A's Halt Ballpark in Fremont Plans
by johnjahafanclub on Feb 20, 2009 12:31 PM PST
358 comments
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/20/BAAK161PL7.DTL&tsp=1
I am dissapointed if this means the A's might leave or stay in their current park, but I am excited if this leads to a move to San Jose.
Oakland Athletics officials today asked the City of Fremont to halt the planning process required to build a new stadium and move the team there, saying they want to reconsider their options.
The Fremont city clerk's office issued a notice today saying the A's have asked the city to stop the environmental review and notice of preparation processes, which would have paved the way for the team to build a $1.8 billion "ballpark village" next to the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge.
"I think this means the A's aren't going to build this here, at least not at that site," said Fremont Mayor Bob Wasserman. "I think it's terrible. Fremont's lost the best opportunity we've ever had."
3 recs |
358 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Say hello to San Jose.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Feb 20, 2009 12:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
LET'S GO, SAN JO!!
clap, clap, clap-clap-clap!
Play more Conan!
by oaklandSMASH on Feb 20, 2009 6:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm hoping without reason
that this gives the city of Oakland a final chance to make something good happen.
by HigherPie on Feb 20, 2009 12:59 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Hasn't the City of Oakland had several chances?
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Feb 20, 2009 1:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Indeed, it is sad to say, but I don't think the City of Oakland will be a factor unless it has new leadership on city council.
But I will add some unjustified optimism, because I too believe they belong in Oakland (and I don’t want to trek to San Jose)
Maybe the fall of the economy will lead both sides to new and common ground.
"Whom the Gods wish to destroy they first call promising."--Cyril Connolly, Enemies of Promise
by WhiteElephant on Feb 20, 2009 3:12 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
this will be the first of my comments in this thread....
Oakland has no chance. The A’s do NOT want to stay in Oakland. The Raiders do NOT want to stay in Oakland. Jerry Brown does NOT want to stay in Oakland.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Feb 21, 2009 2:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jerry Brown?
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Feb 21, 2009 11:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay.
It wasn’t just me. Someone who knows more about state & local politics than I do is also confused by that.
...then Pennington takes over.
by Poppy on Feb 21, 2009 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Because he become attorney general, I guess.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on Feb 21, 2009 12:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess...
I’m also not sure how Jerry Brown staying in Oakland would have helped the A’s stay in Oakland.
...then Pennington takes over.
by Poppy on Feb 21, 2009 12:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The A's would already be in a new stadium if it wasn't for him.
So yeah, I don’t see that either. Foolsh just wanted an excuse for his favorite pastime, which is hating on Oakland.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on Feb 21, 2009 12:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jerry was adamantly against public money for a new stadium...
…so it would not have happened on his watch. As much of an A’s fan that I am, and as much as I prefer they stay in Oakland, I am also against public money for stadiums (and arenas), regardless of who the team is.
I don;t think Jerry really cared whether the A’s stayed or not, but I don;t think he wanted them gone, either. He just didn’t want to finance it, and I agree with him on that part.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
by UncleLeo on Feb 21, 2009 1:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He didn't want them around, period.
He ran Robert Bobb out of town for trying to help accommodate a downtown ballpark.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on Feb 21, 2009 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not quite
Bobb chose to leave as they had differences in their priorities. He was not run out of town because he wanted to use land earmarked for housing as a site for a ballpark.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 21, 2009 9:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
jeepers is right, you're wrong
Bobb was fired by Jerry Brown on 7/1/03. He did not “choose to leave.” This is a matter of widely available public record. Try Googling “Robert Bobb fired by Jerry Brown.”
The question of ballpark versus housing in Uptown Oakland was the biggest reason, though not the only one.
"There is a sense of tragic destiny associated with people who have large noses." --Bucky Wunderlick
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 21, 2009 10:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I stand corrected
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 22, 2009 8:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed all around
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Feb 21, 2009 3:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Correct.
Brown’s opinion was that if the A’s want a new ballpark in Oakland, it’s up to them to pay for it. If only more mayors would do this.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 21, 2009 9:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
There’s little chance that the people who run Oakland will pull their collective heads out of their collective asses and find a way to keep the A’s in Oakland, but there’s nothing wrong with unjustified optimism. The A’s belong in Oakland. If only I could convince Ignacio de la Jackass of this fact, I’d be a happy man.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to expect that amount of exactness which the nature of the particular subject admits." - The Not Big Aristotle
by Uncle Charlie on Feb 20, 2009 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe the Raiders will move
and the A’s can spend millions to undo all the “improvements” – what a terrific expenditure of money that will all have been!
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 Feb 20, 2009 1:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
that will not happen...
the A’s will not stay in Oakland. Nor will the Raiders. It will be devoid of all sports franchises once the Warriors move out. As it truly, deserves to be.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Feb 21, 2009 2:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Three words:
Broadway…Auto…Row…
"There is a sense of tragic destiny associated with people who have large noses." --Bucky Wunderlick
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 20, 2009 1:46 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Wait, I know this one...
What are:
1. Places I’ve been
2. How to get there
3. How to get back when the car breaks down
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 Feb 20, 2009 1:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
FSU
Do you honestly think that has a chance?
by jeffro on Feb 20, 2009 2:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yup, sure do
For the first time in recent memory, time is actually on Oakland’s side, now that the Fremont clock has stopped ticking. No new park’s going to happen anywhere soon, and no municipality has the ability to dangle a sweetheart deal in front of any vagabond franchise in any sport.
Add that Oakland is currently developing the broad brush strokes of a retail plan on Broadway which would fit really nicely with a balllpark, and yeah, I’m saying there’s a chance.
"There is a sense of tragic destiny associated with people who have large noses." --Bucky Wunderlick
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 20, 2009 2:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How about West of MacArthur Station?
That is really a blighted area in need of redevelopment. You could make MacArthur Blvd run west just as it does, near the MacArthur Station, but as a “tunnel” beneath the stadium….that is, build the stadium over the roadway. that way, you have less “eminent domain” land to acquire or outright buy.
Hwy 24 is close, 580 close, MacArthur is a good station from Concord, Berkeley, Fremont, or Dublin, or downtown SF.
Officially awaiting the 2009 season.
by One won lost won on Feb 20, 2009 7:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How about the Mormon Temple?
Nice view of the bay, not used 6/7 days.
Near a freeway.
by MobiusKlein on Feb 20, 2009 10:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For clarification purposes
The LDS (Mormon) temple is actually used six of seven days and closed on Sunday. The view is great, but it is on a hill (not a great site for a park), and the winds are not hospital for good viewing.
My wife and I were married there, as were my parents.
More than just ANtics: http://www.louisgray.com/live/
by louismg on Feb 20, 2009 11:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It makes far more money as a race track
than it ever would as a ball field.
The City of Albany relies on it for a major portion of revenue.
No hotels in Albany.
Officially awaiting the 2009 season.
by One won lost won on Feb 21, 2009 10:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not near a FWY or BART
relative to other locations
Officially awaiting the 2009 season.
by One won lost won on Feb 21, 2009 10:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good idea.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on Feb 21, 2009 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I understand Fremont residents' concerns about traffic,
but I have to say overall I think they’re being pretty stupid. In this economy, you should be more worried about having too little traffic and empty buildings than about the problems that the new revenue and jobs bring with them.
Negotiate/petition for as “traffic-friendly” a deal as possible? Sure. Keep a major league team away that is not asking for public money? Dum dum dumb!
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 Feb 20, 2009 1:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
P.S. I don't feel the same way about the wetlands issue -
Wildlife can’t speak for itself; other species have to rely on humans to protect them and I too would oppose any construction that wasn’t eco-friendly.
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 Feb 20, 2009 1:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but what if they put a pool beyond the CF fence?
