The A’s
By Matt Artz
Friday, February 6th, 2009 at 9:33 am in A's, Uncategorized.
I talked briefly with A’s co-owner Keith Wolff and his consultant, former Assemblyman Jim Cunneen before last night’s protest. I was on my way to visit a member of the World Champion United States Foosball Team, so it was short conversation.
They gave me the same pitch they’ve been making in Warm Springs and it goes like this:
- Cisco field is half the size of the Coliseum and won’t dominate the surrounding area. Team offices will be inside the stadium, so there will be a year round presence there.
- Home prices near the Ranger’s ballpark in Arlington, Texas rose 80 percent from 1990 to 2006.
- The ballpark would only be used 22 percent of the days in a year, and the team would be happy to exclude other events there. They’ll also try to reduce the number of weekday day games from 13 to 4 so there are fewer traffic conflicts with Weibel Elementary School
- The A’s will pay for all game-day expenses including police.
- The team will patrol every entrance point to the surrounding residential neighborhood before and after games and make sure that fan parks or drives through residential streets.
- The A’s are nice folks who contributed $650k to local charities last year and whose $1.8 billion project in Fremont, which includes a new school, would generate $10 million a year for the city, although a lot of that would go to the city’s redevelopment fund, and the city would still have to service the residents of the 3,150 new homes near pacific commons. The city’s redevelopment agency would also probably end up building the less profitable affordable housing units required by city law on land donated by the A’s.
- No real traffic program yet other than a pledge for highway signs. BART estimates that by the time service is extended to San Jose 33 percent of fans will take public transit to the games. That’s hard to believe considering only 18 percent of fans currently take public transit to the games in Oakland, which has less of a car culture than Fremont and the South Bay.
A few thoughts:
- I don’t think the Weibel residents are being NIMBY. NIMBY is when you oppose a nearby affordable housing project or want a proposed four-story building knocked down to two stories even though it’s on a major street. You can’t expect people to support a baseball stadium when the fans heading to the stadium are going to use the same freeway exits that they take to get to their houses.
- Right now if the stadium was put on the ballot in Fremont it would probably lose. There still might be a majority of residents who support it, but the anti-stadium people have a lot more energy and passion than the pro-stadium forces. They would have hundreds of volunteers going door-to-door and standing outside of supermarkets. And they would all vote.
- When I asked Keith Wolff about San Jose, he said the team wasn’t allowed to consider it yet. If the Fremont ballpark dies, last night’s protest would be good ammo to make the case to baseball owners that the A’s gave it a decent shot in Fremont and they should get the territorial rights to San Jose.
- The reason most of the anti-stadium folks in Warm Springs have it in for the mayor (who unlike at least one council member actually prefers the Pac Commons site) is that they think he duped them. A lot of them probably voted for him thinking there might be a stadium at Pacific Commons and three weeks later they find out it’s probably going to be much closer to their homes.
They should be mad at The Argus. We (by which I mean I) should have found out about this before the election. I knew the big three at Pacific Commons opposed the stadium, but I didn’t grasp that their opposition would probably be an insurmountable hurdle. And, I didn’t pick up on the momentum for the Warm Springs alternative, which gained further traction after election day when Santa Clara voters ended up approving the money for the BART extension.
If the Warm Springs alternative had been made public before the mayoral election, it’s possible that Steve Cho would have gotten off the fence and opposed the A’s plan. If that had happened, he might have picked up enough votes in Warm Springs to win.
If anyone’s pissed at me, take solace in knowing that while 600, 800, 1,000 or 4,000 protestors, depending on the emails I’ve been getting, lined up outside of Weibel, I was getting my ass handed to me by the best foosball player ever to come out of the Tri-City area.
I’m the one who looks like he just ate Lew Wolff’s shoe.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
February 6th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Oh, I disagree, I think the ballpark could win a landslide in a vote.
The blue meanies are just louder right now, but we can beat them with sweet sounds of baseball!
February 6th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Anyone remember the heated Foosball competitions at the old Galaxy arcade by Nations?
February 6th, 2009 at 10:30 am
“The ballpark would only be used 22 percent of the days in a year, and the team would be happy to exclude other events there.”(remark of A’s management to Matt Artz)
The estimated cost of the new Cisco Field is $400-$500 million.
Wow, and I thought the waterpark was a bad deal at $14 mil for 87 days of operational time!
February 6th, 2009 at 11:24 am
WarbeFly/Doug,
Pls move to Oakland now. You have what you want – a Stadium and a great life. Please leave Fremont alone. I doubt if you guys live in Fremont or probably you work for As or City Government.
I am looking at my babies who are eating across the table now. Being a mother, I would rather they play no baseball but grow up safe and sound. I want no strangers walking pass my house in late night. I want no drunks show up in my curb. I want peace and quietness so that my babies can sleep. I want no fear of burglary during the so called 22 percent of the year. I don’t want to sit in traffic for an hour after work so that I can cook and feed my hungry kids on time. I have a cousin who lived in Oakland Coliseum area and who got killed 3 years ago by a druggies in a late night after the game. Do you have one?
