By oaklandathletic (12.149.144.130) on Monday, April 19, 2010 - 10:16 am:

This pulpit's getting as old as I am. We're both fading and chipped in places we'd like to conceal, but we're still standing with occasional propping.

I'd hate to give up this pulpit because I've been standing behind it more years than I care to admit, preaching the same sermon about the virtues of Oakland.

Sometimes, I feel alone in defending Oakland, though I know that's not true. But I've been doing it considerably longer than others in my line of work because I've been around considerably longer.

I know my preachings have gone way beyond repetitious, but I believe so strongly in Oakland — the most misrepresented city in America — that I'm about to deliver yet another sermon, although wishing I had Elmer Gantry's oratory.

This time it's about our Warriors, a National Basketball Association franchise as maligned as Oakland. Rumors are rife that the Warriors will pick up and leave Oakland when their new ownership is in place, which could be shortly.

A San Francisco newspaper that's green at the gills keeps writing unfounded columns that have all but moved the team across the bridge. Here we go again!

San Francisco has panted over the Warriors ever since losing them to Oakland in 1971, offering continual pie-in-the-sky speculations about building an NBA-sized arena to lure them back — likely when Barry Bonds is elected mayor.

Has anyone, greenish or other hues, stopped to think about how many large-scale arenas one area can support? Besides Oracle Arena and the Lesher Center for the Arts, there's HP Pavilion in San Jose and outdoor venues in Mountain View and Concord. You won't pay the rent with just sports teams; and Bruce Springsteen, Jay-Z and Taylor Swift can't play at every Bay Area building.

Tribune reporter Chris Metinko did the research and duly noted that aside from the Warriors lease in Oakland that ends in 2017, plus two five-year extensions that run through 2027, any owner moving the team during this time frame would face a debt service of $105 million from the arena's renovation in the late 1990s.

Not even billionaire Larry Ellison would shell out such money for a fairy-tale arena in San Francisco that wouldn't be built until well after his projected "five years, at least" ownership window of the Warriors — if he even buys them.

And why move the Warriors anyway when the NBA's most stalwart fans show up regularly in near-sellout numbers in Oakland to support an embarrassing franchise — one playoff appearance in 16 years — that hardly deserves them?

Yet critics love to hammer at Oakland and what it has or doesn't have in comparison with others cities that have less. Oakland has three franchises in the four major sports leagues (baseball, football, basketball and hockey); San Francisco has two and San Jose one.

See what you started, Gertrude Stein, with your "there is no there there" comment about Oakland, your native city, when all you meant upon returning home after years away was that you couldn't find the people from your past.

Cities evolve, but Oakland has always been a wonderful place to live — lovely hills, a centerpiece lake and mostly friendly neighborhoods. It's scarred by crime, but what city hasn't been? Yet crime is Oakland's albatross.

Thus it's difficult standing behind this pulpit and trying to convince Al Davis to love this town, which took him back after he fled it, or to knock some sense inside the head of Lew Wolff to change his mind and build a ballpark here.

I remain persistent. But if Wolff's so wise about finances, why did he try to build a soccer stadium in San Jose? He failed, but "... soccer? Has he lost his mind?

I'm still not convinced that San Jose or Fremont wants the A's — or can support them better than Oakland, which only asks to be treated fairly. And to be appreciated.

Which hasn't happened since the Haas family owned the A's.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_14894482