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Feb 20, 2009 1:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually if you want to protect the wildlife and our lives
1) Remove all of the oil refinerys from the Bay Area
2) Shut down the Aqueduct and save the delta and Northern Ca wildlife
3) Take out all of the toll booths on all of the bridges as it only forces cars to idle and pollute more
4) Remove Al Davis from the Raiders
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
by Eastbayjim on Feb 20, 2009 2:16 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
You slightly overestimate my power
I can BaN AN users, though.
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 Feb 20, 2009 2:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ooh, I wanna try that!
PLEEEEAASE, just once?!?!?
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Feb 20, 2009 2:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK...Go to "mikev" and you'll see this button...
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 Feb 20, 2009 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, I see it! Now what, do I just click o.....
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Feb 20, 2009 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
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 Feb 20, 2009 2:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Lol!
"You have to score to win"~Rickey Henderson
by lynnzgal on Feb 20, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
HAH! WE TOTALLY FOOLED YOU!
I’M NOT REALLY BANNED, THE BUTTON DIDN’T EVEN DO ANYTHIN………….
…………
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Feb 20, 2009 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bye, mikev.
I'm here to talk about the past.
by 67MARQUEZ on Feb 20, 2009 2:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sometimes you have to hit it twice
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 Feb 20, 2009 2:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Are we still talking about buttons?
I'm here to talk about the past.
by 67MARQUEZ on Feb 20, 2009 2:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I COULD say something bad...
but I don’t want to end up like poor Mikev over there. So I’ll just sit and laugh to myself. ;)
Awww… Unicorn's optimistic. And a cheeseball. That’s cute. ~Whiteshoes40
by #14fan on Feb 20, 2009 3:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
no...
people in Detroit don’t have souls.
"The magical goblins who live in my shower told me that Bobby Crosby's gonna have a good year this year" - The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Feb 20, 2009 4:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I do that all the time.
Laugh to myself.
And say something bad.
I'm here to talk about the past.
by 67MARQUEZ on Feb 20, 2009 4:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
#3 is highly doubtful
The benefits from the increased efficiency of less idling would likely be far outweighed by more people choosing to drive when crossing the bay.
black dirt live again
by andeux on Feb 20, 2009 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If it meant a World Series title
I’d volunteer my week-ends to poison endangered species nests … I’d do all I can to encourage more global warming … and I’d vote to end all recycling efforts immediately. Let my grandkids fend for themselves. … Just sayin’ ;-)
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 Feb 20, 2009 2:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
wait, wait
‘which owner of the texas rangers went on to be the president of the united states of america?’
SATIRE!
what have i got myself into this time... http://damiansthirtyyearchallenge.blogspot.com/
by alea iacta est on Feb 20, 2009 2:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, Vacafan, you're tricking us -
You just named your normal weekend routine.
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 Feb 20, 2009 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Man made "global warming"
is an invention of Al Gore. Most scientific evidence contradicts it, the earth may be warming but it is not a result of mankind or fossil fuels. Its just part of the natural cycle of the solar system.
"I Will Not Relent, I Am Driven"... Clutch
Bring Back The Bash!!!
by Shippee33 on Feb 20, 2009 9:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That really isn't the view of the scientific community, but whatever floats your boar.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on Feb 20, 2009 9:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Or your boat.
Your boar may drown, too, if the global warming predictions pan out.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on Feb 20, 2009 9:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is the scariest thing I've read on AN.
The prevalence of this view poses a real and significant threat to the survival of many species, eventually including our own.
by green star oakland on Feb 20, 2009 10:24 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
It's scary, and it's also a CGV!
Not for being short-sighted, but for bringing inflammatory politics onto AN. :-(
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 Feb 21, 2009 7:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, it just needs a caption!
...then Pennington takes over.
by Poppy on Feb 21, 2009 10:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I live there... seriously. Too funny.
Well, about 10 or so miles away.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
by UncleLeo on Feb 21, 2009 1:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Let's assume you're right.
Which you aren’t, but let’s do it anyway. Even so, the following things are not invented by Al Gore:
- Pollution generated by the burning of carbon fuels.
- More than half of the nearly 7 billion people on this planet depend entirely on a finite and disappearing resource for absolutely everything.
- Most of that remaining finite resource is located in the most unstable region on the planet.
- Population growth is still exponential, so competition for that finite resource will continue to intensify.
- China will win that competition.
Given all that, even if you’re right (which you aren’t), might it still be a good idea to reduce, nay, eliminate our complete and total dependence on fossil fuels?
Bobby Crosby sucks.
by HigherPie on Feb 20, 2009 10:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Human nature says we won't until we have no other choice.
Eliminate our dependence, that is.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
by UncleLeo on Feb 22, 2009 3:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I have read on numerous message boards people saying things like “It isn’t a 1.5 billion investment in Fremont, it is for the developers to make money.” That is ridiculous… who is ever going to develop anything in Fremont without the idea of making a buttload of money
by jeffro on Feb 20, 2009 1:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The two aren't mutually exclusive anyway
Developers can make money in ways that benefit the residents/city. Or not.
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 Feb 20, 2009 1:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Blaming "Fremont residents" is an incorrect assessment
- The original Pacific Commons site drew almost no local resident opposition. In fact, the November election was cast as a plebiscite on the ballpark, and the pro-park incumbent handily defeated both the anti-park ex-Mayor and the “put-it-to-a-vote” Councilmember.
- The public reason that the PC site was torpedoed was the opposition of existing nearby big box retailers, who complained about A’s fans poaching their parking. “Resident” opposition was not a factor.
- That led the A’s to the relatively recent Warm Springs alternative. This plan, never fully developed (like, what land, exactly, and how funded, exactly, and how juxtaposed with the ersatz villager, exactly), drew opposition from nearby residents (on the other side of the freeway) and from the neighboring NUMMI factory (though they couched their opposition as “concerns” in these early stages). But please note: 500 people waving signs at a meeting does not represent majority community opposition, pretty much anywhere. To portray this as the view of “Femont residents” writ large is the same exact fallacy so many people commit when they say AN doesn’t like Jack Cust, or Mark Ellis, or Mychael Urban, just because a few people opine loudly to that effect.
- The A’s are delaying actually delaying the Fremont because:
- The housing market has crashed and their financing vehicle has stalled.
- The actually viable “ballpark village with actual ballpark” Pac Commons site was opposed by local business interests
- Bud Selig has let them know they can consider San Jose, the place they’ve wanted to go all along.
Pre-emption to those many folks who like to use the phase “conspiracy theory” as an asked-and-answered damning epithet like “communist” or “goat-f*cker”: I’m not saying the A’s were never serious about Fremont. Clearly they were. But just as clearly, the equation has now changed.
"There is a sense of tragic destiny associated with people who have large noses." --Bucky Wunderlick
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 20, 2009 2:00 PM PST up reply actions 9 recs
Well said.
It’s not just Fremont residents to blame here, the big box stores torpedoed the much more developed and far along site at PC. And frankly I wouldn’t blame the residents for the opposition to WS anyway. I drive through that neighborhood quite often and I wouldn’t want a baseball stadium less than a 1/4 mile from my 750,000 home either.
by athletics68 on Feb 20, 2009 2:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Right
I wasn’t trying to blame Fremont residents. I just don’t understand the point of view of several of the Fremont residents who oppose any and all plans.
I couldn’t even put a percentage on the number Fremont residents that fit into that category, although they have become very vocal recently.
And lastly, it is your argument that makes me think conspiracy theorist, it’s the tin foil hat :)
Are you down with starting a letter writing campaign or some other thing to make Broadway happen?
by jeffro on Feb 20, 2009 2:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think your sub-point 1 has to be the biggest issue. A project depending on thousands of units of new residential construction has to look a lot less attractive now than it did two years ago, both for the developers themselves and for any lender considering providing the capital.
I’d also add that even stadium projects requiring “no public money” actually require a fair amount of public money, quite possibly more than they bring back in tax revenue or jobs.
black dirt live again
by andeux on Feb 20, 2009 2:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Resources?
