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

New ballpark guy hired by A's has San Jose connections

OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: New ballpark guy hired by A's has San Jose connections

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By kevink on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 10:34 pm:

ey- Harmon is the (silent) majority owner of the Giants. MacGowan is the "face" of the ownership and Burns is the money.
Not related to Montgomery as far as I know but I'd also rather hang out with Montgomery, and that's about all I can say about that....

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By eyleenn on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 10:51 pm:

Thanks, Kevin, I didn't know about Burns.

Magowan has the good looks and social connections that make him the ideal "face" of the ownership, esp. in EssEff.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By mutiny on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 12:12 am:

all i am saying is that the property tax system in this state is like none other i have heard of. there are people living in the berkeley hills, sitting on homes worth nearly a million dollars and pay next to nothing in property taxes. my aunt lives on 3 acres in sebastaphol and pays about $2000 per year. that is what you get when you let votes vote on their own tax laws.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By kevink on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 08:43 am:

I would hope we could vote on every tax law that effects us.
Do you think the people running our state have a better idea of what to do with our money then we do?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By eyleenn on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 11:49 am:

I understand the need for taxes to fund social services, but if property taxes had been going up every year the way they were pre-1978, I wouldn't be able to afford my house.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By rickeytonydwayn on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 11:57 am:

San Francisco-Population 775,000
Homicides 2003----40

San Jose-Population 895,000
Homicides--First Half of 2003---13

Sacramento--Population 407,018
Homicides---47 all of 2002

New York City---Pop 18million
580 Homicides ---2002

Oakland---Pop 400,000
Homicides-58 2003

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By mutiny on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 12:19 pm:

"I would hope we could vote on every tax law that effects us."

that is precisely why this state is broke. you don't vote on your tax law, you vote on representatives who will themselves creat tax law. if you don't like it, vote them out.

do i think sac-town knows what to do with my money? no. but do i like the fact that cities in california can't afford basic school supplies? no. yeah, maybe they were rising too dramatically pre-1978, but the situation we are in now is dire. i just think californians have no sense of what normal property taxes are, what amount is required to operate a state and to maintain social services. talk to your friends who own houses in new jersey, connecticut, massachusetts, maryland, etc.. the ones who live outside new york, boston, dc, etc.. where the population numbers require great public expenditure. for the ones who own houses worth about what yours is worth -- and i bet they are paying way more in taxes. that would be excusable if we were living in the boonies or our cities weren't as populated, but they are...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By kevink on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 09:18 pm:

"that is precisely why this state is broke."

That's what the politicians want you to think. The representatives failed to do their job. That is the reason we are in this mess.
Property taxes and money for schools are NOT the same thing. You have fallen for their tricks! A typical politician will justify raising a tax (like the property tax) to "save the children". The problem is, there was ALREADY money supposedly paying for our schools! The politicians mishandled it and used it for some other "program" that probably failed miserably, and now they want us to pay even more to get the basics. These endless tax hikes have never worked and won't work.

As far as the property taxes, why should CA be raised to the level of Connecticut, etc.? Those states' property taxes are way too high.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By damayor on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 08:28 am:

The major reason that cities are so poor now can be laid at the door of Prop. 13. Jarvis/Gann was designed to help the common man and women, homeowners basically who were seeing their property taxes jump at alarming rates. The idea was to try to cap property rates and allow homeowners to keep more of their money. The problem was that Prop 13 was NEVER supposed to apply to large buildings that also pay taxes.
Look out over the SF skyline and you'll see nothing but large buildings that have used prop. 13 to reduce their taxes. With large buildings popping up left and right throughout all of California, consider how much in tax revenue the state is missing out on.
What needs to happen is that an amendment to Prop. 13 needs to be proposed that will specify a specific size limit and structure type such as a RESIDENTIAL dwelling of say 30,000 square feet. This is a prime example of large loophole in an imperfect piece of legislation that nobody foresaw. of course lobbyist will fight such a change tooth and nail, and the public will be lied to and scared into not supporting such an ammendment, but something needs to happen.
Yes, property taxes were/are too high, but the wrong people are taking advantage of a vehicle that wasn't intended for them. Stop this, and the state can start to recover enough revenue that will make a difference.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By rocket on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 10:11 am:

Baseball Propspectus with an article on the potential new ballparks, which includes the A's


http://premium.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2458

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By okplayer on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 03:14 pm:

Okay, since this is a free forum, what about a park in the Bencia/Vallejo area? Still 15-20 minutes from Oakland/Berkely, plus you get the Sacremento fan base?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jesse on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 05:09 pm:

How possible would that be. I mean, would we have to do a land swap with Alameda County. We could build it on Mare Island.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaktownfan on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 06:00 pm:

If the A's move out of Oakland, and into one of these suburbs of the Bay Area, what the hell are they going to be called?!