I don’t care how many million of $ of what you claim we will get. I just want my family live in peace. I will work hard to raise my kids. We don’t need the stadium.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Poor Resident,
Im sorry you are so ill informed and are so desperate that you resort to scare tactics. And if your story is true, Im sorry for your loss.
That said, unfortunately, terrible things can and do happen everywhere in the world. sad as it is, people get hurt or worse a million miles from the nearest ballpark. Your assertions are cheap and irresponsible. you should be ashamed to use the memory of your cousin in this debate.
So, poor resident, instated of asking me to leave my home, why don’t you move to Oakland?,,try the Montclair district or Rockridge or Redwood heights neighborhoods or one of the other attractive safe Oakland neighborhoods.
I am a Fremont Voter, a 1985 Washington High Grad and I have 3 kids in the local schools. So you can bet your butt I care what happens around here!
Bringing the A’s home to Fremont will be the greatest thing ever to happen to this city!
I will be here at home in Fremont and I will continue to vote for candidtates that support projects like the A’s new ballpark or the new waterpark or skatepark and any opportunity that is family oriented! Opportunities like those stated strengthen the community and help us all raise our kids!
A’s Baseball is FAMILY!
February 6th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
WarbleFly, please ask your neighbors and petition to have the ballpark in your neighborhood.
Most ballpark drains the city resources and don’t have postitive economic impact, let alone Fremont does not even have the infrastructure of a large city.
A new stadium will benefit the A’s, some real estate developers and business groups. But who will suffer and pay the bill? the residents, home owners and tax payers.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Poor Fremont Voter, please read my post again….slowly.
I DO NOT find the expenditure of $400-$500 million for this structure to be worth it. Especially given it will be used only 22% of the year (uh, sure). That makes no business sense and will surely change over time. First you get it built then you plead you’re going broke if it isn’t utilized for other events.
How about building the stadium next to the Dumbarton Bridge? Lots of room and about as close to that Peninsula money as you can get without actually being there. Real close to East Pally too!
February 6th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
“The city’s redevelopment agency would also probably end up building the less profitable affordable housing units required by city law on land donated by the A’s.”
This needs to be followed up on. The inclusionary zoning ordinance in Fremont requires that the builder offer 15% of the units at prices affordable to moderate income people and that the units should be compatible with the market rate units. It doesn’t provide for a city agency to provide those units. This is a requirement that every developer has complied with for at least 5 years. The A’s should comply with it also.
February 6th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Oh you’re so right Gus. This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. We aren’t seeing the whole thing. But, hey, let’s rush into getting that stadium built and we can talk about this other stuff later.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Doug This exactly what W-ass-erman wants. Shoot fire aim. This is how our Mayor and the city council do things. RECALL W-ASS-ERMAN. NO TO THE BALLPARK IN FREMONT!!!!
February 6th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Warble – every time I think you’ve drained all of the water out of the humanity pool, you always manage to sink just just a little lower. Shame on you for making light of Poor Person’s loss and concerns. Apparently Washington High didn’t teach you civility.
If you truly believe that “A’s baseball is family” you are clearly delusional and should seek counseling immediately, seriously, for your own good. The A’s organization is a big business which does not care about the welfare of this town or its residents. They are here because they think they can make money here, and they have no regard for the damage they will do in the process.
The proposed stadium is not an opportunity that will strengthen our community; it has opened long-existing fractures in the community. But healing bones grow stronger in the broken places; so will Fremont.
February 6th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Did anyone else besides me catch the KQED-FM report by Sarah Varney about 5 PM tonight ? Very enlightening INFORMATION and DATA about the impact of ballparks on surounding communities . .. . . Irrespective of your position on the A’s coming to Fremont – you owe it to yourself to listen to some people who have examined the impact of ballparks all over America on the surrounding communities. . . .
I’ll try to secure and share a link if I can round one up.
February 6th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Sure thing Irv thanks for the civility lesson.
I have lost family member to violence too. Though my loved one was hundreds of miles from a mlb ballpark,,Im sure that there must be a connection to the evil scourge that is baseball!!
No Irv,,I don’t take kindly to people who pimp unrelated tragedy into a political debate. And thats regardless of where one stands on the issue. Its called integrity, Irv,,try it on for size.
BTW,,a few hundred NIMBYs hardly makes a fracture. The fact that the NIMBYS have some money and influence should be closely examined just as the our opportunity to be called home for the A’s is.
Fremont overwhelmingly supports the new ballpark. Go to any public area and ask around. I would welcome a vote. But you and I both know the well heeled NIMBYs will never accept the will of the people without a bitter fight. Yet I do embrace that quality as and American strength! Lets go through the process. i remember the heated protest over the Giants park, but look how that turned out.
Generations of fans have bonded through their support of the A’s and the PCL teams that existed prior to that.
My own family has supported Pro baseball in this area for over a century. So yes,,Irv baseball is family. The A’s are family entertainment!
That said, of course its a business and the A’s will bring a brand name to Fremont like she never has had before. This is a golden opportunity.
February 6th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
WarbleFly,
Please top making the claim that Fremont overwhelmingly supports the new ballpark. Look at the response so far in this chat. You are clearly the minority.
