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

Bobb update

OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: Bobb update
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By ramjet1 on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 12:43 pm:

We can thank Mayor Brown for this one, just remember he's gone in three years, and Uptown will still be vacant.

LATEST NEWS
12:19 PM PDT Thursday
Mr. Bobb goes to Washington
Former Oakland City Manager Robert Bobb kept his pledge to stay in Oakland about three months -- he accepted a job as city administrator for Washington D.C. and plans start there Oct. 6.


Bobb, who was fired by Mayor Jerry Brown in June, will receive $185,000 a year at his new post, well below the $224,000 he got in Oakland. That D.C. salary is still $50,000 more than was paid to Bobb's predecessor.

One of Bobb's priorities in D.C. is similar to one he held dear in Oakland: getting baseball downtown. Bobb, who had pushed for a new downtown ballpark in Oakland for the As, will likely be helping D.C.push its agenda of getting the Montreal Expos and of building a new downtown ballpark for them. The Oakland ballpark idea was one over which Bobb and Mayor Jerry Brown had clashed.

Bobb had said in June he was going to stick around Oakland, and had created a consulting firm with his wife. He had also recently taken the role of founding president of a new African-American chamber of commerce in the city. He said he will remain active in the chamber, and his wife will continue to run the consulting firm.

Washington, D.C. has a population of about 570,000 and an annual budget of $5.7 billion, compared with Oakland's 400,000 people and annual budget of $1 billion.

Bobb had served as city manager in Richmond, Va. before coming to Oakland.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 01:45 pm:

I had hoped he would remain here but I don't blame him for taking a job where he is appreciated and allowed to realize his potential.

It is our loss and their gain.

Hopefully he will keep a spot in his heart open and remembers all the hard work many of us engaged in along with him in trying to turn the downtown Oakland ballpark into reality.

If Oakland ever loses the A's, Jerry Brown has to be way up on the list of people to take the blame, along with Selig and Schott of course....Not that any of these poor excuses of human beings would give a damn...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By filthyslurve on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 04:20 pm:

Jerry Brown is not a "poor excuse for a human being" merely because he prioritizes other projects over a new ballpark. I'm still hoping for more complexity in the debate here about the merits of a new park and other Oakland improvements.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would be real crazy about the Chamber of Commerce types who wield such influence what with the developers behind them.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By mutiny on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 05:04 pm:

filthy, what exactly does jerry brown prioritize? as far as i am concerned, i am *exactly* the kind of person who's vote he wants. i am young, white, left of center, first-time homeowner living near the lake. in many ways, i am the product of his gentrification efforts. except...

i see what we has NOT done with respect to the oakland public school system. i see that he pays lip service to crime reduction, while foolishly thinking that a handful more police officers walking the beat will do anything to tackle growing crime rates in this city. i see all the big businesses he lured to oakland with tax incentives absolved of responsibility when it comes to helping this community in times of need. i see his utter lack of commitment to small business owners, latino and african american busness owners, workers, the people who living in east and west oakland, etc.. i see him on tv talking about "these people" who commit crimes in oakland, "those people" who riot after sporting events -- one's imagination need not be overly active to see the racist images he attempts to conjure in so many of his public statements. i see him justify police brutality consistently. i see him as an opportunist who always has one eye on the bigger prize.

the merits of a new ballpark? i agree that oakland has many problems it needs to confront. i think a new ballpark, financed properly, could do wonders for this city's economic development. and, more importantly, i think it would do wonders for a community that has much to be proud of.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By filthyslurve on Sunday, September 07, 2003 - 07:03 pm:

mutiny,

I think we've been here before, so I'll phrase it differently: What can the mayor do in relation to reform in the public schools, outside of influencing the school board members? They are two separate and distinct branches of local government and the mayor's office has no role in either financing or governing the schools.

I'd like you to provide a quote or instance where Jerry Brown has "conjured" "racist images."

More to the point of our forum, Jerry Brown has clearly prioritized luring your "kind of person" to the city, especially through new housing projects. But he has plainly done so courting the black vote, promising the very things you are criticizing him for, namely initiatives to reduce crime and lure more business. He is falling on his sword to fulfill his mandate.

The Mayor spoke last week to saving dozens of jobs by furloughing workers one day for a six(?) month period in light of the budget cuts.

I would also like to hear your left-of-center thoughts on reducing crime? The city, according to this weekend's Chronicle, is surpassing last year's homicide rate in an increasing trend four years running. The mayor and the detestable police department have also announced drafting county deputies in an increasing role to struggle against the latest spike in violence south and along the Berkeley border. I would invite you to speak to the community members there in those neighborhoods about what their priorites are. Workers are worried about crime.

