Oakland voters don't seem to care
OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: Oakland voters don't seem to care
| By eyleenn on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 01:38 pm:|
According to Matier & Ross in the Chron today:
Oakland A's ballpark boosters aren't getting a lot of cheers from the city's voters.
According to a recent poll of 400 Oakland voters, a whopping 62 percent said building a new home for the team wasn't important to them at all.
Only 37 percent felt a new home for the A's was a priority for the city - - ranking it well below:
-- Keeping libraries open (98 percent).
-- Maintaining parks (96 percent).
-- Attracting new business to Oakland (95 percent).
Not good news for ballpark backers, when you consider that the voters will need to approve any bonds to pay for a stadium deal.
But City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente, who has been working to keep the A's in Oakland, didn't appear concerned.
"The fact is, the A's have a lease until 2007 ... so there is no need to hurry," De La Fuente said.
"I know there are some people out there who are really pushing for a new ballpark, but when you are overeager you don't always get the best deal."
The current A's owners have been making noises about a new ballpark for years, either in Oakland or elsewhere. Los Angeles developer Lew Wolff, who is in the process of buying the team, has been meeting with De La Fuente, but so far the subject of a stadium hasn't come up.
"He's still busy with the transfer of ownership, which hasn't happened yet. After that we'll talk,'' De La Fuente said.
As for the poll's underwhelming show of public support for a new ballpark, he said, "Look, it's our responsibility to explore all the possibilities -- we can't just say, 'A's leave.' "
The poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points, was done by Godbe Research and Analysis and paid for by Oakland developer and former Port Commissioner Phil Tagami.
Tagami, who is redeveloping the downtown Fox Theater, commissioned the poll to gauge public support for the city's cultural and recreational centers.
| By deajay on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 02:53 pm:|
What? Is that poll a surprise? Frankly, I'm surprised 37% felt a new A's home a priority. I think the voters' response is no surprise to any one. And it's probably little different from what just about any city's response (in CA, anyway) would be. It probably would have been worse in SF (if it had been necessary).
| By kevink on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 03:14 pm:|
This is not a surprise at all.
Most people don't want their taxes raised for anything, let alone something non-essential. I think SF voted down a stadium proposal for the Giants 2 or 3 times before SBC came along with private funding. Then you have to look at how many fans actually come from Oakland, and how many from the surrounding cities. Then you also have to look at how the question is worded.
You could say:
Would you be in favor of a ballpark with public funding if it meant closing some libraries and letting the parks go?
Of course everyone says no to this.
Or you could just say:
How much would you add to local taxes to keep the A's?
Then you'd have lots of responses that would indicate people are in favor of a ballpark.
So there are a lot of issues here, and the M&R poll is really not very relevant.
| By nickb on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 05:03 pm:|
What is relevant is this ... Wolff has gone on record indicating that he's good for no more than $100M of a potential $400M stadium in the lot. So it makes sense that he'd be asking for a contribution from the public and/or private sector for close to $300M. Even if you get naming rights, charter seats, etc. you're still looking at a minimum of $200M from the public sector. What the survey indicates is what we all know the truth to be: no bay area city will fork over this kind of dough in the form of tax increases - especially Oakland post-raider debacle. Since Wolff is looking to maximize his returns and minimize his outlay, I'm of the opinion that he'll shop his team to the city that forks over the most freebies for a new ballpark. Vegas anyone?
| By sactodavey on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 05:49 pm:|
nickb said it all good night now!!!!!
hello vegas A's
| By tekgraf on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 06:37 pm:|
Gawd! Why do you guys jump to the negative conclusion? You have to be positive. POSITIVE!
They will be here long after 2007. Remember they were gone in 1980? Or did you all forget that? Just be patient, and hopeful and stop with the negative attitude!
| By kevink on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 07:53 pm:|
tekgraf said it all good night sacto!!!!!!!
| By sactodavey on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 08:17 pm:|
Kevink 200 million for Oakland to give the stadium issue no you'll be cryin when our A's do leave and if this big bad wolff does move them and i beleive he bought them to do just that then it is good night now.
no way in hell is the city goin to foot 200 million and this is what they will need to do to keep the A's.
the only way sf got a new stadium was with ownership financing ain't gonna happen here buddy!!!!!!!!!!