For the sake of your children, stop using NIMBYs to call other people. If you truly lost your loved ones and you have lived thru the pain, stop using it to attack other people and bring back others’ pains. As parent, you need to teach your kids what is right manner.
Fremont residents are not opposing Pro baseball. But we oppose irresponsible acts and unthoughtful plan. Why can’t the stadium be built in an area farther away from homes & schools? Why can’t the stadium be built in an area that will have less impact on public traffic? Why can’t our City Government communicate with us more with details of the concrete plan before rushing into motion of actions? Why can’t a plan of this size and magnitude of impact be thoroughly investigated. Like Doug says, the Dumbartan Bridge area may be a better choice with less impact to the neighborhood.
If you truly believe your clause, come and show up in the Feb 24th town meeting. Bring your supporters with you and show that majority in Fremont should support this plan, a stadium 3 blocks away from home and school.
You are again wrong. Money is not the issue here. Our kids’ lives and future are what we are fighting here. Go talk to the residents who live close to Oakland Coliseum and Giants Park this weekend. Listen to them and ask them if they have a choice, they will choose to move away from the area. Then, maybe you will have a different opinion.
February 6th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Warb -
Just to be clear, Poor Fremont states that her relative was killed near the Coliseum after a game at the Coliseum, so that hardly makes it unrelated to a discussion of having a stadium in Fremont. The fact that your family suffered a loss that was unrelated to a stadium complex does not render the death that she is talking about irrelevant.
In case no one has pointed it out to you before, professional sports are the opiate of the masses, maintained and promoted to distract people from important issues in politics and government. Pay no attention to what’s going on in Sacramento or Washington – there’s a game on!
If your family requires organized sports in order to “bond”, PLEASE consider marriage and family counseling.
IF it is true that the majority of people support this abomination (and it is not), those who support it have simply not had the opportunity to educate themselves about all of the issues involved. Fremont Citizen’s Network intends to address that issue.
You clearly have some inadequacy issues regarding what you perceive to be the income levels of the people who oppose the stadium complex. Please don’t be so hard on yourself.
February 6th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Don’t feel bad, Matt. Warm Springs wasn’t in any of the discussions I had heard leading up to the election. We probably wouldn’t have heard much about it had Measure B not passed.
You have foosball. I have Lakers-Celtics.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
KEITH WOLFF IS AN A’s-HOLE
at Thursdays protest a woman asked Mr. Wolff if he would now reconsider the Warm Springs option despite hundreds of protesters and two thousand letters of opposition to the project near the school.
Mr. Wolff replied “I am moving forward with the stadium plans 700 protestors do not speak for Fremont’s 200,000″
When Wolff was asked if he would support the stadium even if Weibel elementary students safety was risk. Mr. Wolff replied “it a dangerous world.. we would try to mitigate that”.
When asked what the A’s would do if a Weibel child was killed by a drunk A’s fan driving past the school, Mr. Wolff replied ” that would be unfortunate, but its a police action”
Welcome the Wolffs! Your new neighoors from hell!!
Its time to step it up. These guys are sick.
February 6th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
I am sick from reading Mr. Wolff’s reply. How can kids matter so little to him? How can serving alchohol less then a mile from a school be a good thing ? How can we mitigate all these issues. At the end of the day we can’t mitigate how much less family time we will all have because we are being forced to sit in traffic. You can’t put a price on that ….you just can’t. These are hard times with every employer facing lay-offs …our family , our health and our home are all we have and that we be taken away from us. The Wolff faily should be ashamed at themselves!!!!
February 7th, 2009 at 6:41 am
NoStadium, I believe Mr. Wolff just accidentally dropped his sheep’s clothing on the floor.
Matt, were you able to determine how the A’s pick their “chosen 25″ to attend their community meetings?
Just curious.
February 7th, 2009 at 7:06 am
Comment from A’s reps at Weibel Meeting – “Home prices near the Ranger’s ballpark in Arlington, Texas rose 80 percent from 1990 to 2006.”
Go to http://www.maps.google.com/ and copy/paste 1000 Ballpark Way, Arlington, TX into the Search Maps field. Zoom in. Compare the distance from the stadium to the closest residential neighborhood. It isn’t in as close a proximity as the Weibel neighborhoods to the proposed Warm Springs site.
Of course how Mr. Wolff and company define “near” is at their own discretion.
February 7th, 2009 at 8:31 am
Doug -
Sighting the run up in home prices durng the 1990′s ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY — would have produced startling numbers . . . . Heck – I’ll bet property values in Hunters Point (yes – the one next door to that other ballpark) went through the roof during this same period.
This has NOTHING to do with the location relative to a ballpark. Intersting that the sample period ended in 2006 – just about the time the real-estate market fell off a cliff. EXCELLENT positioning of real-estate data by a PROPERTY DEVELOPER interested in selling their benefit to the community – but totally, IMHO, without substance.
February 7th, 2009 at 8:58 am
If you haven’t taken the time to watch some of the A’s 3-D animations of Cisco Field you should. http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/oak/ballpark/new/animations.jsp
The thing that caught my eye was the surrounding structures. Very impressive. Looked like the stadium was in a downtown setting. Of course this was the plan for Pacific Commons, not Warm Springs.