The Mayor's office committing to a large, multi-million dollar business like the Oakland Athletics Baseball Company tax incentives comprising underwriting a new ballpark would seem to veer from the logic you've offered above, and I'm not convinced it would benefit black and latino businesses in the area, but might attract more Elephant Bars, Starbucks and McDonald's. This on the heels of the Raiders' 34 million dollar swindle!

Lastly, as a die-hard A's fan and leftist union organizer, I would hope that pride in our community would transcend professional sports clubs and the distraction of spectacles like PacBell.

Jerry Brown is one strange dude. Like him or not, he's remaining focused in the areas he committed to during the past election.

I would prefer we commit to keeping the A's in Oakland by supporting new (hopefully local)ownership and, if necessary, a new ballpark built through private financing. I will not hold Jerry Brown accountable for this effort.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By mutiny on Sunday, September 07, 2003 - 08:02 pm:

yeah, i am worried about the crime rates in this city also. the increases are occuring in my neighborhood. but i don't think a handful of officers are going to do anything. jobs, social services, education -- these are the things that might tackle the crime rates. and the fact that we have no money for these things is directly related to an insane tax structure in the state, so not to be pinned on jerry brown. but the economic boom has everything to do with the dot.coms and very little to do with jerry, despite his eagerness to take credit for it. and now that we are experiencing the bust, mayor brown needs to make good on his initial promise to revitalize this city.

"workers are worried about crime" -- indeed. workers in this city are also diehard raiders fans. however pissed they might be at al davis, i think most are thrilled to have them here, no matter how much it costs the county. i don't think a new ballpark, with only partial public funding, would cost nearly as much as al davis has cost this city.

and the starbucks only come in if you allow it.

i think where we disagree is that i see a new ballpark as absolutely necessary for keeping the a's in oakland. in my view, there are no "ifs" about it.

it is

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By filthyslurve on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 10:01 am:

"...workers in this city are also diehard Raiders fans..." oh man, so true, so true. Disappointing, a little don'tcha think? :-)

I see more public investment(in the tens of millions)into pro sports as tossing good $$ after bad, currently anyway. And, you make an excellent point...it only happens if we allow it.

But I won't disagree that it MAY be absolutely necessary to build a new ballpark to keep the Athletics in Alameda County. I'd prefer to think that an American League pennant and extending Chavez will merely do the trick...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By ramjet1 on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 05:00 am:

Robert Bobb is one of the top City Managers in the Country, and highly respected in his profession. Regardless of our individual postions on the ballpark issue, Bobb's departure is not to Oakland's benefit. Brown was elected as a "Strong Mayor", he has to be held to a higher standard than the previous mayors (Harris, Wilson, Reading) etc. Robert Bobbs untimely departure reflects poorly on Brown's administration.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 09:34 am:

Besides, there was never a proposal on the table for a publicly funded ballpark for the A's.

Robert Bobb prepared a proposal, (the Mayor blocked the presentation to open forum at the City Council meeting when they had to take a decision whether to award the site to the Forrest City Developer or to the Uptown Ballpark) in which the city would donate the land, some redevelopment funds, use of sin taxes, some visitor taxes while the rest would have to come from private corporate funding, charter seats and team ownership.

The City Council had invested money (200K to HOK) and formed a ballpark committee headed by Robert Bobb and Rosie Rios. They had the results of the HOK study and should have at least examined the final proposal. The Mayor stopped the entire process at its track because of his 'commitment' to Forrest City.

Of course, Jerry Brown has a good excuse...he claims there was no interest from Schott. But Hofmann was very interested... and as the Mayor he should have made an effort to bring all the interested parties to the negotiating table. Instead he shut it down and stuck a fork in it...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By filthyslurve on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 10:47 am:

There was a tremendous amount of speculation when Brown first entered office whether or not he and Bobb could coexist because of what was perceived as incongruent positions.

Brown managed to work with him through a full term and this part...until there were divergent interests at a key moment in Brown's tenure. The City Manager "serves at the pleasure" of elected officials. It would seem to me to be too early to judge how this will affect the course of Oakland's development. And as I stated earlier, Brown has not veered off from his election manifesto even if sloppily executed.