Can you point me to a good bit of information ion the “no public money” needing more public money than they generate? I hear this all the time but have never seen any proof. Of course the only no public money stadiums I ahve ever ehard of are AT&T Park and Stanford Stadium (and originally Dodger Stadium)
by jeffro on Feb 20, 2009 2:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The article I’ve seen is this:
http://jse.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/6/2/119
That’s just the abstract, the full article doesn’t seem to be freely available.
I wouldn’t say it’s proof; as with most things of this sort, a different analyst might come up with radically different estimates of the overall costs and benefits. But it points out some of the hidden public costs of this kind of project.
black dirt live again
by andeux on Feb 20, 2009 2:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Even when there is no public money being spent on the construction of a stadium, there is still hidden costs from the city’s perspective. Police overtime, parking garages in place of useful infrastructure, etc. As for whether the additional tax revenue and jobs outweigh the hidden costs I am not certain, but many economists believe that they don’t.
by natethesnyde on Feb 21, 2009 12:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Parkign garages, etc
In Oakland and in Fremont, the team would be billed for the police overtime. The Garages are an opportunity cost and thus are subject to interpretation. For instance, no stadium, no parking garage how does what goes in it’s place get defined as “more useful?” And how does it generate more tax revenue for the general fund?
I still don’t buy it. I have yet to see something that proves these things are costs borne by the city and tax payers directly. Obviously, when the cty is floating bonds to pay for the stadium it is a HORRIBLE idea.
by jeffro on Feb 21, 2009 8:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The public subsidized about 11% of the costs to build PacFudge Park.
Which is certainly better than than most these days.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 21, 2009 12:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Proof?
Can you point me to something that explains this 11%? I am not being facetious, I really want to know.
by jeffro on Feb 21, 2009 8:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's a good question - I didn't think you were being a wiseguy
I’m not home where I have access to the details but I can refer you to a couple of articles. This one describes the financing:
http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2189&Itemid=1
This one lists the public subsidy as 10 percent. So I may have been off by 1 percent.
http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2003/12/1506cards_to_financ.html
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 21, 2009 10:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The first link doesn't really support the second
The numbers on the article on Biz of Baseball look correct to me, but it’s hard to see how one would come up with Field of Schemes’ “90% privately funded” from that.
I suspect the discrepancy in quoted sources on this is due to tax abatement and tax increment financing, which might or might not count as “public funds” depending on how you choose to define it. Both techniques are very commonly used by state and local governments to attract business or development.
Since it didn’t directly figure into financing the stadium, it wasn’t included in the list on the Biz of Baseball article, but the Giants received a $10 million tax abatement from the City. That means, essentially, that the City agreed to exempt the stadium from $10 million worth of future taxes. From the City’s point of view there’s no loss since if the stadium weren’t built they’d have received no taxes from the stadium at all, but in a sense that’s still a gift of public money.
The article does show the $15 million of tax increment financing. The idea here is that building the stadium will increase property values in lots all around the immediate vicinity (as indeed it did). This results in higher property taxes collected from taxpayers other than the Giants. With tax increment financing, the City defines a model for expected revenues with and without the stadium, and agrees to credit any excess (the “tax increment”) back to the Giants. The Giants can then use this promise to secure financing which is thus backed by the tax increment.
Whether either of these count as “public subsidy” is just semantics. They are what they are.
I still don’t see how that makes up 10% or 11%, since it’s $25 million out of $357 million total cost. Maybe there’s some other piece I’m not aware of. Or maybe some journalist just got sloppy and it got repeated after that.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Feb 22, 2009 10:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure San Jose has always been the A's top non-Oakland choice
I’m still not clear on to what extent the power on that issue lies with Bud Selig or the Giants.
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 Feb 20, 2009 2:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Any power in Bud Selig's hands
Will be wasted and cannot be respected.
More than just ANtics: http://www.louisgray.com/live/
by louismg on Feb 20, 2009 11:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
San Jose seems to be the destination in my opinion.
I’m gonna poke around the public building and see if I can find out any additional information.
"God made Majnun love Layla so much that just her dog would cause confusion in him."
The Many Wines-Rumi
by mrod on Feb 21, 2009 10:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well it seems all the public buildings are closed today
except the police station……
:0
"God made Majnun love Layla so much that just her dog would cause confusion in him."
The Many Wines-Rumi
by mrod on Feb 21, 2009 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I feel smarter
after reading that. Thanks for the clarity!
by A'sian on Feb 20, 2009 3:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Great post, FSU
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Feb 20, 2009 7:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Except that he
says “goat f*ucker” like it’s a bad thing.
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 Feb 20, 2009 7:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, you misinterpret me, my friend
I simply used it as an example of poorly thrown epithets. For the record, I have no problem with conspiracy theorists or commies, either.
"There is a sense of tragic destiny associated with people who have large noses." --Bucky Wunderlick
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 20, 2009 9:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well thank Goat for that!
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 Feb 20, 2009 9:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
Except for the multiple hideous typos. That’s what I get for posting at length, in a rush, without proofreading much. Damn employer, not giving me adequate time to post on blogs with precision.
"There is a sense of tragic destiny associated with people who have large noses." --Bucky Wunderlick
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 20, 2009 9:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I have to differ with that.
The residents of Fremont, for the most part, have jobs elsewhere in the Bay Area. If you’re just talking about their personal financial self-interest, they should care about the economy in the general Bay Area, and possibly the general southern East Bay, but the economy of Fremont itself doesn’t much matter so much to them.
Now if you’re a small business owner economically invested in Fremont, then sure, you should care. And those people probably do, which is probably why the mayor and others like him were so enthusiastic about the project. But for an ordinary working-class, non-baseball-fan who takes BART to work in San Francisco every day and wants Fremont to be a sleepy bedroom community where he can afford to own a house, not so much.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Feb 20, 2009 7:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I live in Fremont...
I don’t give a shit about traffic. I live in the Bay Area. There is going to be traffic. NIMBY’s can go fuck themselves. And, you know who you are. I now hope the A’s move to San Jose, just to fuck people who live north of Fremont. Haha… you now have to drive farther, you morons! Yay!
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Feb 21, 2009 3:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Foolsh, you had quite a 3 a.m. spree in this thread
Batting 4th for the 2014 San Jose A's: 26-year-old RF Justin Upton, in the 1st season of a nine year, $250M deal.
by notsellingjeans on Feb 21, 2009 7:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks Jaha.
Well no surprises here but it’s nice to have confirmation. We have been hearing the rumors for the last couple of months.
"You Went Full Retard, Man - Never Go Full Retard." --Kirk Lazarus
by Ovale Fan on Feb 20, 2009 1:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
So now what?
Where does this leave the A’s? They won’t play at the Coliseum forever, Oakland has no interest in building a stadium, nor the money or land to do so. San Jose is still Giants territory unless MLB overrules them and grants the A’s permission (the most likely scenario IMO). But barring that, what then? Vegas? Portland? Contraction?
by athletics68 on Feb 20, 2009 1:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
My crystal ball is cloudy
but I don’t see any clear favorite among these possibilities:
In 2020 the A’s franchise:
1. Will be playing in a new ballpark in the Bay Area
2. Will be playing outside the Bay Area
3. Will still be playing in the Coliseum (possibly massively remodeled following the Raiders’ departure, a la Anaheim Stadium)
4. Will have been contracted out of existence
In any case, anything that goes on for the next 18 to 24 months will be strictly talk. There’s no real chance of any progress on this issue until the financial markets and the economy get straightened out. I think the A’s action today is merely a concession of that.
by Soaker on Feb 20, 2009 2:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A Fair assessment
But that’s assuming 71 year old Lew is willing to wait another 2 to 3 years to start TALKING about a stadium again. But your list is sound. Here’s hoping it’s 1 or 3.
by athletics68 on Feb 20, 2009 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We might get to see
if Fisher is really committed to the notion of baseball ownership. It seems possible that, given his age, Wolff might surrender to this once-in-a-generation economic situation. The question would then be if Fisher wanted to wait around a couple years and then forge on with another partner. If not, that’s when you really start to think about the possibility of contraction. Contraction is prohibited under the current CBA, but that agreement only runs through the end of 2011.
by Soaker on Feb 20, 2009 2:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If Wolff goes don't count on Fisher
The way Fisher’s been operating lately I wouldn’t look for him to stick around if Wolff bails. Fisher is much more interested in Soccer these days than baseball. He’s already bought into the Quakes with Wolff, plus a minority portion of Celtic FC in Scotland. And he’s expressed interest in several teams for sale in Europe including Roma.
by athletics68 on Feb 20, 2009 2:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
#4
Blasphemy!