If they keep that giant screen in the outfield maybe they could face it towards the neighborhoods across I-680. That way people wouldn’t have to pay to get in. From that distance it would probably be about the size of a 52-inch flat screen in your living room.
February 7th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Support the A’s to Fremont on Facebook:
It’s a great site to show your support of the A’s to Fremont. Don’t let these half dozen negative posts by residents that are afraid of change influence this opportunity to put Fremont on the map and revitalize our City. We are a new generation, a younger, wiser, optimistic, positive more innovative.
JOIN NOW on Facebook: Support the A’s to Fremont:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php/group.php?gid=2218660118
February 7th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Fremont Guy,
Being a new generation, a younger, wiser, optimistic, positive more innovative does not mean you put a stadium in our backyard, runinning our city life. a new generation, a younger, wiser, optimistic, positive more innovative does not mean that you allow back door politics, violating spirit of our Great Father Lincoln has built on. Government works for People, not for financial interest group. a new generation, a younger, wiser, optimistic, positive more innovative does not diminish our responsibilities to answer to protect our next generation against a better and stable life.
Our life does not rely on a baseball stadium. Our life does not rely on a sport. Our life does not rely just on money. It relies on civility. Let the voice of Fremont residents tell the society what they want. Let our kids tell you if they will prefer a lousy stadium in your backyard, strangers crowding the park, trash around the street OR a peaceful or may be less food in the table and one less baseball game. They are the true voice that you should listen.
February 7th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Oh, dear – how can I say this in the nicest possible way, Poor Fremont?
I know we have finally achieved a younger, wiser, more optimistic and positive government at the federal level, and we’re working on it at the state level, but I hate to break it to you that back-room deals, sharp dealing, violations of the open meetings act, and cronyism are alive and well in our little town.
Take it from me – after living here all of my life, I took a job working for the City and had to leave because it was just too much to swallow. I couldn’t stay and watch City management tell the public that they were doing what was best for the residents, and then go about doing something entirely different that was best for business and to the detriment of the residents. I couldn’t sit in meetings where they discussed what was the best way to lie and shade the truth so that residents wouldn’t know what was really going on.
City government has not worked for the people for many, many years – it functions solely to support local financial interest groups. Services are provided to residents only to the extent that they support a greater good for local businesses.
To a great extent, it’s our fault – for years residents haven’t been paying enough attention to what’s been going on. After all, how boring is it to go to Council and Planning Commission meetings? Also, we voted these dopes into the offices they hold.
I totally agree with you about the stadium being an awful, flawed, horrendous idea for Fremont, but I do feel an obligation to clue you in a bit as to the mind-set at City Hall. Sorry – sometimes the truth hurts.
February 7th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Irving,
Thanks for the sad but hard truth. But I don’t want to give up. When I was a kid, my mama told me that USA would never have a African American president when I was a kid. Today, we elected Obama as our president.
As Fremont Guy pointed out, we are a new generation, a younger, wiser, optimistic, positive more innovative. We are responsible for bring and foster a better future for our kids.
My husband & I spent a lot of time to explain the issues to our young kids during dinner. We want them to understand the situation as objectively as possible and make their own choices. We plan to bring our kids to all the hearing and protests. We shall expose them to this politically and financially biased world. We hope that they will not grow up as obtuse citizens.
If sadly we can revert this disaster, I hope my kids will learn from that and work hard to make the world better in his generation. It has to start somewhere and we shall start with us.
Let Fremont residents vote for their whole future!!!!!
February 7th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
FremontGuy, your Facebook link is broken. You should try this one:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=103541375316
No to Cisco Field in Fremont!
February 7th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Poor Fremont -
Well, we’re on the same side here, so I sure hope we prevail. I remember my parents taking me to Council meetings back in the ’50′s, so it’s good to hear that parents are still getting their kids involved. I was younger and more optimistic and positive at one time, too. Just a word of caution, though – prolonged exposure to City politics will wash that shiny spirit out of you pretty quick.
On an unrelated issue – I seem to remember Wolfe saying something at the Wiebel meeting about the A’s covering all of the costs of police services required for the stadium complex. Does anyone else remember that comment? I think this should be investigated further.
Does that mean that the A’s will make direct payments to the General Fund to support the hiring of additional full-time officers? How many officers will be funded?
Does that mean that the A’s will hire a minimum-wage security firm that lacks full police powers (such as the right to arrest) to “police” the stadium complex? And for how long will these services be provided? Only on game days?
Since the A’s do not maintain their own private police force, who who will these officers be and how will they be trained?
Another thing that jumped out at me was the readiness with which the Mr. Wolfe leaps to point out the “good works” that he says that the A’s have done in Fremont. I don’t know what they have contributed, but broadcasting charity in this way is just wrong, in addition to being monumentally tacky.
Apparently Mr. Wolfe is unfamiliar with the true concept of charity, which pretty much revolves around giving a gift (money, time, goods) without expecting recognition for that gift, much less a reward.
Charity, when done properly, is to be given for it’s own sake; if you later choose to use your charitable gift to justify an end that benefits you, what you have given ceases to be a charitable gift. At that point your gift becomes a “quid pro quo”, something that is given in anticipation of receiving a reward.
