OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: San Jose taking lessons from DC???(article posted)
Fantastic post, mroakland. You're exactly right. You should submit that to the newspapers as a letter to the sports editor. I'd love to see it in the Chronicle tomorrow.
mroakland: very good points, I agree with almost everything you said, which I why I want to the A's to stay in Oakland forever, and why I joined the OAFC. I'm sorry if anyone misinterpreted what I was posting earlier, which is that I just don't think terrorital rights would hold up against a court challenge. That said, if they did, that would be OK with me, b/c it would mean the A's wouldn't go to San Jose
Great post mroakland. You are right on.
Hmmm. And they put a minor league team in SBC? Guess that would give the 49ers a new home, though
Let's be real, Bed Selig would never let the Giants move out of S.F. Not becuase S.F. is such a magnificent city (which I never thought it was), but because it seems like all of baseball is just hypnotized by the overrated SBC Park. SBC is nice but if I want to get a good view of the bay I'll just go to Jack London Square.
NOW NOW!!! I am not a Giants fan at all!!!...but... SF is a gorgeous city and an awesome place. I've been all over the country and seen many big cities and SF is still one of the top 3... no doubt. Does Oakland have all the potential SF has..YES!!!! and a new ballpark will put us in the right direction. We'll be the sane return to normalalcy that SF isnt.
Why don't they just rename the A's "The San Jose Athletics of Oakland" and be done with it?
don't know why there's talk of SJ since Wolfe has ruled it out as has selig.
I agree, SF is a gorgeous city. It will be interesting to see how many fans continue to pay the price of a ticket for that view (which they can get free) after Barroids retires or moves on to the Angels.
Well, everyone has their own opinion, and I respect that to the utmost. But I just think that SF is too overated. Yes, SF has wonderful things about it, but Oakland and the rest of the Bay Area does also, and I think that Oakland's beauty is not showcased enough because everyone seems to be in love with San Francisco.
I think the waterfront from the Bay Bridge to the Golden Gate Bridge is very nice. Also, the views of the Bay and the Marin Headlands. But the enterior of San Francisco a beautiful city? I've stood at 24th & Mission and did a 360 and I didn't see anything particularly beautiful.
Hey, I was born and raised in Oakland, so I know what it is like to live in the shadow of SF. There are some pretty areas in Oakland, but the truth is, unlike SF there aren't as many vantage spots where one can easily view that beauty, as there is in SF. Most of Oakland's "beauty" is up in the hills and around Lake Merritt, and of course near the waterfront. But I wouldn't call the many sites in SF overrated. Do they have crappy areas? Of Course, just as Oakland has and every city has. But from many vantage points .. like it or not ... SF is a beautiful city.
Maybe deajay, but I agree with Mr.Oakland, the media does try to take the nice parts of Oakland and make them seem like there not in Oakland. There is more or Claremont in Oakland, and Piedmont Ave. never enters the "city" of Piedmont. The media has even made some of the residents who live around the Montclair area actually think that they do not live in Oakland.
For years the local SF media covered up many of the murders that took place in the city, particularly under the Willie Brown years.
It's not that SF is beautiful, it's the area in which it exists. SF looks like almost any American city. Except for the fact that it's located in such a beautiful area. Mt. Tam to the north. The Oakland/Berkeley Hills to the east. The pacific to the west. We live in a gorgeous place with wonderful weather. Admittedly SF is not NY with it's collection of skyscrapers or London or Rome or Paris. SF and Oakland are just in a beautiful setting. Even SJ has Mt. Hamilton and the Santa Cruz Mountains.
But I have always thought if not ugly, San Jose is totally blah.
hey! i'm from san jose (well i lived there from 1988-2002) - now i'm in davis - now that's a town that's... blah. san jose is not a bad city, it's just an overgrown suburb. but it's pretty safe, and pretty friendly. still, i think the bay area is probably one of the most beautiful places i have seen where's there's a major city. and there is nowhere like SF! i love that city. problems or not, i'd love to live there one day (if i can afford it)
Teckgraph & Deajay both make good points. Also, Kevin, they're still covering up the homicides. Did you know that SF has already recorded 24 homicides for the year? After the first two months of the year San Francisco was up an incredible 40% ahead of last year's pace. Oakland has recorded 14 so far this year. Have you noticed that the SF media has put away their scorecard? I'm sure they'll bring out again as soon as Oakland has a spike in homicides.
rff, davis is my alma matter! It's a great town, the more you stay there, the more it grows on you. I lived in SF for 2.5 years, it was a good experience, but all the problems wear you down after a while- the traffic, the parking, the parking tickets, the homeless, the stenches, the crampt-ness, the wind chill factor in July & the lack of sun in the summer. Otherwise, it's fun living there, but count your blessings in Davis too!
Bear in mind that the murder stats in SF and Oaktown must be compared in per capita terms. Unfortunately, that makes SF better since it has more than double Oaktown's pop.
The 2000 Census sez SF's population is 776,733. The same Census has Oakland at 399,484. The per capta murder rate is higher in Oakland, but not by much.
totally jeffreyb, it's racism if you ask me. remember how during the Texas chair throwing incident they blamed the fans. do you think they would have blamed the cheese eaters in SF? heck no. I will say this, after living in the sterile south bay for a year, i've found that oakland and SF are a helluva lot more like eachother than people admit. major difference to me is that the town's got better weather, is more accessible, less pretentious. SF is more scenic and touristy...can't front on that one.
Here's a huge intangible Oakland has: The middle class that lives here has to consciously be willing to see thru the misperceptions of Oakland. Thus you get a population that welcomes diversity, and is just more INTERESTING than almost any place on the planet.
It's not racism it's city-ism! SF has plenty of racial diversity itself.
It's the fact that San Francisco comprises roughly 11% of the total population of the Bay Area. Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, have well over 50% of the population of their regions.
Questions? Comments? Corrections? Please contact email@example.com.