I also find it amazing that one of the stated purposes of this organization is to replace the callous and incompetent ownership of our club, BUT YOU WANT BROWN TO SIT DOWN WITH THEM AND GET SOMETHING SORTED after having delivered our judgement! We don't think they're worth dealing with, but we want the City to partner and nudge them on a long term vision! Al Davis, anyone?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 09:35 am:

I also find it amazing that one of the stated purposes of this organization is to replace the callous and incompetent ownership of our club, BUT YOU WANT BROWN TO SIT DOWN WITH THEM AND GET SOMETHING SORTED after having delivered our judgement! We don't think they're worth dealing with, but we want the City to partner and nudge them on a long term vision! Al Davis, anyone?

slurve, I asked you to peruse our archives to find out the history what our group. Instead you are passing judgment on us without enough information about anything we have done in the past 5 years.

Schott placed the team on the market in 1999 as a result of a lawsuit settlement. The OAFC showed the preference for the local bidders over the out of town group sent in by Selig. It was a bogus sale which Schott knew would be blocked by Selig.
They then got what they wanted, which was to play rent free with the control of revenues from all the concessionaires.(Schott owns it)

The OAFC and fans don't have the power to oust the present ownership. This ownership and Selig stated they could not survive and be competitive in Oakland if they didn't GET a new ballpark.

We stated several times that if Schott and Hofmann would make a long-term commitment with the team, we would support them the best way we could. They never did that.

The City Council and JPA voted to hire HOK and research various sites where a ballpark would be appropriate and good both for the city and to the baseball team. As a result of this study, a site was chosen as the best and a redevelopment plan was put on the table along with a preliminary financing plan.

The next step would be to get all the interested parties on the negotiating table and it didn't happen because the interested parties were not really interested.

What you don't seem to take into consideration is that when all is said and done, Selig and Schott will make it look like the city did nothing to try to keep the A's. The only person who gives them this opportunity to use this EXCUSE is Jerry Brown.

All we wanted was for them to present ballpark/redevelopment plan to put the ball on Schott's court. The burden of refusal of the plan would be on him. But since the Mayor killed the proposal before it was even presented, the blame is put back on the city.

Btw, we never supported a public funded ballpark but a partnership between city and team which could come to benefit both.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By filthyslurve on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 10:44 am:

'Lil,

I goofed in that I was attempting to change all of the "You's" to "We's" in the last post and failed. We agree more than we disagree, I just prefer to point out some inconsistencies here. And your posts, while more often than not patronizing (perhaps deservedly so? :-) ), are always civil and informed.

I have been here five years. "Japhy" and "rowdy", my handle changing with my email.

I don't see your last post engaging my points. On the front/"home" page of this site it is boldly pronounced "New Ownership Now!" but we are still seeking a meeting of the minds between ownership and City leaders, are we not?

A hybrid "partnership" settlement to build a new ballpark is still publicly-funded, whether a direct apportionment of general dollars, bonds, some kind of Port/County involvement or a rate/user tax focused on us as fans. I merely disagree with prioritizing a new ballpark in Oakland over other projects and community goals. So does the mayor and the majority of city leadership. I respect your position, and that of others like Mutiny, who believe in a hybrid arrangement as benefiting the community.

I do take into consideration (all points made here, BTW) the corner MLB is trying to position Brown in, but I think Brown is remaining focused on his mandate. Jerry Brown is saying, "Who cares?! You guys have a great facility which the public just made a huge investment in!" And public leadership keeps getting burned and sued on these deals.

The HOK agreement and report was a trial balloon (a very deft political trick) and the will wasn't there for all of the players involved. We also overlook at times the overwhelming numbers of fans (read:voters) who reside in Contra Costa, Solano and Napa counties.

I also agree with the moral of the tale in the first paragraph above, namely that Schott has negotiated a subsidy from he public. I believe we arrived here at this post because I pointed out to Mutiny that the A's are a big business (by any measure) and are extorting US! No different than the other swindlers whose storefronts' we'd just as soon throw rocks through. :-)

I don't dispute any of the contentions made about MLB or Selig and have a tremendous respect for your vast knowledge and demonstrated commitment. But if I'm rankling the House-mom, it's only because you have something worth talking about in your messages...:-)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By filthyslurve on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 10:58 am:

I have mentioned before as well, briefly, the scandal which surrounded the building of Petco Park in San Diego, resulting in the previous ownership high-tailing it to Boston, disgraced public officials, and a rift between the City, Port, and the Chamber which will resonate for some time. Don't underestimate the fear these deals now strike in the hearts of politicians, even incompetent, venal local barons.

Believe me when I say that this was discussed in the Oregon debate, and was a factor in the ultimately unworkable plan to rely heavily on "user fees".