Hmmm, now what else could we call a gift you give in order to get something? Starts with a “b” – it’ll come to me.
February 7th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
I have been a fan for years but I don’t get why the hardcore A’s fans think it would be so great to have the stadium here. It’s not like it was hard to get to Oakland, it was fun. All the other fans on the train got the spirit going, and it when we went home, Oakland dealt with the mess and the traffic.
One fan told me it would give us added prestidge and attract people to visit more. But I can honestly say I never went to Oakland as a tourist, attracted by their A’s and Raider stadium.
Someone else told me a stadium would bring in visitor dollars, but now we’re putting a third of those visitors on a train back home and making the rest of them park far away from our retail stores.
Then, when the business folks said it would bring in new jobs, that was for the building of the stadium Afterwards, it turns out they aren’t going to be the higher income jobs that other business development brings, but lower wage positions that come with keeping a stadium tidy and selling concessions.
But the worst part of all is the accusation that I’m somehow not being a good citizen for asking questions and being totally underwhelmed by the answers I’ve been getting.
February 7th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
ECONOMICS OF WARMSPRINGS STADIUM
Mayor Wasserman has said Fremont needs jobs and revenue.
The A’s indicated they will pay for the stadium without taxpayer funds. They will pay Fremont $1 million per year to cover city services. If taxpayer money is used then the Mayor and City Council cannot decide the fate of the project; the people of Fremont through a vote must decide it.
Taxes will Rise Of course Taxpayer money will not be needed until after the council approves a Warm Springs stadium.
Funding for stadium related: parking, road improvements, traffic control improvements, utility improvements, police crime and accident investigations, court cost, jail costs, legal costs, community suits against the city, A’s fan legal suits against Fremont police, planning department costs, administrative costs, emergency response costs, increased insurance costs, etc. will all end up in the taxpayers lap. This happens in every community where a stadium exists.
Job Growth my “A’s”s. The stadium will create temporary construction jobs for 24 to 36 months. After the stadium is built there will be about 150 part time jobs earning $8 to $12 per hour. Hardly the kind of growth Fremont needs.
Negative Economic Impacts. Stadium traffic will delay and prevent shoppers and workers from entering Fry’s, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Nummi, and all companies around the stadium. This will be a large adverse economic impact that must be evaluated.
The Alameda County Tax assessor indicated that Fremont’s real estate has an assessed taxable value of about $35 billion. This is below the total market value of Fremont’s real estate, however, many properties are currently assessed for more than they are worth. Owners are coming out in record numbers requesting their property be reassessed to current lower market values.
If a Mission home that is currently assessed at $1million were to drop 20% to $800K because a stadium reduced its value. The homeowner loses $200k. The Alameda County tax collector loses about 1.1% of that or $2200. The City of Fremont loses about 15% of $2200 or $330.
Since you got a lot of homes that will be impacted this will add up to millions of tax dollars not collected by Alameda County. This needs to be evaluated in the economic plan for the A’s stadium.
Impacts to Neibhoring Cities
Traffic around the stadium will increase drive times along Fremont roads, and along 680. Impacts will result in increased fuel consumption and reduced work production. Delivery trucks (UPS, Fed X, Mail service, commercial truckers, etc), and commuters who live in adjacent cities will experience excess delays at their cost. These economic impacts must be addressed in the economic plan for a Warm Springs stadium.
Bottom line this will make no economic sense for the community. Follow the money it will lead to the Wolffs, Wasserman, Sue Chan, council members and Dutra.
February 7th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Want some independent analysis of economic impact of sports arenas ? Here’s a simple summary for your review -
The one thing that is not controversial about these facilities is their low worth as economic engines. As Smith College economist Andrew Zimbalist has written: “Few fields of empirical economic research offer virtual unanimity of findings. Yet independent work on the economic impact of stadiums and arenas has uniformly found that there is no statistically significant positive correlation between sports facilities construction and economic development.” At least ten economists have reached the same conclusion, largely in peer-reviewed work, so that, as one reviewer of the literature recently noted: “It is virtually impossible to find an independent economist who views sports facility subsidies as good investments in local economic growth.”
Here’s the entire article if you’d like to review it in its entirity -
http://www.licquia.org/archives/2005/04/25/the-economics-of-stadiums-and-convention-centers/
February 7th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Good Economic analysis in post #29. This has to be explained in bullet points to all Fremont residents who are tax-payers and will be affected in the long run in the form of higher taxes. There is no guarantee that City Staff and Council will do a good job in negotiating with A’s to get a fair shake for the residents.
Finally, only a massive law suit against the City Council and Staff will prevent A’s from coming to Fremont. Otherwise, it is a done deal in the backrooms and now it is time to wearout the residents by using different tactics
February 8th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Stadiums tend to be underutilized as economic powerhouses since they’re surrounded by parking and far from shopping.
Many shopping malls use movie theaters to attract shoppers. After the movie, they often eat and shop. Now add a stadium. It would vastly increase the number of shoppers on many days each year. It could turn Fremont into a major retail and entertainment draw. Put it close to BART, like at Warm Springs, and it’ll attract people from the whole East Bay and San Jose.