Fremont A's?
Pleasenton A's?
Dublin A's?

Give me a break!

The only city that has even any national recognition is SJ and I don't see them building a park anytime soon, especially after the dot com bust.

The other cities, would they be willing to have the A's play in their city but still be called the Oakland A's? I can't see a mlb team having their city name being some suburb with a population of less than the usual 100k that these communities are.

This is not like Green Bay in the NFL where they have tradition backing them.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By mutiny on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 06:11 pm:

being from new jersey, i wish people would get it right and refer to them as the new jersey giants. but new york won't have it.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By eyleenn on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 11:01 pm:

The Golden State A's?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jesse on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 07:39 pm:

If the A's played in Fremont I beleive they will still be the Oakland A's. Because they would still be in Alameda County. Am I right? Don't the cities do land swaps or something like that. There are plenty of Professional teams that dont play within the city limits of the team they represent. The Lions played in Pontiac, MI. The Giants and Jets of course. The Rams played in Anaheim for years! There is no way in Hell any owner would call a team the Fremont A's. I don't even think MLB would allow it.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By rickeytonydwayn on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 07:59 pm:

The Golden State moniker would probably jinx the A's but I do kind of like it. The California Athletics doesnt sound too bad either.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By tekgraf on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 11:38 pm:

Good gawd, people. Let's stay focus and hope like hell the A's remain in Oakland.

The Rangers play in arlington and Brewers play somewhere out in the 'burbs. I don't want the A's to play in some rinky dink town.

Baseball should only be played out doors and in an inner city neiborhood, i.e., cubs, white sox, orioles, cardinals, etc, etc, etc.

Apologies to those who live in Fremont.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 10:47 am:

Good gawd, people. Let's stay focus and hope like hell the A's remain in Oakland.


tekgraf, you said it man !!!!!!!

I really have a hard time being gracious with people who don't seem to understand and respect the fact that the OAFC and this website is a community of Oakland A's fans who volunteers their time and recourses with and for the objective of keeping the team in OAKLAND!!!!

I would really like the people who want to lobby to relocate the team elsewhere, either because they think Oakland sucks...or is f!@##=up... or would like to walk to the ballpark from their South Bay dwelling...create their own cyber space for that purpose.

Otherwise, we do have a portion of this forum which is for A's baseball talk, and anybody is welcome to post their opinions on that section. But lobbying for relocation of this team here on this site is not open to discussion. So just be content with the fact that Schott and Selig are on your side and let us go own with our mission which is to keep the A's in Oakland.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By rono on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 02:11 pm:

Amen

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By tekgraf on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 03:19 pm:

Diamond lil, I never thought you would use those words. Wow!

Despite what the local and nat'l media have to say, Oakland is far nicer than what they have to say or write.

Sure, Oakland has it's unfair share of problems, but no more than SF or SJ. Oakland has a lot more personality than SJ could ever have. Oakland has some of the prettiest neighborhoods in the bay area. Some of which you would swear you were hundreds of miles away.

And despite jesse's comments, I think Oakland is far nicer than other cities around. jesse, perhapes you should stop playing the victim and get on with your life. I'd rather my tax dollars go to build a great stadium that will be here long after you or I or this web site disappears from this planet.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By damayor on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 08:07 am:

Hope everyone had a blessed Thanksgiving. I know I did. I'm planning my vacation this year to take me through Kansas City, St. Louis and Chicago. K.C. so I can visit the Negro League Baseball Museum, then take in the A's agaianst the Cards and Cubbies. I was disappointed when baseball had the Cubs go to Seattle as their inter-league game instead of Oakland, so I've got to go there. Anyone else planning to go on the road?
OK Brainiacs, I issued a challenge for some enterprising civic minded soul to come up with ideas on financing a ballpark for Oakland, one that would provide Oakland's part in the process and have little or no impact on the general fund, anyone have any ideas? If not, I'll tell ya later how it can be done. Or, if you have specific questions about specific concerns (kevink?)I can address them. If you want to be critical with your question, that's ok, I asked the same thing of Robert Bobb when I told him how it could be done, but he was a do nothing more interested in how he looked then what he could have accomplished. If you want to as me lengthy questions, you can e-mail me at lj7615@camail.sbc.com