Now playin first for your Las Vegas A's is.......
| By deajay on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 09:27 pm:|
Yeh, good nite to sacto and all the other naysayers. You're just bringing up all the crap ... LV, etc., etc., which has already been beaten to death, regurgitated and discussed all over again. Nothing is that simple. And speaking of simple, do you really think the County honchos aren't aware of this? Do you really think DeLaFuente was not aware of this? Why do you think a committee is being formed ... and, yes ... you can bet it is for coming up with alternative financing ideas. The Chron article merely rehashes all the stuff already thrown out there, so why the panic now? It's no different than it was three weeks ago. Really, sacto, do some research on this ... it's not any further away than old threads, including any number of urls to a myriad of articles. If this team moves, I'm saying right now, it ain't going to be to Las Vegas ... for all reasons previously outlined. I'm not saying anymore on the subject ... especially in response to knee-jerk reactions on a recently (re-hashed) article.
One thing I will say, LV couldn't even draw for their minor league team. With all the problems mlb has had and is having, do you really think they will embrace the gambling/mafia mecca of the US as a home for a mlb team? I know what my response is to that. And that's without getting into the fact they rank 51st in the TV market, while Portland is 24th. So, sacto, spew all your negativity on the topic, I, for one, am not interested in hearing it, nor reading the same 'ol, same 'ol over and over again. I'm ready for some baseball without all this crap as window dressing.
deajay said it all now, ADIOS!!!
But yea I would have to agree with deajay. Nickb and Sactodavey seem as if they didn't read any of the articles 3 or 4 years ago when that other dude Robert Bob was city manager and there was all this hype about an uptown ballpark. Remember, around that time they surveyed taxpayers and the results came out the same. So why are people making such a big deal out of something that has been out there for more than 3 years? De La Fuente is very serious about this and he is gonna make this happen. So why don't we end the trend here, let's stop filling these forums with negativity in March as people seem to do every year. Let's be secure with the fact that the A's probably will have a better year in attendance than ever. As far as i'm concerned, we might just stay in the Coliseum forever. Then, Oakland could be unique, we could have the only baseball/football stadium in the country!!!!!
And another thing, how can anyone start trippin off of 400 voters? It's more than 400 people in some Oakland apartment buildings. This city has 409,000 people, so until all of the taxpayers of the city are surveyed, that survey from the Chron is totally irrelevant.
| By simplefan on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 08:45 am:|
So how many of you live in Oakland? How many of you are registerd voters and actually vote in Oakland?
I live in Oakland, am a registered voter and vote frequently.
When you bring up the subject of taxes and sports, most people growl and give you a one word response "RAIDERS".
Thanks to the mess that the Raiders and Warriors pulled on renovations and relocating a team, its no wonder why the voters don't want higher taxes for another sports team.
400 people surveyed does not cover the whole population of Oakland and I am sure if everyone in Oakland was polled it would be a mixed response. Oakland is attracting new business... alas across from the Coliseum as well as the airport and soon to be at Jack London Square.
It would make sense for the A's to rebuild their home in Oakland as things continue to progress... more business... more money... more people... more entertainment for the people...
If you live in Oakland and are registered, please do your part and VOTE!!!
I agree with the majority here... Stay positive!! It's too soon to tell what will happen, but sheesh.. no need to feed into the negative!
Hey, 37 percent is huge when you consider all the negative press the A's get.
I cant believe its that high. Think about it. The A's are constantly being bashed in the media and the A's ownership has been terrible as far PR. Can you imagine if the A's went on a public relations blitz to forward the cause? Assuming the poll is accurate, all the A's would have to do is shift opinion 14% to get a majority.
Also, how about the county. Don't you think it is more viable for the county to pay for the stadium. I dont live in Oakland but I live in Alameda County and I would support the ballpark.
| By eyleenn on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 01:16 pm:|
I saw a piece on KTVU the other night about the groundbreaking for another new housing project, per Jerry Brown's blueprint. A local resident was interviewed about the improvements in the neighborhood. He was wearing a freaking gnats cap...
Now batting for the Las Vegas Bling...
jk... they'll stay in OAK... SACTOWN is the only other place I could live with.
| By kevink on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 04:37 pm:|
Go see the Rivercats then!
| By oakland_j on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 05:40 pm:|
37% is a lot considering that many people feel it is a PRIORITY for the city. C'mon, of course the support for it is going to be lower than for something like "keeping libraries open." Is that a shock? It didn't say that 62% were AGAINST a ballpark. As was mentioned, who even knows how they worded the question. I'm sure if the poller mentioned a new ballpark would be a component of a major redevelopment project that a much larger number would have voiced their support for it.
eyleenn, unfortunately there are a lot more of those kind than there should be. Nothing worse than a Gnats fan from Oakland.