Look at Moscone Center in SF. There are already plenty of people on normal days, but when there’s a major convention, the stores and restaurants are packed. Look at the Giants’ stadium in SF. It’s got plenty of upscale eateries around it. It is underutilized, but it certainly pumped up the local area.
Think big and a stadium could do wonders for Fremont’s tax base. Think traditional and it will be a mess. We’ve had a lot of traditional thinking in the past. The whole Pacific Commons development is a terrible mess since we have to drive to get from one store to another. Union Landing is even worse.
As for jobs, what we need RIGHT NOW is jobs, any jobs. Yes, construction jobs are temporary, but they’ll help people through these hard times. As for the low paid cleaning and concession jobs, they are jobs too. People will want those jobs. Nothing wrong with that.
February 8th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Jon, these are poor arguments.
Moscone is in a metro center, not a high-end suburb. You said it yourself -”there are plenty of people there on normal days”. The area surrounding Moscone is designed to handle floods of people.
Housing around SOMA came after AT&T Park was built. Warm Springs is an established neighborhood with little land support for retail and housing development.
Traditional or not, stadiums are financial drags on host cities. I think that’s been established as fact, despite the hopes we have that *our* stadium will be different.
Construction jobs will be filled by out-of-towners. I’m not all that certain that Fremont’s unemployed are privy to driving backhos and running scaffolds. And I doubt the unemployed programmer is going to stay in Fremont, CA to work a job slinging hot dogs on game day.
February 8th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Well put Marty, and right on the money.
Look folks, we are all expending way too of our time presenting our arguments pro and con to one another. That’s fine, but we need to voice our opinions directly to our city officials. Send each council member an e-mail, write each a letter, call and leave a message, whatever you’re most comfortable doing. They need to know what we think. Putting it on the ballot would be a much more expeditious way, but if they don’t want to do that then flood the phone lines, fill up the e-mail inboxes and snail mail slots.
February 8th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Fremont Taxes will Rise for many issues including the following:
· Police crime and accident investigations
· Fremont court cost
· Fremont jail costs
· Fremont legal costs
· Class Action Law suits that will be brought against Fremont and the A’s for a decline in Mission Hills home values.
· Class Action lawsuits that will be brought against Fremont and the A’s for impacts to local businesses such as; Fry’s, Walmart, HomeDepot, Nummi, and numerous other impacted businesses.
· Law suites brought against Fremont police.
· Law suites brought against Fremont and the A’s regarding injury, abduction or death of any Weibel student.
· Law suites brought against Fremont and the A’s by the State of California regarding adverse impacts in level of service of State Highway 680.
· Law suites brought against Fremont and the A’s regarding increased traffic accidents and injury near the stadium.
· parking,
· road improvements
· road wear and tear
· planning department costs
· administrative costs
· emergency response costs
· increased insurance costs
· graffiti abatement
· traffic control improvements
· utility improvements
· increased insurance costs
etc etc etc.
February 8th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
From your perspective, a referendum will mean a no vote, but there’s a better chance it will get a yes vote. If it gets a yes vote, that gives the A’s a huge bargaining chip that, beyond the rather large cost of a referendum, will cost the city millions. There’s no chance a “No to the A’s” campaign could raise as much as the A’s would spend on their campaign.
Is AT&T stadium a net loss for SF? How about Moscone?
Is Warm Springs perfect for the stadium? No. I’d like to see it happen at the original but imperfect site. Still, Warm Springs has it’s advantage of BART, and NUMMI’s land may be going for a song if the economy continues its current course.
Those who are angry over change and traffic have unrealistic expectations of the future of Fremont. Surely a stadium with shopping is preferable to more and denser condos and apartments, especially in our housing rich and retail poor city.
February 8th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Jon -
Your anecdotal inference about the impact on our local economy is refuted by myraid facts -
Consider -
http://www.licquia.org/archives/2005/04/25/the-economics-of-stadiums-and-convention-centers/
Read this and then perhaps share with us the FACTS you’ve used to draw your conclusions of economic advantage to the city.
February 8th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
The CATO Institute has some interesting comments re the economic advantage of stadiums to surrounding communities -
For those with only minimal time – here’s the highlight of this particular study -
“As it turns out,
claims of large tangible economic benefits do
not withstand scrutiny. Careful analysis of
past economic experience in cities that built
new stadiums and attracted new teams does
not bear out those claims.”
For those with the time to read this entire study here’s a link -
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp89.pdf
February 8th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
“Is AT&T stadium a net loss for SF?”
I don’t know, Jon. My point was the two are not even close to analogous. Pac Bell Park was dropped in an undeveloped and blighted part of San Fran. The Warm Springs site is the complete opposite – it’s an established higher end neigborhood.
Imagine if the Giants were pursuing the city’s approval to build a park in Noe Valley. After the county supes and the Mayor were done, the Giants ownership would be taking full page ads out in the Chronicle apologizing to the people of SF for such a dumb idea.
But, not here in Fremont.
Our mayor has neither the balls nor the skills to bring the A’s to Fremont on *our* terms. I think that is the crux of the problem. Warm Springs is guaranteed to lose, where SoMa was destined to win.
