For yours and the City’s benefit – with appreciation; Prologue @

http://forums.insidebayarea.com/topic/a-real-plan-b-for-as-in-fremont

We invite and encourage Boca to indicate why we should expect the A’s to be any better a “neighbor” than they have been in Oakland. Specifically – why would we expect that areas in and around the proposed ballpark would not, in time, begin to exhibit qualities found in the A’s current home ?

I invite and encourage Boca to offer thoughts as to why Fremont should not imagine that the A’s will be looking for another real estate development opportunity 5 or 10 years from now and who will be holding the bag on the Fremont stadium remediation at that time ?

All just part of an open and tranparent discussion as you suggest !

Your inuendo that those with a contrary position to yours somehow seek to stifle discussion is not substantiated anywhere in your accusation – and is typical of the other anecdotes tossed about by pro-A’s factions in an attempt to discredit those who express concern about our community.

You might be surprised who in the planning field (and City) do think that this is a very reasonable idea that should be discussed and analyzed. In fact, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exploring reasonable alternatives is required.

As for the “crazy” part; I think the discussion above and over at the New A’s Ballpark Blog prove that people have for the most part not reacted that way. Rather it has been a long overdue discussion of the trade-offs of three alternative locations – two of which connect with BART.

As for my being “too self absorbed” – I am absorbed in promoting a public participatory process for the people of Fremont on such an important issue for the future of Fremont.

Unfortunately, the tone and tenor of your post above is all to reflective of the top management within the City which is not committed to a transparent public process.

Again, let the people of Fremont decide if and where they want the A’s and a Ballpark Village. Frankly, I think they’re now beginning to have the discussion that they deserve and will be better informed on the important trade-offs on the big issues facing Fremont – like whether they want a CBD and where the next forty thousand people over the next twenty years are going to go.

The attempt to stifle discussion on this process of siting the A’s is no different than the previous and ongoing attempts by city management to stifle a transparent process on the Centerville site, Capital Avenue plan – and/or obfuscating the loss and importance of industrial lands in Pacific Commons.

I just can’t resist the temptation to remind everyone that City residents had the opportunity to have a mayor who posesses the skills and experience that we need in these circumstances and the voting public chose not to re-elect him. Now we’re reduced to reading his comments on this blog, rather than hearing them at Council meetings.

They say voters get the representatives that they deserve. Those of us who knew better still suffer the consequences of “low-information voters”.

I agree, let the voters of Fremont decide; after thorough further study of the two more “green” alternatives (per CEQA).

Maybe this whole ball park thing will go away now that the NFL is trying to build a stadium which will house both the 49ers and the Raiders. This makes a great deal of sense, since each stadium is used about 12 times a year for each team. They build this and Oakland/Alameda County can rebuild the existing stadium for the A’s.

I remembered the requirement per capita for parks, 5 acres per thousand people. We have 213,000 now, so we need to have a minumum of 1065 acres of park. We have just a bit more than that, as I recall.

As to the special status for land designated for parks, the 40 acres Catellus gave to the city as a condition of development for Pacific Commons was once to be designated as “city park”, but it was decided that would make its use too restrictive, sot it became simply referred to as city lands.

And, remember Central Park was funded first by a city bond issue with the voters approving a park, not a ball park and parking lot. There might be an argument that such an idea would need to go on a ballot.

Again, a fun discussion, but an idea which cannot ever come to pass, IMHO.