"Some people have asked me whether or not Rickey Henderson belonged in the Hall of Fame. I've replied "if you could somehow split him in two, you'd have two Hall of Famers"" - Author Bill James in The Bill James Handbook (2008)
by rollie_fingers_moustache on Feb 20, 2009 4:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I find it distasteful too, but
I don’t like to be an ostrich. Consider all possibilities, even the most abhorrent ones. You can hope they don’t come to pass…but hope only goes so far. If you had transported back from the future and told me a year ago the close on the Dow on 2/20/09 would be 7365, I would have said, “Wow, I sure hope that does not happen!” And then I would have considered what actions would be appropriate to take if you were correct.
by Soaker on Feb 20, 2009 7:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Where does Portland build a Dome/Covered Park?
In all reality, the residents up there would LOVE that. Maybe an 82nd St. revitalization plan…
by MidwayCityLivestock on Feb 20, 2009 3:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It would be the sole city to which I might relocate
strictly for the A’s. Not to be confused with Soul City, which I think is Detroit.
"Hot Goat Kraut Pants Day"--Monkeyball
by Leopold Bloom on Feb 20, 2009 3:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Or Seoul city ...
which I think is in Korea …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Feb 20, 2009 4:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't care how much money you give me, devo,
I ain’t gonna play Seoul City.
"Hot Goat Kraut Pants Day"--Monkeyball
by Leopold Bloom on Feb 20, 2009 5:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mmmm Beer-vana as the locals say.
Yeah, what a city. When you look at it, San Francisco (bay area), Portland, and Seattle… I dare anyone to point out 3 such beautiful cities in such proximity anywhere in the world.
by MidwayCityLivestock on Feb 20, 2009 5:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I hate to be all pedantic,
… oh hell, who am I kidding? I don’t hate to be pedantic … but San Francisco and Seattle really aren’t in such close proximity — particularly when compared to the distances in other parts of the world, such as Europe.
Unless you’re making the dubious claim that Europe’s most beautiful cities can’t rival the likes of Seattle, it’s extremely easy to come up with trios that meet your dare: Prague-Dubrovnik-Zürich, Paris-Luxembourg-Bruges, Budapest-Vienna-Salzburg, etc.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Feb 20, 2009 7:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Peoria, Moline, Dubuque
Tha’s what i’m talkin about!
"...in baseball you wear a cap." -- george carlin
by Hot Cup Joe on Feb 22, 2009 1:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Fresno, Clovis, Sanger metroplex.
Beauty to stagger the mind (or perhaps thats just the smell of grapes and cows…)
Or the tri-cities area in WA (Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland). Although I have never been, I worked with a group of people from there and I understand there is strong evidence to support that it is the basis for Springfield on the Simpsons. Heck, people were sending excited emails out when the town got an Olive Garden to eat at…
"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty
by 5Aces on Feb 23, 2009 9:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I went to Fresno once years ago....
and once was enough. Way too hot, hardly any trees from what I could see, and yes……the smell was not very pleasant. Sorry if this offends any Fresno residents.
"God made Majnun love Layla so much that just her dog would cause confusion in him."
The Many Wines-Rumi
by mrod on Feb 23, 2009 10:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I am greatly offended-well except for the fact that it is true.
At my job, I work almost entirely with people who are outside of CA-mostly on the east coast. When I try to describe Fresno, I end up telling them “picture everything you stereotypically think of when you imagine CA. Now picture the exact opposite of that-this is Fresno.” They laugh at first, but after they ask enough questions over time, they understand and just laugh at me.
That being said, it isn’t as bad everyone says it is. That actually is a part of the “Fresno-central valley” condition: we have such low self-esteem about our hometowns that we usually make them sound way worse to everyone than they are.
"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty
by 5Aces on Feb 23, 2009 1:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Dually noted 5Aces......
"God made Majnun love Layla so much that just her dog would cause confusion in him."
The Many Wines-Rumi
by mrod on Feb 23, 2009 7:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I suppose that was a BIT bold
But the Pac NW tri-fecta are certainly unique in their collision of breath taking natural and man-made beauty. If nothing else, they are in the conversation…
by MidwayCityLivestock on Feb 23, 2009 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mmm ... Beer ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Feb 21, 2009 12:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I love Portland, it's a tremendous city
but in the baseball economy I just don’t think it’s big enough to support a major league team. It would be the 5th smallest media market in baseball; the smallest are Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Kansas City and Pittsburgh, and I really don’t think MLB wants to add any more markets like that. Using the threat of moving there as leverage to get concessions from the taxpayers in a larger market is another matter, though. St. Petersburg built itself a domed stadium in the late 1980s and was used that way for a good ten years before finally getting an expansion team.
If MLB changed its economic model to be more like the NFL’s, a place like Portland might be a more realistic option. But it’s really hard for me to see the owners of MLB’s mega-franchises ever allowing that to happen.
by Soaker on Feb 20, 2009 4:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And what a lovely place the Suncoast Dome is!
You know, they’ve retired Wade Boggs’ number.
"Hot Goat Kraut Pants Day"--Monkeyball
by Leopold Bloom on Feb 20, 2009 4:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It looks horrible on television
and then I went there for an A’s-Devil Rays series a few years ago and it’s even more dismal in person.
Seriously, the St. Petersburg episode proves two things: First, never ever build the stadium first and then hope to bring a team there. You’ll be teased and then disappointed by the league for years. Second, if you ignore that first warning and build the stadium anyway, it will be hopelessly obsolete by the time you actually get a team.
The Rays were a really swell story last year, but they can’t sustain competitiveness in the AL East as long as they’re in that horrid facility.
by Soaker on Feb 20, 2009 5:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Dismal's not the right word for the Trop.
It’s creepy and unsettling in a way that’s very unbaseball-like. It’s kind of like being a kid at a distant aunt’s house and not quite knowing who the relation is and why you’re there: you don’t understand it, you don’t like it, and, quite honestly, you can’t wait to get the hell out of there.
"Hot Goat Kraut Pants Day"--Monkeyball
by Leopold Bloom on Feb 20, 2009 5:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So you've met my Aunt Bertha then?
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 Feb 20, 2009 7:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Met her?
I was married to her!
Wait, you’re that Nico?!
"Hot Goat Kraut Pants Day"--Monkeyball
by Leopold Bloom on Feb 20, 2009 8:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm rather Nico, but I'm not THAT Nico
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 Feb 20, 2009 9:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not Nico enough.
...then Pennington takes over.
by Poppy on Feb 20, 2009 9:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Diet Nico.
Just one calorie.
"Hot Goat Kraut Pants Day"--Monkeyball
by Leopold Bloom on Feb 20, 2009 9:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicolaaaaaaaaa...
...then Pennington takes over.
by Poppy on Feb 20, 2009 9:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nik-nak, need a Poppy-whack Nico.
"Hot Goat Kraut Pants Day"--Monkeyball
by Leopold Bloom on Feb 20, 2009 9:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i wonder what happened to the proposed new stadium?
They even had a mock up on their official site.
by MidwayCityLivestock on Feb 20, 2009 5:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's still in the works.
They’re insane.
They want to build an outdoor baseball venue here. I don’t leave my house in the summer here, much less jaunt on down to the ol’ ballpark.