“How about Moscone?”
I think a convention center and a ballpark are two different animals. I can get it to this but what’s the point. I’ll say though, that most thinking people would rather have a convention center than a ballpark. And I’m sure there’s economic impact data that would support those people’s intuition.
February 8th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
this is all ok. but we cant stop the city hall. there is no chance for citizens to prevent this development even if it is not good for the community
February 8th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Jon Simon -
Here’s another interesting article – a brief summary if you dont have time to read -
“Perhaps a more important issue concerns alternative uses for the land. A large tract of prime urban land a mile from the ocean represents a tremendous development opportunity. Housing, office and retail uses may be a much better long-term investment for the city since they are better integrated into the existing urban fabric. Housing and office space has a much longer economic “shelf life,” and is easier to renovate than sports stadiums.
Even though the Chargers’ proposal may sound appealing today, the track record of fickle sports teams hungry for newer, more modern facilities isn’t something to bank on. Pro sports teams have gotten particularly adept at holding cities hostage if projected stadium revenues don’t pan out, threatening to set up shop elsewhere unless they receive public subsidies. It’s entirely possible that Oceanside could face this five or 10 years down the road when another city, like Los Angeles, for example, offers a better deal. Worse, if the Chargers were to leave in a decade or two, Oceanside would be left with an urban dinosaur that would be costly and difficult to redevelop. Oceanside should consider carefully the economic impact of the soon-to-be-empty Qualcomm stadium…”
Here’s the link if you have more time -
http://www.reason.org/commentaries/gilroy_20070701.shtml
February 8th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Sonueu, remember….Yes We Can. See my previous post with the contact information for our elected representatives under “Second Stadium Protest called for Tuesday.” Make your voice heard. This is still a democracy the last time I looked.
February 8th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Quoting libertarian think tanks doesn’t convince me. All the anti-stadium articles I could find came from conservative, anti-tax organizations. I agree that a bad deal is a bad deal, and many cities have cut bad deals. I agree that a stadium sitting in the middle of a giant parking lot is a bad idea. However, a stadium surrounded by a shopping, offices, and housing over retail is a great idea.
Can our mayor and council put something strong together? I think so.
February 8th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Jon,
I hope you can talk to my 10 years old boy. We lived in Oakland Coliseum 3 years ago for many years. Then, our family has decided that the life quality is so bad that we moved to Fremont. My boy will tell you how much he likes his life now compared with what we have few years ago.
We have lived thru the first hand experience of what life is around a stadium. So, I would tell you “a stadium surrounded by a shopping, offices, and housing over retail is NOT a great idea”, particularly in this case, the stadium so close to home and school.
So I don’t think you can say that my 10 years old is a conservative nor anti-tax. It is just a straight out of heart feeling from a kid.
February 8th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Jon,
Anti-tax – so you believe that having a stadium in Fremont WILL raise our tax as well. However, you are one of very few folks that I am aware of that doesn’t care if you have to pay more taxes.
And, what is wrong with being anti-tax? We pay taxes that we need to pay. However, why do we want to pay more? In the economy the way it is, and with many families in Fremont where one or more family members have been impacted by the downturn, who has the extra money to pay for the taxes that will support a professional sport stadium? Even if there is extra money left from my paycheck, I rather save it for a rainy day, or spend it on my kids’ education, and not on a profession sport stadium.
February 8th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
When will Jon Simon and others wake up ?
Jon – share some information – some data.
You keep thowing out anecdotes – emotional hyperbole.
GET SOME INFO and SHARE IT and you might bring some credibility to your position. Until you do. . . . please, dont wast our time.
February 8th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
I think the Oakland Coliseum is the perfect example of how not to do it, just like Candlestick. Poor, dumpy designs surrounded by gigantic parking lots in unloved parts of town. Oakland doesn’t have the retail/office/housing integrated with the Stadium.
February 8th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
What can Fremont citizens do to let the Mayor and Staff and City Council understand that ALL of the available information suggests that a stadium is NOT IN THE PUBLIC interest ?????? How do we let Mayor Wasserman and Bob W and the others know that they are personally liable for the negative consequences of this stadium – - if they choose to ignore the mountain of available data that says that a ballpark cannot possibly be of economic benefit ?????
Matt Artz – Gus Morrison – Vinnie Bacon – How do Fremont taxpayers take control of this situation ?????????
February 8th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
THat’s great john – we all agree that Candelstick and the Coliseum suck ..
WHAT DATA DO YOU OR ANY OTHER PRO-A’s FOLKS WANT TO SHARE THAT SUGGESTS THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS ECONOMICALLY SOUND FOR FREMONT ???????????
G I V E ME SOMETHING OTHER THAN EMOTIONAL HYPERBOLE……….and maybe the rest of the NIMBY’s might listen to you..
February 8th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Jon Simon Says:
“Surely a stadium with shopping is preferable to more and denser condos and apartments, especially in our housing rich and retail poor city.”
Jon, do you understand that this project is contingent on the Wolff’s getting to develop 3,200 homes by Pacific Commons? This housing will be about as dense as the Tri-City development in Irvington. By your logic, this is what we DON’T need.
