I didn’t know that the JLS area proper was experiencing such troubles filling vacancies. Of course, this could all be symptomatic of the larger economic troubles.
Then again, it begs the question: Say that the area is still having trouble in 3 years and ballpark construction is well underway by then at the OFD site. Could a new ballpark draw people to JLS and help to populate it? Or would the A’s have located a new stadium in hopes it could join an already-thriving local scene, but then have that turn out to not be the case?
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
hi
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Yeah I like to throw it around
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
by cuppingmaster on Dec 14, 2009 10:41 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Frequent Example is Baltimore
Baltimore was a city going nowhere untill the built Camden Yards. Camden Yards begat Raven Stadium. If you have a nice looking ballpark it will revitalize the area. And the athletics Franchise I believe is either tied for second or third in total Championships. The A’s, despite current times, are often competitive. So if a ballpark takes them from bottom of pack in payroll to conservatively middle of the pack in payroll, they will field a competitive team that will put people in the seats, and bring tax payer consumer dollars to the area.
It's weird to me that this comment
starts out with Baltimore as an example, but then a few sentences later suggests that having a better stadium will make a more competitive team.
Camden Yards may have done wonders for the city of Baltimore and for the team’s revenue stream, but it sure didn’t make the team better in terms of wins and losses. In the 18 seasons since the move, the Orioles have finished better than 3rd only three times.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
They had five good years out of the six after the park was finished for 1992.
Not sure if they spent more money, got smarter or got lucky. Then the Yankees got real good, and the Red Sox followed suit. It’s a tough division to compete in.
by LoneStranger on Dec 14, 2009 11:50 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, I get that
(though two of those six years were “good” in the same sense that 2005 was a good year for the A’s).
But today Baltimore is a really model for how a team can make money while losing year after year. I still don’t understand why everyone takes it for granted that more stadium revenues translates into a better team.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
I think the idea is that Beane does a good job with what little he gets.
And if he can continue to build so well, he can then use the extra revenue to fill holes with solid or above solid veterans, not reclamation projects.
Isn’t that how the Red Sox have built up their team? They went after Beane and when they didn’t get him, they went out and got someone who thinks like him.
by LoneStranger on Dec 14, 2009 1:23 PM PST up reply actions
My original point
The A’s have historically made the most of their resources, whether you coun’t the Beane era, the Alderson era, or even the Mack era. Discount the 70’s and some of the 90’s the orioles franchise does not have a history of success (St. Louis Browns anyone?)
What I’m saying, a Jack London Waterfront stadium would be mutual beneficial for both the City and the A’s.
I agree that it could be beneficial for both the city and
the ownership. I question whether it would result in a team that has a better winning percentage.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
haven't looked recently
but isn’t the Orioles attendance pretty bad these days? are they still raking in the dough? Also, the first thing the Orioles did with all that money was saddle themselves to awful contracts and decimate their minor league system. Hopefully the A’s would be run better with more money.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
Having lived for many years in nearby Wilmington, I recall that Bawlimer's rebirth much predates the Yowerds.
They were leaders in the urban renaissance of the 1970s, under Mayor Schaeffer, iirc. Harbor Place dates from then.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Dec 14, 2009 12:23 PM PST up reply actions
I think it's selfish to want to keep the A's in Oakland,
Maybe The Town just ain’t a Major League city anymore. You got a 100 homicides a year, a repressed economy, trouble keeping schools and parks open, and really not good enough reasons for a brand new faculty when the city has other more portant problems. I just kind of feel people who think the best option for the A’s is Oakland feel this way because it is the best option for them personally. I moved from the East Bay to the Peninsula years ago but I am an A’s fan for life but it’s the name on the jersey I root for not the city. The bottom line is that they have a better future in San Jose, a better chance to compete and we can still be connected to the team. Change is good sometimes.
The only way "100 homicides a year" is actually relevant
is that it cuts the A’s fan base in half.