And I still think a resolution coming soon is affected by the Raiders suit.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 11:47 am:

slurve, I don't believe I'm a patronizing person but if I made you feel that way, I apologize and will try to get off my high horse if that's the impression I caused on you. And btw, I don't really like I'm the house mom because by now I'm quickly approaching being the house grand maman :(

I don't see your last post engaging my points. On the front/"home" page of this site it is boldly pronounced "New Ownership Now!" but we are still seeking a meeting of the minds between ownership and City leaders, are we not?

There is a sequence of events here which I must point out. Our mission statement explains a change in our attitude which came about after Schott's refusal to show interest in the ballpark proposal. On our front page we state:

Since our grassroots group's inception, we have urged owners Steve Schott and Ken Hoffman to make a long-term commitment to Oakland -- either at Network Associates Coliseum or at a new, baseball-only ballpark in Oakland. Doing so would give a much-needed sense of security to the franchise.

Inexplicably, Schott and Hoffman have failed to do either.

Instead, these owners have alienated their fan base at every turn. Through one public relations mistake after another, Schott and Hoffman have succeeded to tear down the strong community ties the Haas family built with Oakland and the East Bay over the years.

Schott's refusal to embrace the City of Oakland is insulting to a great and proud city. Even worse, it's not based on fact.


for the entire mission statement, click on
front page
http://www.oaklandfans.com/

you can also clik on NEW OWNERS NOW which will take you to Jen's column, which will further clarify our most recent stand on the issues.

There is one thing I'd like to differ from what you said :

I do take into consideration (all points made here, BTW) the corner MLB is trying to position Brown in, but I think Brown is remaining focused on his mandate. Jerry Brown is saying, "Who cares?! You guys have a great facility which the public just made a huge investment in!" And public leadership keeps getting burned and sued on these deals.

It is in reality much worse than that. Brown actually agrees with Selig and MLB and feels Oakland should not have a baseball team. He clearly states that in one of a series of emails I exchanged with him (note he asks the question of what those financing options were but when it came time to get an answer, he refured to listen to it when he blocked the presentation to City Council)

What are those financing options? I have never seen them.

The housing project has been going forward for over two years. Out of the
blue, this consultant is hired and picks out five spots, one of which was
uptown. If I am right that the financing is not there, why would you kill
one more time a chance to develop uptown after 25 years of trying?

The polls show clearly that the voters are not going to vote to approve a
large subsidy. Wrapping the ball park into a larger housing project and
adding fixing up of the Fox merely compounds the financial hurdle. The Fox
needs $50 million. Where would the housing go?

If the ball park vote were to be put on the November 2004 ballot, then we
have all that delay, during which the housing project dies.

The key question is: who will pay how much to build the stadium?

The implied question is: will a new ball park get the fans out, given the
turn-out history in Oakland, the Giants in a new stadium 20-25 minutes away
and the city challenged by low incomes and few corporate sponsors?

Hey I like baseball as much as the next guy. I am just trying to do my job
and make common sense decisions.

Jerry Brown

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By filthyslurve on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 12:42 pm:

I don't see where Brown CLEARLY states that he opposes baseball in Oakland, but certainly is asking some valid questions. What he "implies" is there remains a question about the claims that somehow attendance will spike with a new ballpark...something which many here have challenged noting the decline in Camden Yards, Arlington, and Safeco.

The tactical parliamentary high jinx is another matter altogether, but I would offer that him responding to your email does not suggest his ignorance of the facts (let alone crediting polling data). He may be removing a platform for a perceived (formerly employed) opponent? If one were familiar with Brown's style and executive manner he is largely criticized for moving too slowly and listening to every imaginable angle before acting. As Governor he was hammered for this, as any of his (antagonistic) contemporary biographies explain.

Finally, if Brown believed in the concept downtown ballparks lead to successful local economies, I think he would support it (unfortunately, nothing out there proves it and the academic book someone offered on the other thread concludes that). If we are to believe the suggestion that he is in the pocket of developers who like to hand out campaign contributions...heck, developers build lots of stuff, including ballparks. (And if the rumors prove accurate that he is running for state attorney general...developers don't need anyone but local pols, really)

I still don't know how this information takes away from my contention that Brown is falling on his sword for his priorities. And doing so openly without making empty promises or overtures, as many in his place would (stand up, Willie!).

There is a larger argument to be made, perhaps? Even taking into account the cycles of baseball success on the field, if we were to give the Beane Era time and there is a commensurate successful development of downtown Oakland, then very soon (five years?) there could be ideal conditions for a succesful campaign? My idea here is that, "If They come, we can build it." Brown may be laying a foundation for our success later, even inadvertantly?