As for retail, none has yet been proposed by the BART station. This project, and its huge parking lot, will REDUCE the opportunity to do other development near Warm Springs BART.
bbox and others have it right – there is no sound economic data to back up this being a good idea for Fremont. The evidence and the experts indicate the contrary. Ballparks are simply not economic generators. We need sound economic development, not wild hopes of fame and fortune. This project will take one of the largest locations where we could locate new businesses and re-zone to accommodate more housing.
As for what to do, I’ve been working with the Fremont Citizens Network. There is a lot of information on their web site (http://www.fremontcitizensnetwork.org) about future activities and ways to get involved.
February 8th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Wasserman, a vocal supporter of bringing the A’s to Fremont, has said that he preferred the team’s original plan for a ballpark near the Pacific Commons shopping center, west of Interstate 880.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:52 am
It’s hard to come up with numbers on a project that hasn’t been built. But anyways, perhaps people should look to altering the stadium to their liking instead of fighting it completely. There’s a strong chance it will be built in the face of opposition. Compromising may not lead to exactly what’s wanted, but it could lead to a better project. Then if they don’t compromise, you’ve got a much stronger case against them.
As for the Pacific Commons project, my understanding is that it would be mixed, with retail and housing. I’d like to see offices in there too.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:56 am
BART riders who exit at the Warm Springs station in Fremont should be on their way to jobs at the new corporate, green technologies and medical sciences campus, not to an afternoon ball game.
These individuals would be in the area on a daily basis, eight or more hours a day, five days a week, 52 weeks a year. Lunchtimes would find them eating in local restaurants or shopping at surrounding stores. Ballgame attendees visit a maximum of 81 days in a baseball season, April-October. They arrive close to game time, eat at stadium concessions and then depart. Average time of stay in the area is approximately four hours and confined primarily to the ballpark.
Let’s see, good paying, year-round jobs for thousands of people vs. low-paying, seasonal jobs for a couple hundred people. If our mayor, city council and city manager choose the latter we have a serious disconnect.
February 10th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Doug,
This (#54) is arguably the best post on the A’s that this site has seen. Great job!!
February 10th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Aren’t most ballparks built in areas to help develop them? Weibel is one of the best school districts in the Bay Area. Fremont is considered one of the safest cities per capita. This will all change for the worse.
#54: Hit the nail on the head. In a depression (ie NOW) are you looking to add jobs or fill stadium seats? What do you want to spend money on? This is a horrible time to destroy an awesome communithy and disrupt the surrounding areas.
Also the BART station stops at Warm Springs. What ABOUT SOUTH BAY RESIDENTS? They still have to drive. Good luck getting anywhere past north of 237 22% of the days you commute. Might as well pack a picnic blanket in your car on your evening ride home. From San Jose all the way to Oakland.
February 11th, 2009 at 12:00 am
I can’t believe how many of you so called Fremont residents are supporting this crazy stadium proposal! There will be consequences to ALL Fremont residents either now or later if the stadium is built here.
Oh, and yes I am one of the residents who will have this monstrosity mere blocks from my home if this happens, so excuse me if I am concerned about the impact! I didn’t invest my hard earned money to live in a nice neighborhood with a good school to have it come to this! For those of you outside the proposed WS site, I can’t believe that if it was going to be in your backyard, you wouldn’t complain? If not, I guess you don’t give a rip whether you can sell your house ever if need be, cause guess what – good luck finding a buyer!
Let me remind all of you that the City Council members are elected to represent the interests of not only the city but also the RESIDENTS! The fact that citizens are concerned about the impact of this stadium and the Council is taking a hard line (to them, its already a done deal and tough if the residents of the city don’t like it) is very disturbing. Sounds more like a dictatorship than a democracy.
If anyone wants to think that this opposition is going away, think again. I think a lawsuit against the city is in order – bring it on!
Wake up Fremont before its too late!
February 11th, 2009 at 6:51 am
No Stadium, re: 237 and surface streets (in case you missed my post on another story)
Here are the Fremont intersections with the highest volume of traffic in a 24-hour period*
1. Mission Blvd / Warm Springs Blvd. / I-680 – 75,800 vehicles
2. Auto Mall Pkwy / Grimmer Blvd. / I-880 – 55,800 vehicles
3. Auto Mall Pkwy / I-680 / Osgood Rd – 48,500 vehicles
This is according to the city’s own numbers on the city’s web site http://www.fremont.gov/Community/Traffic/TrafficCounts.htm
These are the intersections immediately surrounding the proposed site of the Warm Springs A’s stadium.
Any EIR that is done will need to review the impact on these streets. Without doubt the report would be negative unless major upgrades were done to Automall/Osgood and Mission/Warm Springs. Since Fremont doesn’t have the money to repave our existing streets Mr. Wolff better be ready to come up with some big cash for this total road revamp.
Developing a neighborhood next to a stadium is a plan. Developing a stadium next to a neighborhood is unconscionable.
*One other thing, these are 2005 numbers.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
No Fremont TaxPayer Bailout for MultiMillionaire Sports team owners and players …
LINK TO KQED STORY —-
http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R902061730