"Hot Goat Kraut Pants Day"--Monkeyball
by Leopold Bloom on Feb 20, 2009 5:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't the Twins new ball park an outside venue too?
I’ve never been to Minn, but doesn’t it snow a hell of a lot up there?
by OldhamA on Feb 21, 2009 5:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They, rightfully, are not concerned aboutt the Twins making the World Series ...
before global warming makes the issue of a snowy World Series a quaint memory …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Feb 21, 2009 12:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
MLB giveth and MLB can taketh away.
I’ve always said that if enough owners in MLB could be convinced that a team in San Jose was in their best interests, they’d yank the Giants’ territorial rights and not give it a second thought. Giants may get some compensation, but they’d basically be told to STFU.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
by UncleLeo on Feb 20, 2009 3:04 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
And that's exactly what will happen
The Giants lost their “in” with Selig when MacGowan left. The A’s meanwhile have a big in with Selig via Lew. What Lew wants and what’s in the A’s best interests is what Selig will push for. And what the owners will ultimately accept.
by athletics68 on Feb 20, 2009 3:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, so I'd have to root *for* Bud Selig.
Ack.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Feb 20, 2009 3:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I know, weird isn't it.
Plus, and this will piss the Oakland only folks off, but Selig never wanted the A’s in Oakland as far back as 68. Anything to get them out of Oakland is probably a good thing in his book, which is all the more reason he’d push for SJ and it’s corporate cash IMO.
by athletics68 on Feb 20, 2009 3:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
I don’t get why the anti-SJ people keep bringing up the territorial rights as a reason that it will never happen in SJ. The Giants basically got those rights when they investigated moving down to the South Bay… and then didn’t move to the South Bay.
by LoneStranger on Feb 20, 2009 3:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd think funding would be a bigger issue.
Since there won’t be a ballpark village to help offset the costs of stadium construction, will there be an attempt at getting public money?
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Feb 20, 2009 3:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt it.
For having a lot of rich people the SJ voters are particularly stingy. This is why the San Jose Earthquakes have gone the entirely private route for their new stadium. I suspect the A’s would do the same.
by athletics68 on Feb 20, 2009 3:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Private funding for any project that big isn't easy, but...
…relatively speaking I’d think it would be easier in San Jose than in Fremont. Corporations would be likely to be stingy with the funds now, but the recession won’t last forever and we’re still talking a couple years away, it seems.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
by UncleLeo on Feb 20, 2009 4:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Because the territorial rights were affirmed by MLB when the Giants opened Pac Bell Park
The Giants maintained that Santa Clara County is an important part of their fan base and the commissioner agreed. Until that changes, Santa Clara County is the domain of the Giants. It’s a fact. It doesn’t have anything to do with being anti-San Jose.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 22, 2009 12:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Near as I can tell, though, it's basically just MLB saying "This isn't your territory anymore"
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Feb 22, 2009 11:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ideally in a bullying tone, with an Italian accent
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 Feb 22, 2009 11:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
The Giants’ position is When we bought the team, Santa Clara County was part of the package and we’re not going to give it away. I think that’s a big reason why the Giants were able to retain their claim on Santa Clara County despite opening a new ballpark in San Francisco. Is it fair to the A’s? Probably not. But I think it’s a reasonable expectation on the part of the Giants.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 23, 2009 9:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Eh ...
When they bought the team it should have been under the understanding that they had those rights at that point in time, but that they retained them at the pleasure of the body (of owners) as a whole and could potentially lose them at any time. It was given to them (albeit under previous ownership) at no charge, there is no reason it should not be taken away with similar compensation.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Feb 23, 2009 11:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, it should have been that way
In hindsight it was a big mistake for the A’s to give up their claim to San Jose. At the time, it made sense. If the Giants were to move to San Jose, they’d be 40 miles away instead of 15 and the A’s could siphon off some of the patrons from San Francisco and Marin who wouldn’t be willing to travel to San Jose to watch major league baseball. The A’s weren’t drawing many fans from Santa Clara County so it looked like a pretty good trade off.
Who had any idea at the time that the Giants would get a new ballpark in San Francisco AND retain Santa Clara County? It seems grossly unfair and if I recall correctly, Steve Schott made a huge effort to undo it.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 24, 2009 12:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
am expiration date of 10 or maybe even 15 years...
would have been nice, in the event they didn’t actually move to Santa Clara County. Personally, I would have made it immediately revocable in the event they didn’t move. Did Haas even consult a lawyer on this? Obviously, he was no Al Davis, who made money on every move he ever made.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Feb 24, 2009 2:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Where to next?
While I am relieved we will not be hearing the chants of “Let’s Go Fre-Mont” when the Slegna comes to town with their wannabe fans, I am now more concerned about the A’s eventually finding their way across state lines. But I don’t think that is going to happen any time soon. The economy is stalled and there is not one city in America that is going to be able to motivate their constituents to vote for a tax increase to build a new stadium. Not San Jose, not anywhere. Definitely not Vegas. Not any time soon. We have our beloved A’s in the black hole for the forseeable future. Go A’s!
I dream of Fremont and rainbows
by OptimistPrime on Feb 20, 2009 2:00 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
But what's the use if they're only there for 5 years?
Eventually the economy will turn around but what then? Particularly if it’s slower to turn around locally than it is in some other opportunistic city?
by athletics68 on Feb 20, 2009 2:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If the economy "turns around" it turns around everywhere
and the owners find another Bay Area site … the A’s will not move to another city outside of Northern California. Won’t happen. Ever. I’ve been hearing it since 1976, and we’ll hear it for another 50 years … but I’ll be dead by then and I won’t care. OAKLAND A’s … gawd, I love the sound of that.
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 Feb 20, 2009 2:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And if we wait long enough...
The A’s will be granted rights to Candlestick Park.
More than just ANtics: http://www.louisgray.com/live/
by louismg on Feb 20, 2009 2:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
If we really wait long enough
We can move into Jack Murphy stadium as so cal slips north of the bay area.
(And before anyone proves me wrong, I could be completly off in San Diego’s position relative to continental drift, but you still get my drift…)
"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty
by 5Aces on Feb 20, 2009 2:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I was skeptical of Fremont ...
I think the best chance is San Jose, with a friendlier can-do city government and area residents that would welcome and support a Major League ballclub.
Toasted Almond
by Ice Cream on Feb 20, 2009 2:24 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I never thought Fremont was going to happen
And am glad it’s not. It was a C+ solution and the A’s would have been tied to it for the next 20-30 years. They backed into it because there were no other options and that’s always a recipe for disaster. If they’re going to go through the hassle of a new ballpark, they need to get it right because there are no do-overs for a very long time. Here’s to hoping for San Jose.
by jdr on Feb 20, 2009 3:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think San Jose is the A's ultimate destination, because
1. San Jose actually wants a baseball team
2. San Jose can support a baseball team
3. All that stands in the way is baseball-politics, not so much city politics or money (to the extent that they do in Oakland, Fremont, etc).
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 Feb 20, 2009 2:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
A lot of numbering going on in this thread
I'm here to talk about the past.
by 67MARQUEZ on Feb 20, 2009 2:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Feb 20, 2009 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That is:
1. True
2. Not false
3. Accurate
4. Possibly quite annoying
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 Feb 20, 2009 2:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
a firefox add-on turns that into a “call this phone number in france with skype” link for me…
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Feb 20, 2009 3:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And you'll reach a really annoyed French version of Jenny.
...then Pennington takes over.
by Poppy on Feb 20, 2009 6:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
2(a)
There’s much more corporate money in and around San Jose than Oakland. It’s something that has changed enormously since Finley brought the A’s here in 1968. San Jose was basically a cowtown back then.
by Soaker on Feb 20, 2009 2:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it goes without saying
That if 1968 were 2009 and someone was thinking about moving the A’s to the Bay Area, there is no way Oakland would be chosen over San Jose. A lot changed around here (not that I live “here” anymore) in the 1970s.
by jdr on Feb 20, 2009 3:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Too True
Hell they barely let the A’s move to Oakland in 1968. The only reason they were allowed to move there at all was because the Coliseum was already built.
by athletics68 on Feb 20, 2009 3:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If one looks at it objectively...