I have reread the mission statement and Jen's piece and only want to reiterate my support for OAFC and that my offerings here are meant to address comments made in the forum. And 'Lil, I think we all know how emails and short postings can be misinterpreted for tone and intent...which explains my annoying usage of smiley faces. :-)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By filthyslurve on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 12:52 pm:

I also believe the key question remains: "Who will pay how much?" as Brown noted in the email you shared.

If I'm not mistaken, Santa Clara was gonna build the thing for ownership with a minimal contribution from the A's (2/3?) on the Great America parking lot? With the host of corporate promises one would expect! ("Ebay Field"! Ha!) That's never really been on offer here in the East Bay, correct?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By filthyslurve on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 01:13 pm:

I wanted to repost this article 'Lil provided from the scab paper (owned by the "build a new ballpark" villain from the Bouton book, apparently!) the Trib from March '02. I think this frames the debate pretty well, especially what we've been talking about lately on this thread.

I love the comment that professors have their own agenda!!! hahahahahahaha. What would it be? Why isn't it provided?! And by God, those tired priorities of schools, housing and crime! Man, what am I thinking?! And I'm glad the genius mentions the powerhouse Detroit. Motown is leading the charge for urban renewal with Comerica, ain't they?

By way of disclosure perhaps I should mention that Nancy is my city council rep. :-)


Naysayers wrong: New home for A's would improve area


Sunday, March 17, 2002 - THEY ARE marshaling their forces again. They always do whenever it's a new ballpark, whether it's Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Denver or Oakland. They are determined to stop any ballpark effort. Whatever it takes.

Their reasoning always is the same. Schools need to be improved. The crime rate must come down. Housing is a more important priority.

A new ballpark, these armies of pessimists insist, won't improve the economy. They have sheaves of proof supporting that argument from the slide rules of economics professors.

The pessimists argue further that the ongoing sting of the Oakland Raiders' return -- the Coliseum renovation backlash, the potentially costly lawsuit in Sacramento -- makes a ballpark foolish. Who will fund it if Al Davis mugs the city and county for $1.1billion in the state capital?

So the pessimists, including local elected politicians, are unified against a downtown ballpark in Oakland, in a downtown with boarded-up storefronts, empty streets at night, and a look of hopelessness.

These critics haven't alternatives to offer to change this desperate appearance. They haven't plans to present that make more sense than a ballpark centered in the heart of a struggling economy.

Instead they just hold up red flags, build their ranks, make phone calls, send e-mails. They have a collective voice, but their words make no sense. For schools and ballparks, crime and ballparks, they don't compete. Sorry, folks, different financial ballgames.

"There are different funding pots. People never understand that," said Oakland City Council member Dick Spees, a ballpark proponent. "We have a chance to substantially increase tax revenues from various sources: sales tax, transient occupancy tax based on more people coming here (for Oakland A's games), more people staying overnight, spending money in restaurants. This gives us a chance to develop retail downtown.

"By substantially increasing your business investment and tax revenues, this gives you the money to increase the quality of life in Oakland."

The negative nabobs don't have any better answers towards improving the quality of life in Oakland. Thus they complain without foundation. For what other choice is there but a ballpark?

"There isn't any," said Spees. "(A ballpark) will have the greatest impact. Nancy (Nadel, council member) brought up professors' studies (that a ballpark doesn't aid the economy). But professors have their own agendas. If you look at Baltimore, Detroit, Denver and even south of San Francisco, you see the improvement in those cities (following new ballparks) are substantial. Irrefutable."

The nabobs suffer from myopia. They can only see the moment, today, based on what they think they've learned from the past.

"You don't build a city on the issues and problems of today," said Oakland City Manager Robert Bobb. "You build a ballpark for future generations. A ballpark creates jobs. Eighty-one games a year makes baseball different from football."

Yes, but football, i.e., the Raiders, is the main roadblock in the path of a ballpark. A badly devised ticket marketing plan following the Raiders homecoming, plus five years of bad football, has taxed Oakland's citizens, literally. Now Davis, who goes through life unhappily, is eager to rob the pockets of the city and county that took him back when there weren't any other takers, because he said he was promised sellouts upon his return.

And what if he is awarded the $1.1billion he seeks?

"We're not going to lose that suit," Spees predicted. "They can never prove ($1.1billion). Even if we lose the suit, it will be appealed in a second. It's a long fight."

But can a ballpark be built by 2006, the projected goal, with the Raiders' suit hanging over Oakland like a thunder cloud, ready to burst?

"If we don't get a new stadium," Spees warned, "we lose the A's."

