Main Sections:
Main Site
Discussion Forum
    All Topics
    New Messages
    Search
    Last Day
    Last Week
    Tree View
    Edit Profile
    Create Login
    Guidelines
    Help
Game Chat
Fund Raiser:
Order Merchandise!

Suggested Reading:
(click cover for info)

cover

Archive through February 01, 2002

OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: Dickey on Jerry Brown & ballpark: Archive through February 01, 2002
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oakland4ever on Thursday, January 31, 2002 - 09:26 am:

Glenn Dickey made some good (if obvious) points in his column this morning about justifying using redevelopment money specifically for the uptown location. Now if Jerry Brown can start stepping to the podium, perhaps the ball will get rolling. Isn't there supposed to be more info on potential park locations being narrowed down again by next month?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Thursday, January 31, 2002 - 09:39 am:

Glenn Dickey is recycling information on this one...

The ballpark project is running on a timetable and Bobb and other officials are working on the financial proposals for the different locations.

By mid to late February we will all hear more about this next step.

In a way I find it unfair to say the Mayor is not on board. Funds have been allocated to hire the two companies working on this project. A task force working with Robert Bobb would not have been formed without the nod from the mayor.

So, even though putting pressure on Brown is not a bad idea, to say he is doing nothing about the ballpark issue is not accurate either.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By bubba69 on Thursday, January 31, 2002 - 10:19 am:

None of this was new info....Great writing DICK!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oakland4ever on Thursday, January 31, 2002 - 10:24 am:

I like to think Jerry Brown is laying low until the ballpark location and methods of paying for it are out in the open. I'm looking forward to wathing this process unfold in the coming months. Also, I'm glad Dickey is taking some time to write about the potential ballpark to keep the park in the forefront of local media. Who knows, even MLB might take note of Oakland's efforts to secure a park.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Thursday, January 31, 2002 - 10:50 am:

Well, I think Dickey could be a bit more positive and truthful in regards to the ongoing efforts the city has put forth (which would not happen without the mayor involvement),and this would produce a much better reaction from the media and from the uninformed fans.

His column has a negative connotation in regards to the Mayor's involvement, or non involvement.

Dickey should have mentioned that this is, and should be a joint effort between the owners and the city.

So far, this ownership has shrugged its shoulders and have played hard to get while the city is acting and showing a lot more effort than the interested parties, Schott and Hofmann. It seems to me they are the ones who stand to gain the most with a ballpark right?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oakland4ever on Thursday, January 31, 2002 - 11:42 am:

I agree that Dickey should have acknowledged that Brown has endorsed the process so far. However, once we get this process narrowed down, Brown will need to become more involved on the surface to help get corporate and owner support. The owners are taking a wait & see attitude, because they've already secured a big profit if they sell the franchise as is. Of course the owners should be more involved and I'm hoping tht Hoffman is working behind the scenes as Mattier & Ross pointed out.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Thursday, January 31, 2002 - 10:45 pm:

Meanwhile, Schott continues to play the game of hard to get and some of the politicians are trying to put the cart ahead of the horses.

Check out this column from today's Chron which Jen just posted on the gate:

Oakland Tribune Online
Silence meets A's relocation questions

Team owner mum on Fremont stadium idea

January 31, 2002

By Conan Knoll
STAFF WRITER

UNION CITY -- Oakland A's owner and managing partner Steve Schott was as coy as a third-base coach concealing signals when he was asked Wednesday about bringing the A's to Fremont -- one of four sites being studied for a new stadium.

"All I know is what we read in the paper about it," Schott said during a visit to Pioneer Elementary School, as part of the A's Home Run Readers program. "There are sites, but, you know, bottom line is that there are a lot of things we need to talk to the county and city about."

Faster than a manager yanking a tiring pitcher, A's publicist Jim Young quickly escorted Schott from the room, saying the team did not want to comment on the possibility of moving to a 107-acre Warm Springs site that has been proposed for a stadium.

But politicians working to keep the team in Alameda County were eager to hear what Schott had to say.

"We're ready to talk," said Chris Gray, chief of staff for Supervisor Scott Haggerty, who represents Fremont.

The possibility of the A's moving to Fremont first emerged when Haggerty asked to include Fremont and Livermore, which also is part of his district, on a list of locations being considered for a new ballpark.

--->In a bid to keep the team in Alameda County, the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority hired HOK Sport of Kansas City to analyze suitable sites for a new stadium.