I mean, “Seattle can’t support a major league team, morans — too many suicides!!!!!111”
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
As an East Bay resident for a couple of years, and lifelong A's fan
I can say two things for sure: who gives a damn where the stadium is (San Jose, Oakland, Fremont, Danville, Pinole, Pleasanton) as long as it’s built soon and remotely near Oakland, and Oakland has a lot bigger problems to solve than getting the A’s a stadium.
I appreciate that a lot of people love Oakland, and that there are some great things there, but things are falling apart. The city government is mostly apathetic and doesn’t accomplish much, and yes, there are parts of Oakland that are as bad as anything in East L.A. Dellums is a terrible mayor (hopefully he’ll be gone soon), and the reputation Oakland has will take a long time to shake, which keeps some people away. Plus, it’s been proven that Oakland will not support its teams in the bad times – people stop showing up to Raider and A’s games once the teams are shown not to be contenders.
The best bet for the A’s in the future is to move to San Jose. Wolff will work hard to make it happen there (because he clearly prefers it to Oakland), they’re going to have excellent attendance, and there’s more money to be spent there. Do I like the fact that I can hop on a BART train and get to the Coliseum in 40 min, or that I can drive there in 20? Of course I do, it’s one of the joys of living here. But I prefer the long-term viability of my team and the chance at an average or above-average payroll over keeping the A’s in Oakland.
by darooster on Dec 17, 2009 1:58 AM PST reply actions 4 recs
To say “things are falling apart” in Oakland is quite an exaggeration. The downtown has never been healthier and more residents continue to move in—look at the restaurants downtown that have opened in the last year or so alone. The proposed A’s stadium sites around Jack London Square are by no means in areas that are falling apart; the area is on the upswing. Dellums is a terrible mayor but he won with a mere 50.18 percent majority and will not be around much longer.
Regarding Oakland’s crime, it has been on a downward trend since the 90s. MLB cities that have had higher crime rates in recent years include:
St. Louis
Kansas City
Cleveland
Baltimore
Washington DC
Cincinnati
Milwaukee
And one could probably add the Yankee’s environs, the South Bronx, and the south side of Chicago where the White Sox play. And notably all those cities have much more character, vibrancy and urbanity than San Jose has or probably ever will have.
Anyway, the long-term viability of the team and a new stadium are not mutually exclusive, so hopefully we will see both in Oakland this coming decade.
This thread is getting kind of long but I will extend it
In the last week I have taken on a side project writing at newballpark.org. I am the East Bay Bureau!!!!
Part of what I have been doing to research the waterfront sites is contacting a few real estate brokers and restaurant consultants that I ahve been put in touch with.
What I think people in Oakland need to realize is that Jack London Square is at a pivotal point, not necessarily on a path the explosive growth. The two key variable are proximity to San Francisco and accessibility.
One of the consultants I spoke to put it this way (I am paraphrasing) “If you could have a restaurant in San Francisco for half the price it cost two years ago, or one in JLS for that same price… where would you pick?”
A real estate broker explained a similar situation brewing with regards to potential office space on the waterfront in Oakland. He is seeing an increase in vacancies on the horizon in that part of Oakland because of…
The second issue… JLS is not easy to get too. BART is not close, there is no mass transit option besides buses.
I agree, crime is a red herring. But I would caution people who think that downtown Oakland is on sturdy footing. There is a reason JLS West and Victory Court are the new sites… because it would be possible that such a development could be the stabilizing force the area needs.
I know it has gotten better over the last few years
You can tell by all the yuppies and starbucks popping up all over, but to me when you can’t public schools open, how can you justify spending public money on a game? Maybe San Jose has some problems as well but I think the median income for a San Jose resident is one of the best in the nation, and you see the way they like the sharks, 20 to 30 years from now if we make it that far I don’t think there will be a question that it wasn’t the right move, and they have perfect baseball weather, not to say Oakland has bad weather there’s is just better.
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.