There is that possibility though the A's have moved for years without moving. But where would Oakland be without the A's -- who still could be contracted -- after having lost a cool billion to the greedy Davis? The best answer: There better be a ballpark package that makes sense financially.

"Even if we lost the suit, you keep moving forward," said Bobb. "There are many (ballpark) financing schemes we're working on. In 90 days, we'll have a financial package the community can chew on."

The naysayers already have chewed it up and spit it out even without tasting it. That's their lot in life, it seems, to make baseless conclusions.

The plain hard fact is that Oakland's downtown, even with its new high rises, is a house of cards that could topple without a ballpark.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By filthyslurve on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 01:26 pm:

It should be noted that even though schools are a different pot (Mutiny!), Spees is not quoted in the article as addressing the other two annoying problems of housing and crime.

Spees' prediction about the Raider suit also seems to have backfired.

Sales tax is regressive and bad for workers and citizens. I would think those of you out there who identify as conservatives would agree?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 03:13 pm:

Well, I could go on and respond to some of the points you brought up, but I hope others could jump in here and give their two cents.

I have to be away from the computer for awhile so I'll check in later to see if anybody chimed in.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By filthyslurve on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 03:27 pm:

Maybe, 'Lil, everyone would rather complain about the A's uniforms or expand further on how much they hate the Yankees?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By colt45allstar on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 06:43 pm:

I wonder if this is the same "Governer Jerry Brown" That Jello Biafra did not seem to like much in the classic Dead Kennedys track "California Über Alles"...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By eyleenn on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 09:41 pm:

Slurve, you've gone on at length, and maybe I'm just dense, but I have to ask: what's your point?

The OAFC supported potential new owners who were, in essense, rejected when MLB "tabled" the vote on the sale of the A's (the fix was in) in 1999. Seeing that we were stuck with Schott, we focused our efforts on keeping the A's in Oakland, efforts which included closely monitoring Schott's attempts to move the team to his hometown of Santa Clara. The S.C. City Council was not about to support a publicly funded stadium and no financing plan was ever presented. Then they lost trust in Schott when it was discovered that he was talking to folks from Washington, DC about selling the team while he was supposedly trying to work out a deal with them. The Santa Clara plan has been pretty much dead since then.

In the fall of 2001, the OAFC gathered over 16,000 signatures on a petition which was presented to Jerry Brown, asking him to make every effort to keep the A's in Oakland. Many of us attended City Council meetings, wrote emails and letters in support of an extension of the A's lease at the Coliseum. We also supported the city's efforts to develop a stadium plan and testified at city council meetings in support of a new stadium at the "uptown" site. Then Jerry Brown forbade his own development officials from presenting the plan and essentially forced the City Council to vote in favor of the Forest City housing development on the uptown site. Forest City was granted a one-year exclusivity period to negotiate and present a plan for that housing development. Guess what? Over a year has passed, no plan is in sight.

The City Council of Oakland did its part but couldn't overcome the opposition of Jerry Brown. And worst of all, no one from the A's ever attended of the these meetings or expressed a shred of interest in building a ballpark in Oakland. Instead, we heard mutterings about Fremont/Warm Springs.

Then the economy when down the tubes and so did any hopes for a ballpark.

In light of Schott's failure to step up and display any desire to negotiate a plan for a downtown ballpark, and in light of the shenanigans with both Giambi's and Tejada's contract (the latter being the last straw), the OAFC has once again renewed its call for Schott and Hoffman to sell the team to local interests who would at least TRY to work with the city to develop a ballpark. Obviously, we have no power to make this happen, except to keep our members apprised of any developments and give them a FORUM for baseball conversation and discussion of matters both on the field and off.

Everyone is welcome to an opinion as to whether a new ballpark and/or new owners would be a good or bad thing for the A's. Hopefully, you understand the "official" position of the OAFC.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By mutiny on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 12:34 am:

and here i will agree 100% with the OAFC. i have said before and will say again that i think a new ballpark is absolutely essential to the A's future in Oakland. without one, i think they are gone in 10 years or less.

and i think jerry brown is a mayor who has his eyes on a much bigger prize than oakland. i think he cares very little about this city and its redevelopment, except insofar as he can use it for the purposes of self-promotion in his next campaign. i can only hope that in a few years he, schott, and selig are gone and people who actually care about the future of the a's in oakland are in their place.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaktownfan on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 08:38 pm:

Brown wasn't the most popular man at city hall yesterday when a meeting was held about the violence in the city.

People were actually chanting "recall jerry brown!"