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jesse on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 05:42 pm:

So, why dont you just tell us what the City can do right here?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jeffreyb on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 08:09 am:

he has. in extensive detail. read the archives.

let's just say, truthfully, that the City of Oakland is spending way more money than any ballpark proposal would have entailed to subsidize a private apartment complex development on what would have been a great site.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By eyleenn on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 03:08 pm:

Jeff! How the hell are you?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jeffreyb on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 05:00 pm:

Doing great. Just went in with someone on some season tix.

i'm still picking nits, and tilting at windmills. here's my today correspondence with the 'journalist' on the A's web site:

> From: Jeffrey Berchenko
> To: Kent.Schacht@mlb.com
> Sent: 12/10/2003 6:24 PM
> Subject: Oakland A's coverage
>
> your byline says the MLB doesn't approve your copy...but your
> phraseology is pure Bud Selig!
>
> Check your facts. The SF Bay Area is 1) a unified media market; and 2)
> the fourth or fifth largest in the country.
>
> The A's are a big market club. They chose to spend small.
From: "Schacht, Kent"
To: "'Jeffrey Berchenko '"
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 3:39 PM
Subject: RE: Oakland A's coverage


> Jeffrey-
>
> Thanks for reading. Surely an educated fan like you knows that market size
> does not correspond directly with the number of people in a market.
>
> The Giants are a big market club because of media revenues and stadium
> revenues.
>
> The A's receive some of the lowest revenues in the league in these
> categories, making them a small market club.
>
> Seattle (a smaller market than the Bay Area) is a big market club for
> similar reasons.
>
> I am not an apologist for the A's, I just state the facts. I'm sorry you
> don't believe that to be the case.
>
> -Kent

From: "Jeffrey Berchenko"
To: "Schacht, Kent"
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: Oakland A's coverage


> Facts? you are being very loose with your terminology sir.
>
> >market size does not correspond directly with the number of people in a
> market.
>
> I know no such thing. In fact, any ad/media buyer for a large ad agency
> will tell you that you have pretty much nailed the definition of market
> size. Market means amount of potential customers - nothing more, and
> nothing less. Revenue is an entirely different concept.
>
> If you were to write that the A's are not a large revenue team, I would not
> be able to quarrel with you. Yes, the Giants have more revenue. But they
> play in the same market. The Giants broadcast from, and are owned partially
> by, an Oakland based TV station, KTVU.
>
> You are not stating the facts. You are re-defining the phrase "market"
> totally outside of its honest meaning. But you have lots of company at MLB,
> the mafia outfit you shill for.
>
> That last remark was an opinion. Facts are things like dictionary
> definitions.
>
> Thanx for writing.
>
> -Jeffrey

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jeffreyb on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 05:22 pm:

More:
From: "Schacht, Kent"
To: "'Jeffrey Berchenko '"
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 4:12 PM
Subject: RE: Oakland A's coverage


> Jeffrey-
>
> I write about baseball, not ad buys, so when I refer to a team as small
> market/big market, i use the standard, accepted baseball-related
definition.
>
>
> You are obviously not be a baseball fan and must be familiar with the way
> clubs are defined large and small market, I apologize for confusing you.
>
> Do you think when newspapers not in the MLB "mafia" refer to the A's as a
> small-market club, they are also shills?
>
> -Kent

From: "Jeffrey Berchenko"
To: "Schacht, Kent"
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: Oakland A's coverage


> i think newspapers try a little harder to use common meanings of words, than
> do paid employees of MLB. They fail sometimes.
>
> "accepted" is a funny way of saying that sometimes an entire crowd will let
> an emperor walk by them without clothes, and it takes a child to say, "what
> the fuck?"
>
> -Jeffrey

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By eyleenn on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 05:24 pm:

"mafia outfit" -- comparing the MLB cartel with the mafia is insulting to mafiosos!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By kevink on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 07:29 pm:

jeffery, classic!!!!!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By chrishorvath on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 01:20 am:

Jeffery B for mayor of Oakland!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By goldtymer on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 07:36 am:

Jeffery has stones.