…the A’s never should have been granted permission to move to Oakland to begin with. Other places with no competition at all, i.e. Dallas/Ft Worth, etc., were still wide open. Oakland had two major factors in it’s favor… 1) an MLB caliber baseball-ready stadium that was ready to go, and 2) the AL & NL were still two separate leagues and NL approval was not required.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad they came to Oakland, but barring emotional factors, it really was not the best possible long-term business move.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
by UncleLeo on Feb 20, 2009 3:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The move from KC to Dallas was attempted in 1962 but denied.
The franchise shift rules in place at that time required approval of three-fourths of the league and the A’s didn’t get the votes.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 22, 2009 1:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I would say that Charlie Finley didn't get the votes.
There wasn’t really much of a reason to move, other than Finley wanted to. Part of the reason they eventually approved Oakland was just to get him to shut the hell up and leave them alone. The league did not want to give up on KC, as proven by their putting an expansion team there a year later.
Near the top of his agenda with almost every team he bought was to seek a new home. It has been theorized by some that he saw it as a way to be accepted as something of a knight in shining armor in his new locale.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
by UncleLeo on Feb 22, 2009 12:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that sounds better.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 23, 2009 8:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And the league's wisdom ... umm, yeah ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Feb 23, 2009 11:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm delighted
A stadium designed around corporate suites, that most people would have to drive to, surrounded by $750,000 two-bedroom condos and shops selling impulse-purchase knickknacks — it’s 2006 business thinking in a nutshell. I don’t think we’re going back to that kind of economy, even when things get better.
Maybe the state of the economy will make the A’s and the city of Oakland can realize they need each other. The A’s wouldn’t have to trade a large and passionate of their current customer base for hypothetical replacements. The city wouldn’t have to lose jobs, tourism, and one of the few reasons it appears as a byline in newspaper stories that aren’t about people getting shot. (Although I suppose in another year or two when all the newspapers are gone, that won’t matter.)
by Englishmajor on Feb 20, 2009 3:01 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
In fairness, the Tribune also prints irresponsible,
fact-challenged, fear mongering stories about air quality at schools.
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 Feb 20, 2009 7:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the demise of corporate suites
is greatly exaggerated. Demand will be lower whilst the economy is in recession and if the demand problem lasts longer than a few years, we will have much bigger problems than where the A’s play to worry about.
You are right about the $750,000 condos, but $500,000 townhomes in Silicon Valley will be around for a good long time and that was more part of the funding than $750,000 condos.
These two things are exactly why San Jose makes a great deal of sense… add to it the transit options, now and in the future (HSR, BART, Caltrain, VTA Light Rail), and the most sensible option is even more clear.
Of course, the emotional argument is and always will be that the A’s belong in Oakland.
Either way, as long as I can still go to the stadium and watch ’em with some sort of regularity I am cool with either.
by jeffro on Feb 21, 2009 9:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just pray that whenever this stadium is built
You can somehow skirt around the newest trend: Seat Licenses.
by MidwayCityLivestock on Feb 20, 2009 3:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I thought PSL's died in the 90's after the Raiders proved they don't work?
by athletics68 on Feb 20, 2009 3:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah yes,
Maybe not the “Newest”, but certainly trendy…
Besides, Al and the rest of his fellow owners didn’t have to worry about “lost revenue” to 3rd party ticket sales in the 90’s
by MidwayCityLivestock on Feb 20, 2009 3:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like your user name, by the way.
(Call 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
by Nico on Feb 20, 2009 7:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're schmoozing with a slegnA fan?
Traitor.
"Warm Springs Infernal" - FSU, 2/6/09 DLD
by doctorK on Feb 20, 2009 9:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If "livestock" is in the name, I'm in the game
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 Feb 20, 2009 9:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They are still very much alive in the NFL...
The Cowboys, Giants and Jets all have them for the new stadiums they will soon be inhabiting, but I believe they’re much more prevalent in the NFL than in MLB. In fact, I don’t think the Mets and Yankees are using them for their new ballparks.
by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Feb 20, 2009 9:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's not what the Raiders proved
They proved bad PSL plans don’t work. When the length of the PSL doesn’t even cover the length of the stadium lease, not many people will bite. When they’re good for life or can be passed on to one’s heirs, they have worked quite well. Not that I like them…
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 21, 2009 12:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How far away from Fremont in San Jose?
I’m going to have to drive even farther to get to a game if they move there. it would be better than Vegas at least.
You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}
by micdog2001 on Feb 20, 2009 3:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
15 miles or so?
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Feb 20, 2009 3:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I AM THE SMARTEST MAN ALIVE.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Feb 20, 2009 4:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why stop there?
C’mon, you can do better.
"Hot Goat Kraut Pants Day"--Monkeyball
by Leopold Bloom on Feb 20, 2009 4:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There's actually a smarter man named Joh--
Never mind, he’s dead.
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 Feb 20, 2009 7:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you wanna be slightly exacter...
...then Pennington takes over.
by Poppy on Feb 20, 2009 6:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OH YOU AND YOUR STUPID STATS!!!
My intuition tells me it’s under 15 miles and I’m going with that.
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 Feb 20, 2009 7:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I knew a guy who said it was 15 miles.
And he had walked it, with a pedometer.
(THE ANECDOTER STRICKS AGAIN!)
"Hot Goat Kraut Pants Day"--Monkeyball
by Leopold Bloom on Feb 20, 2009 8:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If the A's do move to San Jose (or any other city)...
…they will be the only team to represent four cities in their franchise history (in the modern post-1901 era). Not exactly a stellar distinction.
I don’t think Fremont would have counted as I suspect they would have kept an Oakland tie of some sort.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
by UncleLeo on Feb 20, 2009 3:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Not a stellar distinction...
But given that a move from Oakland to San Jose is no more drastic than a move from Detroit to Auburn Hills or from Los Angeles to Anaheim I’m not too worried about “distinction”.
by athletics68 on Feb 20, 2009 3:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Personally, I agree with you, but...
…I doubt others and history will see it that way.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
by UncleLeo on Feb 20, 2009 3:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What do I care about history
I’ll be dead. Besides I don’t think you’re correct here. History will note that for a short car or eventually BART ride fans could still get to the games. Just as Giants and Jets fans can still get to the Meadowlands, Pats fans can still get to Foxboro, etc.. etc… etc…
by athletics68 on Feb 20, 2009 3:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And what do I care about the future - it hasn't even happened yet!
(And for the record, I don’t care about the present because I’m too drunk.)
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 Feb 20, 2009 7:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The only MLB team, I assume.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 21, 2009 12:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I'll have to cancel the order for my "OAF" hats...
…Oakland A’s of Fremont.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
by UncleLeo on Feb 20, 2009 3:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I guess they won't be introducing
Fremont Area Rapid Transit after all.
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 Feb 20, 2009 7:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The ultimate people mover
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Feb 20, 2009 9:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
gas powered
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 Feb 20, 2009 9:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
of course you can keep your order
OAF also stands for Oakland Athletics Fan
by OaklandSi on Feb 20, 2009 8:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL, I like that.
Kind of a “truth in advertising” aspect to it, too.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
by UncleLeo on Feb 21, 2009 6:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If the three Bay Area choices are Oakland, Fremont, and San Jose...
Fremont is the one that I’ve always liked the least.
And I definitely prefer taking Caltrain to San Jose over driving to either Oakland or Fremont.
...then Pennington takes over.
by Poppy on Feb 20, 2009 6:41 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Fremont never had a chance
and really, the A’s will stay in the Coliseum.
I think a lot of you AN’ers spend too much time playing GM; running all the numbers around salary issues and stadiums.