I would hope someone like Perata or Bobb was become mayor here but that doesn't seem likely to happen.

I'll cringe if DLF or Nadel becomes mayor.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By eyleenn on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 08:45 pm:

Now that Bobb is living in D.C., I don't think he'll be running for mayor of Oakland.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By filthyslurve on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 06:59 pm:

eyleenn:

Maybe a digest?

1. Jerry Brown, while goofy, has never prioritized professional sports, let alone a new ballpark. Why would anyone expect him to change?

2. The Raiders' suit, the recent scandal in SD, specious claims about a boost to the local economy, and a consensus view that A's ownership is whack...all campaign negatives.

3. Public financing of ballparks, including new taxes, is poor policy and is not in the public interest.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 07:57 pm:

MLB is big business and there's no need or place for corporate welfare. But cities do cater to corporations to stay or come to their cities and many times subsidize and contribute land and making huge tax related concessions and redevelopment money in order to keep them in their cities.

Great metropolitan cities have Museums, Symphony Halls and MLB. All of these are of public interest and should be nurtured and considered as assets enough to find partnership within the corporate and government of the host cities.

It seems to me filthyslurve, that you are much more worried and intent in protecting the mayor's interests and reputation than the city of Oakland or the Oakland A's.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By eyleenn on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 08:39 pm:

slurve, the whole discussion boils down to one's definition of "public interest."

1. If a new ballpark is in the public interest, I would expect Jerry to put aside his natural disdain for athletic pursuits.

2. Granted the Raiders' suit has made public officials very gun-shy, but claims that ballparks don't boost the local economy are, in themselves, specious. Of course, it all depends on which economists one chooses to believe.

3. See Lil's post immediately above.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By mutiny on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 12:07 am:

i happen to think a new ballpark would increase attendance, would strengthen the local economy, and would help to put Oakland on the map as a vibrant cultural center in its own right.

but these things are rather incidental for me. i support a new ballpark, with partial public subsidy and funding, because without it, the a's will not stay in oakland -- without question they will be gone. i support a new ballpark because it is absolutely the only way to insure the A's future in this great city.

so, all of the other effects -- which we can debate all day long -- seem to one side of the issue. if you care about watching the a's in oakland in 10 years, i think a new ballpark has to be on the agenda.

what is the public interest? i agree with lil that museums, symphony halls, and arts centers are in the public interest. and artists in the east bay and SF have been fighting like hell the recent cuts in public funding for the arts. while i recognize that the city has a lot on its plate, i support these artists' efforts. for me, it is the same with a new ballpark.

i go to the voter's booth, ready to give my vote to the guy who 1.) promises a new ballpark in oakland and 2.) promises a traffic light on my incredibly busy street. i think maniac drivers on my street might just injure as many people in oakland this year as the lunatics with guns.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By filthyslurve on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 10:24 am:

'Lil: I can see why you would arrive at the conclusion of my defending Brown, but to be honest I just find him to be a poor target for a campaign simply because of his opposition. I can simultaneously hold interests for my city, my elected representatives, and my baseball club's fellow fans.

eyleenn: I absolutely agree with your conclusion. I think you understate the impact of the Raider suit, however.

mutiny: Your posts are more fun with the colorful adjectives! I don't disagree with the points you've echoed from 'Lil, I would propose that the other civil pursuits or the arts have received far less than the professional sports clubs here, already! And as I've stated before, with 'Lil's MLB/Selig political implications factored, it may be NECESSARY to build a new ballpark to keep the Athletics. But don't you think your neighbors would prioritize that traffic safety?

I'd love to attend a meeting of OAFC, but it appears that one must pay the 15 smacks and get a 'special invitation'? That's always rubbed me the wrong way. I think this forum is an incomplete way to jump headfirst, so perhaps an Open Meeting with the intent of raising membership would help? I assure you that I am much more a loudmouth here than in person...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jenmed on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 10:59 am:

Filthyslurve, I'm not sure what you are talking about in regards to a "special invitation" to any OAFC event. Further, the paid event you are talking about was a fundraiser for the OAFC, not an OAFC meeting, in which we sold tickets + tailgate for far under the value of those tickets. So I am a bit in the dark as to why you think we are being exclusionary.

It is true, we have not had a general membership meeting for a few months, and we are due to have one soon. However, in our defense, we have been working on the arduous process of becoming incorporated and clarifying our tax status, and were planning a membership drive for when that process is complete. That being said, all members of the board are available to talk to potential members at any time, and we are in no way exclusionary. I see no reason to attack this all-volunteer fan organization simply because you disagree with some of what we believe.