I imagine Kent shudders when he hears "You've got mail!"

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jesse on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 10:37 am:

As we watch these signings take place now 9 years after the Haas family departed due to overwhelming debt, a new stadium seems more important now than ever. I can't watch the A's rebuild again in a football park, I'm just not that hard core. And as we watch the A's draw just over 2 million a year for a team that averages 95 wins, I wonder who else is that hard core. 1 million maybe, and oh, whats going to be in effect in 2007. Contraction? Thats right!

Oakland better figure out a feasible way to build a park soon, or who can blame the A's for looking at San Jose. Or, the MLB for contraction. How much longer should the haves be expected to subsidize the have nots. Or at least the have nots with no clear and present plan for becoming one of the haves.

I garuntee you, San Francisco, San Diego, NY (both teams), and any other team with a new ball park or 2.5 mil plus in their parks will be all for contraction of a team that can't hold its own.

Ultimately if it comes down to San Jose or contraction, which are you going to want? I'll take San Jose. Hopefully a feasible Oakland plan can be implemented, but I doubt it.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By chris_d on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 11:09 am:

Jesse, please don't believe the hype.

Me personally? I would love a new ballpark in downtown Oakland -- because a new ballpark should help the city just as much as it helps the team. And there's a good chance a new Oakland ballpark would do that.

But as for new ballparks automatically bringing a rise in revenue and wins ... well, ask Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Detroit and Cincinnati about that one. Free agents have left town at even the big successes like Baltimore (Mussina) and Cleveland (Thome, Ramirez) and San Francisco (Kent, Burks).

Also, what's to stop Schott from taking all that extra revenue from a new park and then pocketing the profit for himself while making new unsubstantiated claims of poverty (a la Selig in Milwaukee this year)? Or then selling the team to highest bidding carpet bagger (a la Jacobs in Cleveland)? So, yes, a new ballpark would be nice. But not as nice as new ownership. THAT is what is really needed here. Good ownership makes it work anywhere, even with today's disparities.

Who says San Jose or contraction are the only options here? That's exactly the kind of panic that scumbags like Selig/Schott want us to engage in. It can work in Oakland, it has worked in Oakland. We just need to keep going to the ballpark. We just need to outlast Selig/Schott.

The A's drew over 2.2 million (quite a bit more than "just over 2 million") this year. It was the 5th season in a row there was an increase in attendance. And actually that figure is quite good, when you take into account that there are rumors each and every year about the team being sold, moved or both, the owners do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to connect with the community (an important thing to do in the Bay Area, as explained in the Rebels of Oakland documentary this week), and even had the owner telling fans two weeks before the season this year that their best and favorite player, Tejada, would not be returning.

Lastly, I think Schott/Selig very cynically are tying a new ballpark to free agents. "If only we had a new ballpark, we could have kept Tejada." Well, we know that is not true. They had at least $5 million per year to offer Foulke. They had at least $5 per year to offer Cameron at the same time. That adds up to at least about $10 million in free coin. Make no mistake, the money is there. Tejada's desire to stay is there. But the owners' will isn't there. Why exactly?

(As an aside, the 49ers might do the same thing this year. "Ooops, no money for Owens or Peterson. Tired of being 7-9, Niner Fans? Ready to help us pay for that new stadium yet so we can really compete?" I'm not talking trash, just drawing parallels here.)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By eyleenn on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 12:42 pm:

Jesse, how can you say that the A's are a team that "can't hold their own"? The A's were in the middle of the pack in attendance last season, have made the playoffs 4 years in a row with a low-end payroll, and the owners have made a profit every year. How many other teams can say that? How does that qualify as "not holding their own"?

If you "can't stomach" watching the A's rebuild in a "football stadium," you could just stay away.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jesse on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 12:43 pm:

Trust me, I don't believe the hype. I am aware of the issues that you raise. But, we have to understand that the trap that has been set. They must get a new stadium to avoid this trap, primarily contraction or relocation to Oregon or Washington. You may not beleive the hype, but the people who count believe it. Trust me!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jesse on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 12:46 pm:

Eyeleen, I was talking about 3 years from now after the attendance dwindles and free agency has stripped the A's down.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jeffreyb on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 10:51 pm:

well, sorry pal, i'm not going to trust you on this! The whole world can now see more clearly what happens to cities like Milwalkee when they believe the cartel's blackmail b.s.


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


 

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