Well, we are at the beginning of the Great Depression II. No one, is going to be building any new jumbo-stadiums in the next 5 years.
Not Fremont.
Not San Jose
and Not Oakland.
We will continue to play in Oakland. At best, someone will come up with a plan to renovate the Coliseunm. But i wouldn’t be surprised if the A’s and Raiders are playing under the same conditions 5 years from now.
by GrewUpAtTheColiseum on Feb 20, 2009 7:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
And what if Oakland says, "Yeah, we're not renewing the lease anymore"?
You think the A’s will “squat” and just show up for games 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
by Nico on Feb 20, 2009 7:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, that would be so cool.
"Hot Goat Kraut Pants Day"--Monkeyball
by Leopold Bloom on Feb 20, 2009 8:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the City-County will tell the A's to take a hike
Just as soon as they find another tenant for the 81 dates a year.
I mean, I take a back seat to few in my regard for the capacity of Oakland to make transcendentally foolish decisions. But being leaseholder to a 50,000 seat venue offers dubious leverage…there’s only so many Days on the Green they can book. City-County will take what the A’s offer, and like it. Doing anything else would be cutting off their heads to spite their faces…both of them.
"There is a sense of tragic destiny associated with people who have large noses." --Bucky Wunderlick
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 20, 2009 9:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the A's can re-new year-to-year on the Coli until at least 2013
that’s already been agreed.
There’s a small chance that something could get built in San Jose by 2014. That’s my extremely optimistic hope.
Batting 4th for the 2014 San Jose A's: 26-year-old RF Justin Upton, in the 1st season of a nine year, $250M deal.
by notsellingjeans on Feb 20, 2009 9:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If San Jose is "forward thinking" enough,
the corporations rich enough to invest could project that the economy will be ok by 2014 and make the commitment now even though right at the moment the economy is scary-bad.
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 Feb 20, 2009 9:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Easier said than done
To quote somebody on another board tonight (in reference to Greenspan’s famous “Irrational Exuberance” quote:
For every attitude about investing there is an equal and opposite attitude. Right now we have ‘irrational negativism’.
by Soaker on Feb 20, 2009 10:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The citizens of San Jose...
…have blocked the Giants’ stadium plans at least twice. Even if the Giants and Selig open the gate to San Jose, it’s not a sure thing. If the A’s get approval to move there, they’d best be paying most of the costs if they want to avoid another rejection.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 21, 2009 12:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
San Jose isn't thinking any differently
The A’s fully know what they have to do for it to work politically in San Jose: No public money, no sweetheart land deal, no eminent domain. To do otherwise would require a vote. They already have “practice” working with SJ on the Earthquakes land deal.
by vertig0 on Feb 21, 2009 1:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've been saying this all along.
Well, not the part about the depression. Every plan/threat to move the team has gone nowhere. I’ve been hearing these “A’s are moving to Denver/Miami/DC/Phoenix/Portland/Dallas/Sacramento/San Jose” stories since 1973. I’ve maintained they’re staying in Oakland and I haven’t been wrong yet.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 21, 2009 12:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This
(I can’t believe I said “this”. I’m on borrowed time though, and I don’t care much for +1).
I'm here to talk about the past.
by 67MARQUEZ on Feb 21, 2009 7:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You could try, "I agree."
which has the added benefit of being a complete sentence (unlike this)
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Feb 21, 2009 3:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd like it to be a grammatically tortured sentence:
“This, I agree with.”
...then Pennington takes over.
by Poppy on Feb 21, 2009 3:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Or in formal writing:
“With this, I agree.”
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Feb 22, 2009 10:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If the sentence is a question,
would that be “enhanced interrogative technique”?
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Feb 22, 2009 10:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They said the same thing in Kansas City for years when Charlie Finley was threatening to move the team.
Probably said the same thing in Brooklyn and New York prior to the Dodgers and Giants moving, and in Milwaukee before the Braves headed to Atlanta.
They key word in your post is the last word… “yet”.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
by UncleLeo on Feb 21, 2009 8:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Did they?
Are you sure the people in KC were confident the A’s wouldn’t move? I’m not so sure. But I’ll take your word for it.
As for Oakland, I believe the A’s are trapped here for the forseeable future. Their viable options for a new home have been slowly eliminated over the years by expansion. Their best option, San Jose, is being blocked by the Giants with backing from the commissioner. The A’s are profitable and competitive where they are so they’re not desparate to move. If I’m lucky, I should have another twenty years of life left in me. When I check out, I expect the A’s will still be playing in Oakland.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 21, 2009 11:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Haven't you heard?
If the A’s move, we’re moving with them. They’ll put us in a box marked “FRAGILE”.
by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Feb 21, 2009 11:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've always wanted to say: The San Jos-A's!
Of course, the pessimist in me expects them to move to Vegas…sigh.
http://sonicliving.com
by whaxed on Feb 20, 2009 9:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
you still have "The Veg'A's
witty remark
by dtownmbrown on Feb 22, 2009 2:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Works for me.
The only part of a new ballpark in Fremont that I liked was the new ballpark.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on Feb 20, 2009 9:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I am certain that Wolf will sell the team, sooner rather than later. Wolf saw the A’s as a perfect tie-in to real estate, and now without any constructive stadium plans, it is unlikely that Wolf will live to see the A’s in a new stadium. Maybe he will wait for the economy to turn around, so he can get a better price. He never struck me as being particularly passionate about the baseball aspect of the A’s.
by natethesnyde on Feb 21, 2009 12:31 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Ah, the ultimate cynic
Let’s get this major misconception about the ballpark village plan out of the way.
Those who think this was simply a real estate deal to enrich Wolff/Fisher are only half right. Of course they’re going to make money. That’s what billionaires do. But…
The ballpark was projected to cost $450 million. A huge percentage of real estate proceeds were going to help pay for the ballpark. That meant they wouldn’t have to dip into normal baseball revenues. They wouldn’t have to get revenue sharing. They wouldn’t have the “we have a mortgage to pay” excuse (as the Giants do) to drive down payroll. $450 million doesn’t pay for itself. Whether you think the ballpark was there to serve real estate or vice versa, the end result still would’ve been the same: a new $450 million stadium built without taxpayer help.
by vertig0 on Feb 21, 2009 12:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They'd still be getting help from the taxpayers for the proposed ballpark village.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 21, 2009 12:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Gonna have to explain that one
I’ve heard a lot of talking points on this. Many of them have been either misleading or dead wrong.
by vertig0 on Feb 21, 2009 12:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wolff has said all along that it will require some public investment
This investment typically shows up in the form of tax increment financing or some other form of tax kickbacks. Since Wolff never delivered a financing plan we can’t say exactly what the public costs would be.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 21, 2009 1:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For what exactly?
TIF funds have distinct purposes. They can’t be used for city services, they have to be used for redevelopment activities. Wolff also said he wouldn’t ask for bonds to be raised on behalf of the ballpark. So if TIF money wasn’t going to be used for a ballpark, and it couldn’t be used for services associated with a ballpark, what could it be used for? “Infrastructure?” Housing developers pay for infrastructure associated with their projects, so that isn’t it.
Perhaps there would’ve been a sales tax abatement for construction materials, but is that such a bad thing for something that has no direct replacement or peer, especially in Fremont?
by vertig0 on Feb 21, 2009 1:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll quote Neil deMause who is a much better writer than I
http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2006/11/as_to_seek_taxi.html
“A TIF, you’ll recall, short for "tax-increment financing,” is when a city kicks back all new property tax (and sometimes sales tax) revenue generated by a project to the project’s developer, under the theory that “if it didn’t get built, we wouldn’t have it anyway.” It’s a line of reasoning that ignores the fact that property taxes are used to pay for services – say, the roads, schools, fire and police protection, etc., needed to support a stadium and condo complex. (TIFs were previously proposed for the New York Jets’ Manhattan stadium project, among other things.) Add in the fact that the city gives up the possibility of the land being developed by someone who’ll actually pay their taxes, and little wonder that TIFs have been criticized as corporate subsidies by another name."