HOK Sport, which designed the Giants' Pacific Bell Park, released a study in December ranking seven possible sites for a new stadium. The Warm Springs site -- north of the New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. plant and bounded by Old Warm Springs, Fremont and South Grimmer boulevards and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks -- was ranked third. The two highest-ranked sites are in Oakland.

Gray said the company is wrapping up a more in-depth study of the sites.

"They are doing a final report. They are clarifying the numbers for those four sites," he said. "Right now, they are still looking at the things that need to happen to the site to see of they are feasible or not."

Once the report is completed, in February, there still will be a lot of work to do, Gray said. A plan to finance a new stadium would have to be figured out, as would potential markets and corporate sponsorship.

Ultimately, the decision on where to locate will be up to the A's.

The Warm Springs site, owned by General Motors, is located between Interstate 880 and Interstate 680, west of the planned Warm Springs BART station. It would have excellent vehicular access and good pedestrian access from parking and transit, according to the HOK Sport study.

A site about a half-mile away -- 36 acres at the corner of South Grimmer and Warm Springs boulevards -- was considered briefly, but it drew fire of nearby residents. Councilmember Steve Cho, who suggested the site to Haggerty, says now he thinks it is not a good location because of its proximity to homes.

Property on the west side of I-880, near the Pacific Commons business park, probably would be better suited for a ballpark, Cho said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Conan Knoll covers the city of Fremont for The Argus. He can be reached at (510) 353-7026 or cknoll@angnewspapers.com.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By darth2900 on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 07:48 am:

The Fremont idea and the Coliseum parking lot idea will never work for MLB. I am not saying they are not feasible locations but as the article points out, where the A's play is up to the A's and not Scott Haggerty... The current trend is to make city's build stadiums in or near downtown... in business districts, on water fronts, blah blah blah.... I just don't see anyone saying, okay let's have the A's play essentially where they already play, or in a similar locale 20 miles south.... Uptown it will have to be because of costs and a mutual benefit for the city and the team. Of course this is if a financing plan can be worked out and the owners agree to let the A's play in Oakland.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By emkey on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 08:14 am:

The parking lot idea worked for the Brewers. It worked for the Reds as well, so I don't agree with that statement darth2900. I believe the Mets and possibly the Yankees have similer proposals as well.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By darth2900 on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 08:50 am:

The Reds parking lot is on a riverfront... the A's is in the ghetto

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By darth2900 on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 08:51 am:

Just joking with the ghetto comment

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By darth2900 on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 09:01 am:

http://www.hhweb.com/stadiumphotos_bbnew.htm

Look at these stadiums and then figure out the ratio to downtown vs. parking lot on hegenberger road.

Also, one of the things to consider is for the city to get economic benefit other than keeping the A's, the stadium would have to be near shopping and people... I know P*B park is not a very popular place on this board but if you drive over there and look at the surronding area now versus 5 years ago it is night and day, I used to eat at a run down taco shop every Wednesday when I worked over on Folsom Street, now that run down taco shop is gone and a retail store in a completely remodled shopping center is in it's place... It would not be prudent of the city to help pay for any stadium that does not give the same kind of boost to an area of Oakland. I don't see any type of boost coming to the area around the coliseum based on a baseball only field being built there.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By emkey on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 09:49 am:

darth, there is no real economic advantage to building a stadium for a city. At best it shifts a bit of money from one area to another and creates a small number of low paying jobs at tremendose cost. For the city that is. For the owners it has the potential to be a cash bonanza though even that is starting to be less true.

Here's some discussion on this general issue...

http://baseball.fanhome.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=948448

Note, this doesn't mean I'm against the public kicking in some modest amounts of money to such a project. Funding anything more then a small % though is silly in my opinion.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By emkey on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 09:50 am:

Also note that Camden Yards was built in the middle of a ghetto and isn't that far from one even now. And if the purpose of a new ballpark is to redevelope an area, then what better place then a ghetto?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By darth2900 on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 09:53 am:

Emkey,
I disagree with you... ask people in Denver and Cleveland.... go to P*B park and look at the surronding area. Look at the increase in the number of people who have come from outside San Francisco to visit P*B and spend money in San Francisco that they would have spent in Fresno, Sacramento, Modesto, etc... if that is not adding to economy of the city what is?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By darth2900 on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 09:56 am:

Emkey... on the ghetto subject... there is no area to be redevloped... no business district in that part of Oakland... I know from your previous posts on the matter that you think the Coliseum parking lot is the best place... I don't agree.... If the mayor of Oakland is trying to revitalize downtown Oakland... a ball park there is a good way to do it.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By darth2900 on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 10:06 am:

What was I going to get out of that link? I read it... it is you and one other guy agreeing with each other and a third guy bringing up the fact that the MCI Center spurred a redevelopemnt in downtown DC?
The problem I see with the logic presented that sports stadiums do not help the local economy is that in your string of posts at that link whoever wrote the article being referenced assumes that all visitors to the ballpark are people who are from the city the ballpark is in and people form surronding areas that now only come more frequenly which is not the case. Here is a scenario to illustrate what I am talking about... Not every fan that goes to watch a Cleveland Indians game comes from Cleveland, the amount of fans from outside Cleveland that come to games, as well as those form Cleveland, has increased dramatically since Jacobs Field was built... the money they spent would have been spent in another city had they not come to the Indians game... that is NEW money brought into Cleveland's economy.
I also would like you to look up the cost of Commercial real estate in the area surronding Jacobs Field, Coors Field, Camden yards, Pac Bell park, etc... the increase in money paid for that real estate is also new money based on the ball park.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 10:34 am:

I think very few people will argue with the fact that a ballpark is much better off located in an urban setting rather than a suburban area of a city.

And I think the reason for building a ballpark is not to make a city a better place to live. A ballpark is not meant to be looked at as a hospital or schools.

However, every important cosmopolitan city has Museums, Symphony Halls and Public Libraries. A great major league city has a MLB ballpark.
MLB brings status and importance to a metropolis and brings the national attention and people from all the surrounding areas. That is the biggest difference from the suburbs, dormitory surrounding areas.

There's no doubt that if you incorporate a ballpark into an area where a planed redevelopment is to take place, you can developed the area so as to bring benefit to both the ballpark and the city. Traffic and accessibility should be the most looked at aspect and then the other amenities.

When you look at the mistakes some of the cities have made in building a ballpark, one has to take into account the sweetheart deals and out clauses in leases, the surrounding land development and who owns it...there's where cities got pinched and taken advantage of by the owners and MLB.

All this discussion in regards to who benefits from a new ballpark to me is a moot point.

It is MLB and the Lords who have the gun pointed to the host cities saying, build us a new ballpark or we will leave your city. They are the ones who stand to rip the bulk of the benefits.

So a city must respond with a solution of how to build these ballparks in an area and in the way where it will bring the city some benefits, but not go into this thinking or fooling themselves nor the taxpayers. The bulk of the benefit will go to the owners. If a city is smart and plans and learns from the mistakes other cities have made, there is no reason to fall into the MLB trap.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By emkey on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 11:12 am:

darth, while it's interesting to find out what the often brain washed masses think, it is not the place I go when I want to get the real picture. If I listened to the brain washed masses I would believe that Oakland is the worst place in the world for a baseball team and that the A's never should have moved there. My research does not support that assertion, and other research does not support the assertions that new ballparks spur the economy of local areas.

Most economists agree that new sporting facilities simply displace money. Museums get less, movie theatres get less, etc. People only have a limited number of entertainment dollars to spend.

As for the tourist example, thats chump change and all aimed at service level jobs, none of which benifit the community greatly. In addition, many of these facilities have been funded out of additional hotel and rental car taxes which only tend to DISCOURAGE people from coming to an area. Thus any positive impact has to first offset the negative impact of additional costs, especially in our current economy.

I don't totally agree with Lil's assessment, but she's got a fairly good story, and one that at least takes into account the growing awareness of just how badly taken many cities have been over the past decade or two.

As for the Coliseum location, twenty years from now that will be one of the more affluent areas of Oakland. Trends in urban planing that have emerged in the past ten years or so all point to that area as being prime real estate. Putting in a new ballpark as part of a larger redevelopment plan would be an outstanding plan. It would also place the ballpark in a much more accessable area then any downtown location.

