De La Fuente talks to Art Spander
OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: De La Fuente talks to Art Spander
| By chris_d on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 08:23 pm:|
"I have met with Wolff five times," De La Fuente said. "We have talked about a site other than the Coliseum parking lot, a site that would be more beneficial, a ballpark and housing, a development that would revitalize Oakland, generate revenue. That is the only way."
"These are more facts: ....the A's outdrew 11 other major league teams, including three, Milwaukee, Detroit and Cleveland, with retro-ballparks; the A's pulled in 2.2 million fans, finishing only 117,000 behind the New York Mets.
Move to Las Vegas, the 51st TV market, when the A's are part of a market tied for fifth with the Boston area? Move to Portland, the 24th TV market? Not a chance"
| By oakland_j on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 10:13 pm:|
Any idea where this 'other' site is?
they still haven't started work on the Forest City development by the Fox Theater
| By tekgraf on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 05:32 pm:|
Perhaps they are reconsidering the forrest city project. Maybe including Mr. Wolff? And also a new park for the A's?
I think that area is large enough to include the ball park, residential and retail. This would be a big fat shot in the arm for all three; Oakland, Lew Wolff and the A's.
I think it is a site on the waterfront...but like I said, they are being very hush-hush about it.
However, I'm glad DLF saw the benefit of coming public about their ongoing discussions. I don't see why they should take criticism from the media when in reality the city officials and several civic/corporate leaders have been very active and proactive in getting things done in Oakland.
What really bothers me is the lazy work done by the media. They don't do their howmeword but are always ready to be negative i.e. Monte Poole stating the A's owners have met with silence by the Oakland officials re the ballpark issue.
It's hard to keep the hope alive when the very people who should be our eyes and ears keep us in the dark about what is so important when the time comes for our support and our wallets to represent.
Are they keeping it hush hush to keep sellers (if any) from pushing prices up?
Nice talk. The only problem with nice talk, alternative sites, and the like is that the big issue is NOT addressed. Who is going to pay for it? The City? Lew Wolff? Ignacio? Aunt Harriet? Show me the money, baby. No money - no ballpark in Oakland.
No, I think the talking is exactly over financing
and they can't talk financing without comparing costs of the site options they have.
So having alternate sites is important when funding is in question. They have environmental issues, redevelopment issues, land appropriation etc... and you know what they say when you look for a property where you plan to build a house...
location...location...location makes a hell of difference in the budgeting for construction.
I just hope that somebody who is doing the talking has a checkbook and a pen handy.