"High-stakes coliseum funding game in final innings"
OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: "High-stakes coliseum funding game in final innings"
| By deajay on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 03:18 pm:|
Interesting article. Also notice the little tidbit that the $100mil to come from the A's, is pretty much Hofmann's money. No surprise.
| By chris_d on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 03:42 pm:|
Thanks for posting that, deajay.
| By tekgraf on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 01:14 am:|
Good article. Although, I'm not sure if SJ is dangling a stadium in front of the A's. It seems to me that SJ is having financial problems just like Oakland and every other major city in Cal.
With all the new development going on in that area now, it would seem to be the better idea at the moment. I'm only concerned that the A's remain here in Oakland and not relocated anywhere else.
Maybe Wolff will build a hotel up here near the airport or coliseum.
| By simplefan on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 09:19 am:|
I hope that the Jack London renivation project along with the new retail side show on Hegenberger helps get the ball rolling!
| By diamond_lil on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 09:26 am:|
The $100 million from the A's is principally coming from Hoffman, the aged developer who sees the new ballpark as part of his legacy
Happy Thanksgiving to you Mr. Hofmann!
| By deajay on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 11:08 am:|
Yup, it's a shame that Brown still has two more years on his term as mayor. We're seeing what a difference it makes when you have a mayor who sees the light with re to what a major league franchise can mean to a community and then his willingness to be innovative. Unfortunately, Oakland has a mayor who has difficulty spelling "baseball" and knows and cares less about it.
| By ssblip on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 09:26 pm:|
"What a major league franchise can mean to a community" is solely dependent on who pays for it. I've seen studies that show that in most cases where the public has paid for the stadium, as Bud would prefer, the city and its people see no economic benefit as a result. And of course MLB is fat and happy in the end, so what do they care.
OTOH, SF is a great example of what can be done with private money, and its ripple effect throughout a neighborhood.
Up in Portland, I'm proud to say that we haven't been able to find a way to publicly finance a stadium. Thank goodness.
| By deajay on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 10:19 pm:|
What? You think there is even a consideration the community will pay for it? Not hardly. And less so in this state. Creative financing would be required; the public simply isn't going to pay.
| By ssblip on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 12:43 pm:|
Agreed! The community won't pay for it.
My point isn't about who would, someday, pay for it, but rather who I think should. The owner should.
| By deajay on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 02:57 pm:|
No argument from me on the owner should pay. But it is a rare occasion when it happens. In the meantime, other municipalities/franchises seem able to do some creative financing with ticket and player taxes,etc. It's going to have to be something like that. Surely not easy, but it can be done.
And it's not like the A's don't give back to the community; we all know they do ... and perhaps more so than any of the other Bay Area sports franchises. But, hey, I'm sure that the illustrious mayor of Oakland hasn't noticed that enough to try working with the club to keep it here. Truth is, Brown is a politician and really has no ties to the city of Oakland, other than that is presently where he is trying to further his career.
| By oaktownfan on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 04:34 pm:|
As a taxpayer from city of Oakland and county of Alameda, I would have no problem paying a small tax on certain purchases, if it meant the A's would get a new park in the downtown/waterfront area of Oakland.
Come on, what's an extra nickel or dime on a beer or cigarette, even though I don't do either. Hell, they could tax soda for all I care and I wouldn't bitch about it.
The Cowboys of the NFL are doing that, taxing those kinds of purchases. Why can't the city of Oakland do such a thing. If the A's leave because some don't want to shell out a few extra dollars or so, then the city doesn't deserve the A's. You're not going to see any replica of SBC and how the owners there built the park. The rest of the MLB owners don't want to see that happen making the other owners look bad.
As you should know it's not about if the city of Oakland wants to keep the team. Of course Oakland loves it's A's. You need to understand that Oakland is not the richest of all cities. Besides districts like Montclair, Claremont, Piedmont, and the hills neighborhoods I wouldn't really say that Oakland could pay for a new stadium that way. To many of Oakland citizens every penny counts and I don't think many would agree with taxing on things like you mentioned. Something like this may work in a city like Beverly Hills but Oakland clearly doesn't have 90210 in it's zip codes.
| By washfan on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 01:37 am:|
Hell I say put an extra dime on that Schlitz "Fohty"!