Feel free to contact me off-line if you'd like.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By eyleenn on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 11:07 am:

The pizza event we held in early June was open to everyone and about 15 people attended.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By filthyslurve on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 12:20 pm:

jenmed:

Hardly an attack, I promise. But I put Special Invitation in quotes because, well...I was quoting the Membership section from this site. And you are inferring 'exclusionary' inaccurately. I hope my offer to actually pull my end of the rope rather than bitch here is taken with more...uhhhh...welcome?

eyleenn:

How much "direction" is discussed at these pizza events and tailgaters? I think having them is great, I offer un-attackingly...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jenmed on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 01:54 pm:

You posed the question to Eyleen, but I hope she doesn't mind if I respond. At the most recent pizza event, we did indeed discuss the goals and direction of the Coalition at length. The tailgate was not intended to discuss direction . . . it was simply to have some fun with fellow members or people interested in becoming members.

Insofar as your comments not being an attack or saying we are exclusionary. . . come on, now. Simply because we have not had a membership meeting in a few months you inferred that we only allow people to attend meetings who have paid for it or are invited "specially." Perhaps you did not read or post on the site earlier this summer, so did not know that we have periodic membership meetings for anyone who is interested. If you had simply asked the question, this could have been avoided.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By filthyslurve on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 02:49 pm:

jenmed:

No, I'm sorry. If you follow the link "Join OAFC" it specifically states that one sends in $15 and will receive a "special invitation" to a Contributing Members meeting. This is the language found on the site. I would love to attend and participate.

I have a problem with not being given the opportunity (seemingly)to attend first prior to becoming a member, that's all. I have gone to pains to not criticize OAFC, but have responded to specific forum members posts...I have no idea who is a Contributing Member or otherwise. I have no idea how often OAFC has meetings so I couldn't posisbly criticize OAFC for its regularity...errrr, that didn't come out right.

I'll be happy to respect the more experienced activists in the Coalition when I attend. But please, jenmed...when is the next meeting?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jerryo1 on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 03:22 pm:

When following the "Join OAFC" link, this is what you will find:

Become an Oakland A's Fan Coalition Contributory Member for only $10! Here is what you will receive:

An OAFC membership card with your name on it.
A slick OAFC Pin you can wear to the ballpark.
Special invitations to Contributory Members meetings.
A $15 discount at the annual A's Lunch with the Oakland Chamber of Commerce.
Most of all, the satisfaction of knowing that you are a part of the movement to keep the A's in Oakland.


Note that the $15 is a discount from the price charged by the Oakland Chamber of Commerce (not the OAFC).

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By filthyslurve on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 03:51 pm:

My apologies: 10 smacks for a special invitation to a members' meeting.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jerryo1 on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 04:22 pm:

"My apologies: 10 smacks for a special invitation to a members' meeting."

Yeah, that's it, because this website and all of the OAFC projects pay for themselves! Your ten bucks sure does go a long way. What an idiot!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By mutiny on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 05:04 pm:

wow.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jenmed on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 06:13 pm:

filthyslurve:

You have a flaw in your logic. Because the membership link references members-only contributory meetings, you assumed that we never have any other type of meeting. Again, had you asked the question instead of assuming the answer, we would have clarified it for you.

I'm not sure when we will have a general meeting, but be sure it will be posted on the site for anyone whom is interested. However, I am not going to name a date right now simply because you are asking for one. The board needs to discuss it and we will announce it here some time in the near future.

This thread is really becoming tiresome, so please feel free to contact me off-line should you have any further questions. I'm sure this has become a bore for all involved.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 06:56 pm:

The OAFC runs purely on volunteer contributions and we have never shut out anybody from any of our activities or meetings just because they have not became a contributory member.

I don't think anybody should complain that we keep a list of our contributory members and send out an e-mail with announcements and reminders of activities whenever we have an event. THAT is the SPECIAL invitation we mention in our JOIN message.
But you may notice that we always post activities here at this forum and always say non members are welcome.

In the future we hope to add a newsletter and hope to have other events related to building our membership. But newsletters cost money...and money doesn't grow on trees.

May I also remind you that this forum is free and we have no annoying adds and flashing banners...
and may I remind you that cyberspace is no longer free unless it is supported by many sponsors, which we don't have.

So...I think Jen is correct. It is boring and silly in my opinion, but above all it's too bad some people are always ready to criticize no matter what...
why? I have no clue.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By eyleenn on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 09:10 pm:

The forum is free to anyone who wants to read or post, but it is NOT free to maintain.

Some of the most active posters here are NOT contributory members.


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.


 

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