If the park goes downtown, I cancel my season tickets for sure and move to catching a few weekend games a month. I won't really have any other choice.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By darth2900 on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 11:36 am:

"brain washed" masses? Who are you refering to? The rest of the world that you are so much smarter than? (Okay that was bit trite, sorry, I still love you I hope you forgive me)
You didn't address my question about commercial real estate value in the surronding area? Have you looked at any of that information? (I am asking because I would like to know how it is impacted in other areas of the country, I read about it in Denver it quadrupled there.)
Your assertion that the coliseum area will be an affluent area in 20 years... where do you get that info, it seems like a bit of a stretch? (I am not being trite here I really am interested in where I can read something about this)
Your comment about no season tickets if their is an urban stadium... I believe you will be the exception to the rule. An urban stadium would increase season tickets I believe but I have not looked at any statistics on this.
If the proposal comes out that the city wants to help build a new stadium in the same area that the A's play on now... hello Santa Clara/Portland/San Jose/Sacramento/DC Athletics either way I guess you won't be a season ticket holder.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 11:42 am:

Emkey, my point is also that your research will only prove what other cities have done and you can't just take the numbers from cities who, many of them have done things wrong, and use those numbers as a reference of what will or can happen in Oakland.

A ballpark can and should be integrated into the life of the community. The main difference between the baseball yard and the football stadium is exactly the quaint and the small atmosphere. You can't very well have that atmosphere in a large parking lot of a 65 K stadium, full of trash bins and unused bleachers stands.

There are negatives and positives in every project and the point I was trying to make is that Oakland should learn from the mistakes and make the best decisions based on the positives others have accomplished.

You area supporting a location based on what may happen 20 years down the road... And how are you going to explain that you are building a ballpark in a parking lot next to where the other ballpark was and you are going to charge 5 times more for the tickets. You're going to tell the fans to be patient because 20 years from now the tickets will be worth that price?

>>If the park goes downtown, I cancel my season >>tickets for sure and move to catching a few >>weekend games a month. I won't really have any >>other choice.

Emkey, you have to excuse me, but if your arguments and opinions are based on your personal feelings such as you have written above, then all your other arguments become suspect to me.

I love the Coli and I'm very concious of the fact that my current seat location will be totally out-priced for me in a new ballpark. The urban setting would also make it much harder for me to get to and come home such as I do now, But I have not for one minute even considered these factors when I support the best location for a ballpark in Oakland.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By emkey on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 01:53 pm:

darth, on commercial property values. If they increased around the ballpark they likely decreased elsewhere. Money/resources don't magically appear, they are simply redistributed. It's like taking money out of your right pants pocket and putting it into your left pants pocket. The left pants pocket is now richer, but you as a person have gained nothing. On the subject of where I come to my conclussions on the future viability of that area... There is a book called "Cities without suburbs".
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0943875730/002-2478544-2646421

There is a 14 page excerpt on Amazon. This books is outstanding. I heard an interview with the author on NPR a year or so back. Checkout the excerpt, it should start to give you an idea of what I'm talking about.

Lil,

If they built a ballpark on/near the current location they could convert the Coliseum to a pemanent football facility. Thus there would be no need for seats and such in the parking lot.

On the subject of paying more for tickets, if the Brewers can build a new ballpark in a parking lot and get away with it then I don't see how the A's will have a problem. Besides, done properly you're not even going to have to see the parking lot. In any case I will note that you get a great view of the parking lot from the seats on the left field side of Pac Bell... So I don't really see this as a problem.

If you want to build a ballpark you're going ot have to tie it into a bigger picture. I know you are aware of this and have it in mind. Redevelopment of the Coliseum area is an option you should be looking at. Bart is planning on adding a train of some sorts to the Oakland airport to come to the Coliseum station. That area is a transportation hub, which is why it has such promise. And also why its the perfect place for a ballpark. Besides, there is more then enough character in the area to satisfy the asthetic needs of a new ballpark.

I'll grant you I'm being selfish in saying I'd cancel my season tickets. God knows I've rightfully accused people from outside the Oakland/east bay area who support a move south of the same thing. Unlike them I'll grant you the validity of your criticism. :-)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By buzz on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 02:07 pm:

I have friends from Milwaukee who told me that most Brewers fans wanted the stadium DOWNTOWN, like all the new ballparks. Selig fought to have it put in the "parking lot" outside of the city, because he wanted all that extra parking revenue to line his fat pockets. If the park was downtown, fans would park in private lots (or on the street) which would mean less $$$ for the Budster. Of course, a downtown park would have been better for Milwaukee, but what did he care?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By emkey on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 02:27 pm:

how would it have been better Buzz? I don't see any "of course" about it. What do you offer as proof?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By emkey on Friday, February 01, 2002 - 02:27 pm:

Which isn't to say you aren't right, just that your statement needs more support...

And parking revenues are certainly an important factor to consider.



 

Questions? Comments? Corrections? Please contact info@oaklandfans.com.