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 21, 2009 10:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Great, but...
Entirely inapplicable to what the A’s were trying to do in Fremont. TIF means raising bonds. Raising bonds was not discussed. Not that it matters much, but the idea of TIF was raised by deMause himself, who while ensconced in NYC, never really paid much attention to the Fremont saga except to comment on the occasional article.
by vertig0 on Feb 21, 2009 10:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We don't know
As I said originally, Wolff hasn’t revealed his financing plan so we can only speculate. But his public comments have hinted at TIFs.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 21, 2009 10:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Except that
The one legal document drawn up between Fremont and the A’s practically excluded the use of TIFs.
by vertig0 on Feb 21, 2009 10:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"practically"
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 21, 2009 11:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You asked for it
Here are the General Guidelines spelled out between the two parties:
1. Any transaction with the A’s for the development of the Ballpark Village Project should be a prudent business deal, protect the interests of the taxpayer, and be of benefit to the Fremont community.
2. All impacts of the Ballpark Village Project such as public safety, traffic, public transit, and environmental, should be addressed by the project developer.
3. There should be no new taxes imposed on Fremont residents or businesses for the development and operation of the ballpark. The City may consider ballpark user and ballpark village fees, assessments, or surcharges.
4. There should be no future un-reimbursed General Fund financial obligations or liabilities (i.e., through bonds or other mechanisms) imposed on the City or its residents or businesses.
5. The City may work with the Redevelopment Agency to use resources for activities permitted under the Industrial Redevelopment Plan.
6. Any City investment in the Ballpark Village Project should be financially justified and offset by direct and indirect economic benefits, such as increased spending, increased tax revenues, increased employment opportunities, and other community benefits.
7. The City and the A’s should consider opportunities for public use of the ballpark when the ballpark is not in use by the A’s.
8. Any future baseball team and/or ballpark name should include "Fremont". For example, "_______ A’s at Fremont" and "Cisco Field at Fremont."
9. The City will not be responsible for construction costs (including cost overruns), operating costs, and repairs and maintenance of the ballpark.
10. The A’s should guarantee that the ballpark will be built and should make a long-term commitment to play its home schedule in Fremont. All vested rights to develop the Ballpark Village Project should be contingent upon construction of the ballpark and such long-term playing commitment.
Now tell me, how TIF could’ve played a role?
by vertig0 on Feb 21, 2009 11:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see how that flat prohibits TIFs
Point #4 comes close, but the inclusion of #6 alongside it could be read as a clever way of finessing #4. In other words, if they stipulate per #6 that the project will be an on-balance economic win for the City, then any TIF bonds let under #4 can be deemed liabilities which will be recouped in the future, and therefore not run afoul of the “non-reimbursable” wording. The beauty of that language is that neither stipulation would actually have to be proved true in the long run: they say (per the econ impact analysis prepared early on) that the project’s a long-run win for Fremont, and they can then say that any taxes forgiven or deferred in the short run will surely be made up for.
This is particularly true if #5 is invoked, since if the project qualifed under redevelopment restrictions it would also qualify for TIF usage.
I’m not saying that was the plan, (though I’m not saying it wasn’t either…the financing plan shown publicly always did lack a certain something). But I sure don’t read that language as the prohibition you construe it as. It does, however, read very reassuringly to your typicaly voter, which is who I assume it was largely crafted for.
"There is a sense of tragic destiny associated with people who have large noses." --Bucky Wunderlick
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 21, 2009 11:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
#4 and #5 are mutually exclusive
General funds have nothing to do with TIF. Such crossover betwen revenue streams is outlawed. Therefore money can’t be “finessed” from one place to another. More importantly, TIF bonds can’t be raised for general fund purposes (and vice versa).
#6, in relation to the discussions between the two parties, was largely centered around a land swap or public land lease agreement. There were other city-related development activities that were already planned for the area long before it was a gleam in Lew’s eye: a train station and a public park.
by vertig0 on Feb 21, 2009 11:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They are not mutually exclusive
That’s just not true. Public projects routinely use both redevelopment and general fund revenue streams to fund different aspects of the same deal. Now, ReD funds can’t be used to repay GF debts, or visa versa, so the streams need to remain in their own separate accounts. But they certainly can work together on a project…happens all the time.
My point about #5 is that IF the project qualifies for ReD funds (findings re blight, etc.) it will also meet the test to allow TIF usage.
Regardless of what the back story behind the #6 language may be, in practice it could surely be used to justify a finding that all boats will ultimately rise from the ballparks higher revenue tide, and thus ultimately there would be no “un-reimbursed GF obligations or liabilities” to meet the #4 test.
I continue to see nothing in the 10 theses points you posted which would bar TIF financing.
"There is a sense of tragic destiny associated with people who have large noses." --Bucky Wunderlick
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 22, 2009 8:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You just explained how exclusive they are
In terms of how the money is raised and paid off. That’s the point. Yes, both could be used for a redevelopment project. But that doesn’t mean that such an idea was ever on the table. Especially when it came to building the ballpark or the ancillary stuff. Fremont’s not a city with a massive RDA like the Bay Area’s big three. Much of the local RDA district’s capacity was already used for area freeway and road improvements and the city showed little willingness to absorb more. I’m not saying the TIF was impossible, I’m asking someone to show me how possible it was. Because in all the discussions I was privy to, it never came up.
by vertig0 on Feb 22, 2009 10:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, it looks to me like #6
is expressly allowing for TIF.
City investment […] offset by […] increased tax revenues.
Isn’t that exactly what a TIF is?
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Feb 22, 2009 10:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There's a bigger point to this
Just because we’ve seen so many crooked stadium deals in the past doesn’t mean all of them are or have to be crooked. The A’s concept in Fremont was, on its face, anything but crooked.
by vertig0 on Feb 21, 2009 11:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
On this we agree
But concepts are far from an actual financial plan. If I could see that, I might be able to give you a meaningful answer.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 21, 2009 11:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's a better question
Do you have any idea how TIFs would be used in Fremont?
by vertig0 on Feb 21, 2009 10:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm assuming they won't be used now since the plan is dead.
If the economy hadn’t gone south, it may have been possible for Wolff to follow through on the village without the ballpark. Now I can’t see that happening anytime soon.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 21, 2009 11:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nope
All vested rights to develop the Ballpark Village Project should be contingent upon construction of the ballpark and such long-term playing commitment.
by vertig0 on Feb 21, 2009 11:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay.
The whole thing is dead in that case.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 21, 2009 11:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
tax and spenders can rarely back up their bullshit...
now, I like Monday Fan and all, but I’ll bet he voted for Obama, in the hope he’d save his pension plan. How’s that workin’ out so far? I know, give me a strike.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Feb 21, 2009 3:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey
I voted for Obama, and it had nothing to do with pension plans.
by jeffro on Feb 21, 2009 9:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That Coates post was teh awesome
Enough to make up for the blatant CGV. (Well, that plus the blanket Poppy exemption.)
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Feb 21, 2009 3:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Its not just the strike-worthiness
it’s the mind-boggling revisionism that impresses me most of all :-)
by green star oakland on Feb 21, 2009 9:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
huh, I'm upset
I was hoping Barack would ban you and save me from having to tab through your spew.
"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King
by Buck Turgidson on Feb 21, 2009 5:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wasn't that one of his campaign promises?
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 Feb 21, 2009 5:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Your assumption is incorrect.
Again.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
by Monday Fan on Feb 21, 2009 9:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn’t necesarily saying that Wolff is selfish. All I’m saying is that Wolff is a real estate developer, and he likes to build things. He staked his entire his entire legacy with the A’s on building this ballpark, and at the age of 80, I don’t see him holding on to the team for the fun of it.
by natethesnyde on Feb 21, 2009 10:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs